WASHINGTON — President Trump said Thursday that federal housing finance regulator Bill Pulte, his pick for acting director of national intelligence, would not be his “permanent” choice for the critical security post.
The Republican president’s disclosure that he was ruling out installing Pulte in the position full time came after bipartisan pushback on Capitol Hill in recent days over Pulte’s lack of national security experience. The position requires Senate confirmation, something that lawmakers indicated was unlikely if Pulte were the nominee.
“He’s not going to be permanent because, you know, I don’t think he’d want to be permanent,” Trump said while taking questions in the Oval Office after an event on coal. He called Pulte a “very smart guy” and said he may look at past elections that Trump claims, without credible evidence, were “rigged” against him.
Trump said other candidates were under consideration for nomination to the post. “We’re interviewing people right now,” he said.
Pulte, a grandson of the founder of PulteGroup, has been a source of controversy within the administration for his work as director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and his oversight of the mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Pulte has used his position to pursue Trump’s perceived political rivals for alleged mortgage fraud and has verbally attacked Jerome H. Powell, whose term as the Federal Reserve chairman recently ended after months of Trump and Pulte attacking him for not slashing the central bank’s benchmark rates. The federal housing finance regulator has also pitched a 50-year mortgage, an idea that backfired as it meant that the process of building wealth through homeownership would be slowed.
Both Republican and Democratic senators expressed concerns about Pulte and his lack of national security credentials in occupying a role coordinating 18 federal agencies involved in domestic and foreign security issues. Trump’s initial director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, resigned last month, citing her husband’s recent cancer diagnosis.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, said the national intelligence director job shouldn’t be “weaponized” and should be led by “professionals.”
Republican Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and John Cornyn of Texas, who are each leaving the chamber after this year’s elections, also expressed concerns about Pulte.
Democratic senators view Pulte as a risk even if he is serving only temporarily as the director of national intelligence while keeping his position at the FHFA.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) sent Trump a letter on Thursday calling on him to rescind Pulte’s national security appointment.
“Americans cannot trust him to protect our nation and refrain from misusing the sensitive information he will have access to,” Warren wrote, saying that giving Pulte the job on an acting basis was a risk because Trump’s own words suggested the federal agency could be used “to promote election denial theories.”
At a hearing on Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirmed reports that he had threatened to fight Pulte in September, a sign of the friction that the federal housing finance director had generated inside the administration.
But as a frequent traveler on Air Force One, Pulte has a close relationship with Trump.
“He’s a person who’s got high integrity,” Trump said Thursday about Pulte.
BOSTON — A federal judge on Tuesday heard from voting rights groups and a coalition of two dozen states that want the courts to halt President Trump’s executive order seeking to create a federal voter list and limit who can receive a mail ballot.
The plaintiffs argued in two lawsuits that Trump’s order should be found unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the power to set election rules. They also told the court that the move imposes a costly burden on state election officials to comply and would spread fear about the possibility of prosecution.
“This is going to be a sea change in the way that some states administer their ballots,” said Michael Cohen, who was part of a team representing California, adding that “it will be difficult to overstate the disruption that this will cause.”
Trump’s executive order, the second one aimed at elections during his second term, comes as he continues to raise the specter of widespread voting by noncitizens as a reason to change election rules. But states already have detailed processes aimed at keeping their voter rolls accurate, and voting by noncitizens has been shown to be rare. It also is a felony that can be punishable by deportation.
His latest order is being challenged through multiple lawsuits, including two filed in U.S. District Court in Boston.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the League of Women Voters in one of the two Boston cases, has called the order “a dangerous attempt to disenfranchise eligible voters nationwide.” The group said the order transforms “the U.S. Postal Service from a neutral mail carrier to an arbiter of who may cast a ballot by mail.”
“This case challenges an extraordinary and abusive assertion of executive power over the administration of federal elections,” the organization said in its complaint.
The hearing comes less than a week after another judge declined to halt the order. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee in Washington, agreed with the Trump administration’s contention that it was too early to block the order because it has yet to be implemented.
The administration, in its motions to dismiss the lawsuits, argued that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims. They also argued the motions are premature and that plaintiffs lack the legal basis to bring their Administrative Procedure Act claim, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.
Stephen Pezzi, a lawyer for the Trump administration, said the harms the plaintiffs referred to were subjective, since much can change with the voting list before it is finalized. He also said no one would be prosecuted for violating the executive order.
Missouri Solicitor Gen. Lou Capozzi, speaking for the states supporting the list, argued it was too early to say how his state might use the list, but that it was “unlikely” any voter would be removed this year from the voter rolls because of it.
“We are not exactly sure how we would use it,” Capozzi said, adding that “we don’t want this process to be strangled in the crib, so to speak.”
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani took the requests for motions to halt the order, along with motions to dismiss the cases under advisement.
During oral arguments, Talwani expressed concerns about whether the federal system envisioned under the executive order could be ready for the upcoming midterm elections and about the risks posed to election workers who rely on a state list that differs from the federal one. She also raised doubts about the reliability of a federal list — noting, for example, women who changed their names after getting married or someone who has moved from state to state might be missed.
“Isn’t there a reasonable fear and concern on behalf of voters that they will be precluded?” Talwani asked.
Trump issued the order in March after a bill he supported to overhaul voting stalled in Congress. The order would have had the federal government create a list of eligible voters and then directed the postal service to deliver mail ballots only to those on the list. Election officials argued that it was ripe for abuse and could cause chaos, and the postal union has objected to the idea of mail carriers policing ballots.
The postal service has published a proposed rule required by Trump’s executive order in the Federal Register. Among other things, the rule would not apply to primary elections or overseas ballots.
Since his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump has groundlessly claimed mail voting is rife with fraud and has launched a federal investigation into that year’s vote, even though repeated audits and investigations, including ones run by Republicans, found it was free of widespread fraud. Trump also has said he wants to “take over” election administration in Democratic areas.
Since then, speculation has congealed into reality.
By almost any measure, tourism to the United States has cratered. Overall, it was down 5.5% last year from the year before. Visitors from Canada, traditionally the largest pipeline of foreign tourism, plummeted 21%.
Even with global anticipation building, the path to the U.S. for many World Cup travelers feels increasingly less like a red-carpet welcome.
— American Hotel & Lodging Association
That’s the largest drop from any country, according to statistics from the Commerce Department’s International Trade Administration cited by the Congressional Research Service. The runner-up is Germany, with a decline of 11.3%.
Expectations have faded that this summer’s World Cup games, which begin in the U.S. on June 12 with USA vs. Paraguay at SoFi Stadium, would buoy the flow of foreign visitors. Hotel bookings show that hasn’t happened, as my colleague Caroline Petrow-Cohen reports. According to an April survey by the American Hotel & Lodging Assn., hotel operators in all 11 of the U.S. host cities say that bookings are below their expectations.
Get the latest from Michael Hiltzik
Commentary on economics and more from a Pulitzer Prize winner.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
Those figures bode ill for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, whose organizers are also counting on a robust flow of foreign visitors.
More than 65% of the Los Angeles hotels responding to the survey reported dashed expectations, the association said. That wasn’t the worst result; the percentage was higher in five host cities, led by Kansas City, where nearly 90% of survey respondents reported booking paces below expectations.
The association identifies several reasons for the lackluster bookings, including botched planning by FIFA, the World Cup’s governing body. But much of the blame falls on issues created by one person: President Donald Trump. These include “increased gas and jet fuel prices,” which are artifacts of Trump’s Iran war and its upward pressure on oil prices.
The survey also points to concerns about visa availability and the treatment of foreign visitors once they land in the U.S. or cross the border.
The administration has disavowed any intention to interfere with the World Cup or the Olympics.
“Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, the FIFA 2026 World Cup will no doubt be one of the greatest and most spectacular events in the history of mankind,” White House spokesman Davis Ingle told me by email.
“International visitors who legally come to the United States for the World Cup have nothing to worry about,” the Department of Homeland Security said. “What makes someone a target for immigration enforcement is whether or not they are illegally in the U.S. — full stop.”
Trump pledged in 2018, when FIFA was weighing bids to host the 2028 World Cup, that “all eligible athletes, officials and fans from all countries around the world would be able to enter the United States without discrimination.” But concerns remain that family members of participating athletes might face restrictions on entering the U.S.
Vance said the U.S. wants foreign visitors “to come, we want them to celebrate, we want them to watch the games. But when the time is up, we want them to go home, otherwise they will have to talk to Secretary Noem.” (Trump subsequently ousted Kristi Noem as Secretary of Homeland Security, replacing her with former Sen. Markwayne Mullin, Republican of Oklahoma.)
Trump also committed himself to safeguarding the L.A. Olympics, stating, “I’m going to be supportive in every way possible and make them the greatest games.”
Yet America’s standing as a world-class tourist destination has plainly soured under Trump.
“Even with global anticipation building, the path to the U.S. for many World Cup travelers feels increasingly less like a red-carpet welcome,” the Hotel & Lodging Assn. observed.
“There is a perception that international travelers may face lengthy visa wait times, increased visa fees, and lingering uncertainty around entry processing. For those who do make the journey, concerns do not end at the border — questions about airport security screening wait times and airport congestion add another layer of hesitation.”
None of this should come as a surprise. As I projected last June, two administration initiatives in particular were poised to affect the World Cup and Olympics. The first was Trump’s crackdown on immigration.
Immigration agents, I noted, were acting as though they had carte blanche to detain people suspected of being in the U.S. illegally, conducting raids that sometimes swept up American citizens. That was before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Los Angeles, Minneapolis and other communities where immigration agents were accused of targeting specific ethnic and racial groups. And it was before the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis by immigration agents worsened their image as lawless thugs.
By then, however, stories had surfaced of foreign tourists being detained for weeks, even months, without explanation or apparent cause. A 65-year-old British woman named Karen Newman traveling on a valid tourist visa was arrested in September 2025 at the Montana border, shackled and held for six weeks in an ICE detention center. Other stories involved a German tourist who said she was held by ICE for 45 days, some of that time in solitary confinement; and a New Zealand woman who was detained with her 6-year-old son for three weeks.
The Department of Homeland Security didn’t deny that these incidents had occurred, though in relation to the New Zealand woman, whose visa had been only partially renewed, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman said, “When someone with an expired parole leaves the country and tries to re-enter the US, they will be stopped in compliance with our laws and regulations.”
The other policy that could interfere with the World Cup and Olympics are Trump’s travel bans and restrictions, which as of January covered 75 countries, including Brazil, Russia and 26 African countries.
Stringent regulations for some visa applicants — notably those coming to the U.S. to study or for work-study programs and their dependents — have further clouded America’s image as a destination. Applicants for those visas are required to open their social media accounts for the last five years for inspection by visa officers.
And Homeland Security Secretary Mullin last month raised the prospect of withdrawing customs officers from airports in so-called sanctuary cities, a move that would effectively shut down international flights at those airports.
The change couldn’t happen in time to affect the World Cup, but it could happen before the 2028 Olympics. Mullin’s idea didn’t win immediate favor with other members of Trump’s cabinet, including Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy.
Last year, the Department of Justice published a list of nearly three dozen states, cities and counties it defined as “sanctuary jurisdictions” because they “obstruct or limit local law enforcement cooperation” with ICE. Most are led by Democrats. They include California, and the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Berkeley.
It’s true that immigration policies and rising travel costs are only part of the problem. The Hotel & Lodging Assn. also flayed FIFA for having block-booked hotel rooms in venue cities. These blocks “manufactured artificial demand by locking up large pools of inventory well ahead of the tournament,” the hotel group complained. The practice upended hotels’ planning by prompting them to increase staff and begin World Cup-themed renovations, preparing for crowds that may have been overestimated from the outset.
The block-booking “masked softer underlying traveler demand,” the association said, “with FIFA returning some blocks without a single reservation having been made.”
The hoteliers also groused that New Jersey and Philadelphia had proposed raising sales or lodging taxes in order to squeeze visitors. New Jersey lawmakers have proposed a short-term increase in its sales tax to 9.6% from 6.6% and in its lodging tax to 7.5% from 5%. Philadelphia is planning to raise its hotel tax to 10.5% from 8.5%.
None of this means that ticket sales for the World Cup won’t be healthy. FIFA has said that 5 million tickets have already been sold for the matches, even though the average price for even the cheapest seats at some venues tops $500. As my colleague Kevin Baxter has reported, fans are beginning to feel mulcted. That’s so especially because ticket buyers only learned the specific location of their seats after plunking down their money, at which point they discovered that they were placed in sections nowhere as desirable as they expected.
WASHINGTON — President Trump had another medical exam Tuesday, putting his health under renewed public scrutiny as he has worked to dismiss concerns over his age and stamina.
The 79-year-old president spent more than three hours at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center for what the White House described as preventive medical and dental checkups. It was Trump’s fourth publicly disclosed medical exam since he returned to office for a second term, and it comes as he tries to project strength ahead of midterm elections that will test his sway with voters.
In a social media post after the visit, Trump said he just finished his “6 month physical” and “Everything checked out PERFECTLY.”
For decades, administrations have released selected results from presidential physicals, offering the public a glimpse at the commander in chief’s health. But the results are filtered through the White House and must be approved by the president, raising questions about what the public does and doesn’t get to see.
Trump turns 80 next month and was the oldest person elected president. His immediate predecessor, President Biden, was 82 when he left office, dropping out of the 2024 race because of widespread concerns he was too old for the job.
A Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted in April found that less than half of U.S. adults think Trump has the mental sharpness or physical health to serve effectively as president.
“I think concern for the president’s physical health is probably at an all-time high, and I think advanced physical age is the No. 1 concern,” said Dr. Jeffrey Kuhlman, who served as a White House physician for more than a decade under Presidents Obama, George W. Bush and Clinton.
For a president of Trump’s age, a complete physical would be expected to include advanced heart testing, screening for common cancers and a cognitive assessment, along with basics like height, weight and blood pressure, Kuhlman said.
The White House has not disclosed what the visit entailed but expressed confidence in what it will show.
“President Trump is the sharpest and most accessible President in American history who is working nonstop to solve problems and deliver on his promises, and he remains in excellent health,” White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said in a statement.
No law requiring presidents to disclose medical records
In the weeks leading up to his visit, Trump has been saying he feels as good as he did five decades ago — even as he jokes about his fondness for fast food and his minimal exercise regimen. Yet he’s also sensitive to perceptions about his age, noting that he takes extra caution descending the steps from Air Force One to avoid headlines about a stumble.
There is no law requiring presidents to publicize their health records, and the degree of transparency has varied by administration. Trump’s past reports have been criticized for offering scant detail and providing statistics that some medical experts eyed with skepticism.
At public appearances, Trump often is seen wearing makeup to conceal bruising on his hands, which the White House attributes to handshaking and regular aspirin use. He sometimes has appeared drowsy during meetings and closed his eyes for long stretches, though he denies having fallen asleep.
Trump often boasts of having “aced” cognitive tests while frequently deriding Biden, who faced questions about his mental acuity. Biden and his aides pushed back aggressively against doubts raised about his fitness for office.
Some of Trump’s previous physicals have included the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, used to screen for dementia and cognitive impairment. His physicians reported a score of 30 out of 30 for him at 2018 and 2025 checkups.
Yet critics have pointed to Trump’s meandering speeches and sometimes bellicose rhetoric as evidence of cognitive decline.
Last month, a statement from more than 30 neurologists, psychiatrists and other medical experts — who acknowledged they’ve never examined him — said Trump was mentally unfit to serve and warned of an “increasingly dangerous decline” in his behavior based on what they called “objectively observable signs of serious medical concern.″
“Any so-called medical professionals engaging in armchair diagnosis or false speculation for political purposes are clearly breaking the Hippocratic Oath they’ve sworn to,” Ingle said.
Just like any other patient, presidents get to choose what’s disclosed about their health, said Sara Rosenthal, a bioethicist at the University of Kentucky who studies presidential health. Questions about transparency have become more acute as America elects aging presidents like Trump and Biden, she said.
“We can expect very little disclosure about the true health status of any president unless they’re in perfect health,” said Rosenthal, who has suggested an independent medical organization to review and report on the health of the president and those in the line of succession.
‘Nothing should be hidden’
Trump’s first medical report in his second term was released in April 2025. In July, he was diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency, a common condition in older adults that causes blood to pool in his veins. Photographs have shown the president with swollen feet, ankles and calves, described by the White House as a symptom of chronic venous insufficiency leading to “mild swelling” in his lower legs.
Following his last publicly disclosed exam, described as a routine follow-up in October, Trump’s physician issued a one-page summary saying the president was in “exceptional health” without divulging many specific results.
The frequency of Trump’s medical checkups is not uncommon for someone his age, according to S. Jay Olshansky of the University of Illinois-Chicago, who has studied the health of past presidents. It’s part of a strategy to catch problems while they’re still treatable, Olshansky said.
Olshansky says the public deserves to see more than White House medical summaries that “may be subject to editorial discretion.” Full, unredacted medical records should be made public, he said. “Nothing should be hidden.”
Although the Supreme Court, in general, and conservative appellate courts, in particular, have bowed and granted President Trump permission to do pretty much anything he wants, they haven’t thoroughly capitulated to his endless grasping for ever more power. (The way invertebrate congressional Republicans have.)
And it’s not just the fears of a lot of shaggy-thinking liberals.
“The nation is strong as is its commitment to the rule of law,” said one appellate judge, a Republican appointee. “The current president presents the greatest threat in decades.”
The survey was conducted by Bright Line Watch, a nonpartisan academic group that monitors the health and resilience of American democracy, in conjunction with the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA’s School of Law.
Conducted between mid-February and early March, the poll anonymously surveyed 21 federal judges, 113 lawyers, 193 law professors, 652 political scientists and a nationally representative sample of 2,750 Americans.
What leapt out to UCLA’s Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project, was that “across the ideological spectrum and across judges, lawyers and law professors, there was considerable agreement that the rule of law in the U.S. is under tremendous stress.” That consensus, he said, suggests “a real risk to democracy.”
Most legal experts agreed that Trump is using executive power excessively, with a majority doubting the conservative-leaning Supreme Court would handle cases involving the Trump administration impartially. The experts also expressed concern about politicized law enforcement — Trump seeking to persecute his perceived enemies — executive branch overreach, and the failure of Congress or the Supreme Court to do more to rein in the rogue president.
Talk about contempt of court — not to mention our vital system of checks and balances.
There was, unsurprisingly, a split among conservatives and liberals who took part in the survey. (The study defined legal conservatives as those saying the Supreme Court should base rulings on its understanding of what the Constitution meant as originally written. Liberals, who made up most of the respondents, were defined as those saying the court should base its rulings on what the Constitution means in current times.)
There were also differences between legal experts — those most intimately involved in the judicial system — and the public at large. The experts were more concerned about Trump’s excesses and threats to the rule of law, which, Hasen said, stands to reason.
The legal system is not something most people encounter daily in the same way they do, say, gasoline prices or the cost of groceries. “Yet,” Hasen said, “it’s one of these background things that really matters.”
Why?
Hasen put it this way: “Imagine that a person had a dispute with their neighbor and it ended up in small claims court before a judge and the judge made the decision not based on the merits of the case but based on whether he was friends with one of the parties, or didn’t like people who were similar to one of the parties.”
If, for instance, “people know that the government can successfully seek retribution from people who criticize it, people will be less likely to criticize the government,” Hasen said, leaving the country worse off by muzzling those who would hold their elected leaders to account.
Happily — and who couldn’t use a bit of good cheer right about now — all is not lost.
People “can demand that their elected representatives take steps to assure that the rule of law will be followed,” Hasen said, and can insist “that the government [not] play favorites or seek retribution against perceived enemies.”
That’s the power people have, come election time. That’s why voting matters.
There are lots of things riding on the outcome in November, not least the sanctity and integrity of our legal system.
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s grip on his party slipped on Thursday as anger boiled over among Senate Republicans about a growing list of issues.
In a striking display of defiance, GOP senators abruptly derailed plans to vote on legislation to fund Trump’s immigration crackdown amid deep disagreements over security funding for a White House ballroom and a $1.8-billion fund to pay people who claim to have been politically persecuted.
The discontent had been building for weeks. Many senators had grown frustrated over Trump’s decision to endorse candidates running against longtime Republican incumbents.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) acknowledged the concerns over the fund Thursday after a reportedly contentious private meeting about it between Senate Republicans and acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche. He also conceded midterm politics had added to the tension.
“It’s hard to divorce anything that happens here from what’s happening in the political atmosphere around us,” Thune told reporters. “You can’t disconnect those things.”
A day earlier, Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican who lost his primary race on Saturday to a Trump-backed challenger, expressed strong disagreement with the creation of the fund, which would be controlled by appointees without congressional oversight.
“People are concerned about paying their mortgage or rent, affording groceries and paying for gas, not putting together a $1.8 billion fund for the president and his allies to pay whomever they wish with no legal precedent or accountability,” Cassidy wrote on X. “If there needs to be a settlement, the administration should bring it to Congress to decide.”
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also had harsh criticism for the fund.
“So the nation’s top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong — take your pick,” he said in a statement.
The discord was striking, partly because Republicans have largely steered clear of checking the president’s power, and Congress has been largely sidelined under the second Trump administration on the war in Iran and other issues.
“I don’t think the Republicans had any choice but to pull the plug until we come back in June, because they’re facing a bit of a mutiny within their conference,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told The Times, saying he had heard that the meeting between Blanche and Republicans “didn’t go well.”
As tension simmered on the background, Trump seemed unbothered by the group of Republicans’ public rebellion against his agenda. When asked whether he was losing control of the Senate, he said he didn’t know.
“I only do what is right,” he told reporters in the Oval Office.
However, he expressed annoyance at lawmakers who would not support $1 billion in federal funding for security costs related to the ballroom project. He said the structure is being privately funded by him and other “great patriots.”
“We are making a gift to the United States,” Trump said. “This is being made as a gift from me and other people that are great patriots and spent a lot of money. We are building what will be the finest ballroom anywhere in the world.”
The $1 billion for security funding would be “very much a good expenditure,” he said. If Congress does not sign off on the money, Trump said the “White House won’t be a very secure place.”
Trump did not immediately comment on Thursday about the Senate’s delaying of the funding bill. The White House declined to comment on the matter.
Trump’s second-term actions have frequently tested the loyalty of Republican lawmakers, who have largely stayed in line. The settlement fund, with its ethical questions, appears to have crossed a line for some senators in a party that has traditionally opposed wasting taxpayer funds.
The money comes from the judgment fund, which is a Congress-approved ongoing appropriation that allows the Justice Department to settle cases and make payments.
Stephen Miller, a top aide to Trump, told reporters at the White House that the $1.8-billion settlement was “just a small measure of the justice” that many people are owed after being targeted by the federal government. Miller declined to say whether the White House was reaching out to senators to ease concerns about the fund.
Republicans in Congress decried the use of similar third-party settlements during the Obama administration, with House lawmakers repeatedly passing a bill aimed at stopping settlement slush funds, noted Molly Nixon, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
Though the Trump administration’s plan is novel because the settlement money isn’t going to a third party, the general concept has been offensive to Republicans in the past; the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee termed it an abuse in 2017.
“If you’re taking a consistent view, you’d be at least equally as opposed to this settlement,” Nixon said of Republican lawmakers.
That could be driving some of the opposition now, along with concerns about who is going to get the money and whether it could be distributed to people who wouldn’t have been able to make a successful case before a court of law, Nixon said.
“The fund is going to plaintiffs who were victims of lawfare or weaponization. … Those are pretty ambiguous terms. They’re sort of in the eye of the beholder,” Nixon said. “It’s pretty easy to see how this could very easily become a quiet political claims process.”
Police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot have already filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block the creation of the fund, arguing in part that it would compensate extremist convicted of committing violent crimes.
“The fund’s mere existence sends a clear and chilling message: those who enact violence in President Trump’s name will not just avoid punishment, they will be rewarded with riches,” the lawsuit says.
When Trump returned to office in January 2025, one of his first acts was pardoning or commuting the prison sentences of the 1,500 people who were charged in connection with the attack. Vice President JD Vance on Wednesday did not rule out that settlement money could go to those rioters, saying the money would be given out on a “case-by-case basis.”
Thune told reporters on Thursday that the Justice Department would have to come up with some guardrails to ease concerns among senators.
“We need to get some clarity,” he said.
Though the number of Republicans angry with Trump is significant enough to make or break legislation, the caucus appeared far from falling apart.
Senate Republicans blocked an attempt by Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) on Thursday to pass a bill to prohibit federal funds from reaching Jan. 6 rioters, an attempt to prevent the fund from being used to compensate them.
“I’m encouraged hearing some of my Republican colleagues agreeing with me,” Padilla said on the Senate floor. “Let’s stand up for congressional oversight as a unified Senate.”
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) objected to Padilla’s bill, later writing on X: “PROUD to object today to Senator Padilla’s RIDICULOUS bill and stand up for ALL FREEDOM-LOVING AMERICANS.”
Schiff, who is working on an amendment that would target the fund, said other Republican colleagues he spoke to Wednesday evening were unhappy with the position Trump has put them in. He said Trump’s actions have helped underscore Democrats’ arguments against his party.
“All [it’s] doing is helping us make the case that the Republicans couldn’t care less about people’s cost of living … that there’s plenty of money for golden ballrooms for the president, there’s plenty of money for the president’s cronies, but there’s no money for the average family,” Schiff said.
Our Yorkshire Farm star Clive Owen opens up about a travel mishap during his Ireland trip with sons Miles and Sid in Channel 5 series Reuben Owen: Life in the Dales
16:54, 17 May 2026Updated 16:57, 17 May 2026
Clive admitted he suffered a ‘little incident’(Image: Channel 5)
The farmer, who has nine children with Amanda Owen, has been appearing in his eldest son Reuben’s Channel 5 programme, Life in the Dales.
The show follows the family, who rose to prominence on Our Yorkshire Farm, as they continue to document the ups and downs of their farming life.
A recent instalment saw Clive venture beyond the Dales on a road trip to Ireland with his sons Miles and Sid, as they took part in the All Nations Shearing Champions.
However, the journey proved far from plain sailing for Clive, as he revealed he had suffered an “incident” along the way, reports the Express.
Upon arriving at the competition in Donegal, ahead of the two-day event, Clive declared: “Well boys we’re here. The sheep pens are empty but they’ll be coming we hope.”
The narrator then observed: “With the chill of yesterday’s storm still in the air, there’s a memory the boys haven’t quite shaken.”
Sid enquired: “Are you feeling better after yesterday?”
The farmer brushed it aside, responding: “You don’t let me forget yesterday, you guys. My little incident on the ship…”
Miles chipped in: “That sea air was getting to you.”
Clive then put his sons’ minds at rest: “No I’m fine, so forget all about it.”
The narrator continued: “Unlikely, but with prize sheep, sizzling stalls of Irish grub and more vintage tractors than you can shake a spanner at, Clive’s little incident might slip off the radar.”
Miles then jokingly questioned whether his dad was “up to” judging, as he commented: “You look the part but whether you’re up to it…”
“Just remember, the judge is always right,” Clive hit back.
Ahead of heading off on their lengthy journey, marking Sid and Miles’ first time outside the country, Clive shared his concerns about leaving the farm.
He told Reuben: “I’m going to take Miles and Sid because they’ve never been on a ship and they’ve never been overseas.”
He went on to the camera: “I used to skive off school and go and watch these famous sales and watch these great men sell these wonderful sheep and dream that maybe one day it might be me.
“For me, to eventually breed a Champion myself, that’s pretty amazing, actually. We called him Glory and sold him for £28,000 which was amazing.
“Fellas that go and judge like myself, know how hard it is to breed these things. So I see it as a great responsibility and a great honour to judge.
“It’s a tough thing to do because you don’t make everybody happy when you judge sheep.”
Before setting off, Miles and Sid shared their excitement for the ferry, with the former saying: “Yeah, they reckon it will be a bit stormy.”
“Hope you don’t get sea sick,” Reuben warned, while his girlfriend reassured: “You’ll be fine!”
After asking if Sid has ever been abroad before, he replied: “No I haven’t, this will be the first time.”
Clive added, “It’s quite a journey,” before sharing his concerns for travelling through the Irish sea before hitting the sheep competition.
“Tomorrow, there’s a big storm passing through so I’m quite worried about the crossing, how rough it will be.
“Whether we’re ill or anything, I would not like that to happen but we shall see.”
Reuben replied: “Well have a good time you three,” as they set off, with Clive saying, “Have a good time you three.”
“Miss you already,” Reuben called after them.
Reuben Owen: Life in the Dales is available to watch on Channel 5.
Eddie Martinez can’t stand Donald Trump. So when Eric Swalwell entered the race for California governor, Martinez had his candidate.
“I liked the way he took Trump on, the impeachment thing in Congress,” Martinez said of the former Bay Area congressman, a Trump nemesis who served as one of the House prosecutors in 2021 when Democrats held the wayward president to account for the second time.
Martinez has been familiar with Becerra for decades, going back to when the former congressman, state attorney general and Biden Cabinet member was in the state Assembly. To his credit, said the 65-year-old retired public relations strategist, Becerra has largely kept clear of controversy and there’s never been a whiff of personal scandal — an important consideration after Swalwell’s spectacular self-destruction.
On top of all that, Martinez said as he prepared to drop his mail ballot at a post office in Alhambra, it would be nice for California to elect its first Latino governor in modern times. It’s been, Martinez observed, more than 150 years.
With the gubernatorial primary entering its final two weeks, a contest that had been stubbornly formless has finally gained coherence. Becerra, who’d been widely given up for dead as he foundered near the bottom of polls, has unexpectedly emerged as the Democrat to beat.
“He has the most experience,” said Ruben Avita, a 57-year-old actor who leans Democratic and is tilting toward Becerra over hedge-fund billionaire Tom Steyer. “At this point,” Avita said as he waited to catch a double feature at a cineplex in Monterey Park, “I want someone with a proven track record.”
“He’s got a lot more common-sense approach than any of these other idiots,” said Wayne The Flame — yes, he explained, that’s his legal name —which, while not exactly a ringing endorsement, still counts as a vote.
The Claremont independent, retired at 73 after a career selling motorcycles and hot rods, described Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, the other major GOP contestant, as a racist and dismissed the entire Democratic field with a string of epithets. “Dumb—,” he said of the voters who keep putting the likes of them in power.
Peaches, a chihuahua/boxer rescue, stands alongside her owner, Wayne The Flame
If not terribly enthused, at least The Flame has made up his mind. Many voters remain undecided — or, at least, not entirely wed to a candidate.
Some are holding on to their ballots longer than usual, awaiting any last-minute developments and weighing the election odds as though wagering in a high-stakes game of poker.
A 40-year-old project manager at the Getty Research Institute, Dwyer held his 2-year-old daughter as his son, 6, romped on a pleasant afternoon in Sierra Madre’s Memorial Park. Across the street, the bells of Christ Church chimed the hour.
“None of the Democrats are putting forth anything that is making me excited,” said Dwyer, who’s ruled out Becerra (he doesn’t see much there) and is deciding between Steyer and former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter. He’s trying to cast his ballot strategically, the East Pasadena resident said, and “it’s the first time in a while I haven’t really had a clue who I’m going to vote for so close to election day.”
Democrat Priscilla Vega of Monrovia has yet to settle on her candidate for governor
This is a deeply unsettled season in California, with precious little hope the next governor — whoever he or she turns out to be — will make things better anytime soon. That mix of discouragement and discontent surfaced repeatedly, like a dull ache, in conversations with dozens of voters across the San Gabriel Valley.
The region’s ethnic and economic diversity — from the working-class neighborhoods of Pomona through the Asian-majority suburbs to the mountainside mansions of San Dimas and Pasadena — make the valley a prime battleground in the race for governor.
Alana H., who asked not to use her last name, said she wasn’t even bothering to vote.
She ticked off some reasons: The soaring price of gas and rising cost of, essentially, everything else. The fear her college-age daughter will never be able to buy a home in California. Worse, is her loss of faith. She no longer believes in the promise, once taken for granted, that each generation will improve its lot over the last. And, Alana said, she’s not alone: “Anyone who’s an average person is in the same boat, we’re all just trying to stay afloat.” Standing in front of the post office in Alhambra, the 52-year-old paddled her arms as though to keep from sinking.
Jaunenito Pavon, in his Glendora wine and chocolate bar, would like California to elect a governor who could unify the state. He’s still deciding on a candidate
The politicians in both parties are “so out of touch,” she said, “all they’re doing is fighting over this and that, when everyone I know doesn’t care what party you’re in. They just want to put food on their table. They want their kids to have a better life.”
Shelby Moore has some of the same concerns. Forget about ever buying a home, said the 30-year-old California native, a Democratic-leaning independent. It’s no small feat scraping up money for rent. “I’ve lost almost every single friend that I went to high school or college with,” Moore said between waiting tables at a Mediterranean restaurant in Glendora. “They’ve all moved out of state.”
Shelby Moore, 30, a waitress in Glendora, said all her friends from high school and college have left California because it’s so expensive.
She’ll definitely vote, Moore said, though she doesn’t know for whom. One of the Democrats. Someone who’ll work to make California more affordable and keep people like her friends from being priced out.
In Claremont, Eric Hurley was another undecided Democrat. He attended last month’s gubernatorial debate at Pomona College, where the 56-year-old professor teaches psychological science and Africana studies. Otherwise, he’s been too busy to pay much attention to the race.
But it’s important, Hurley said, that whoever wins “keep fighting the good fight and standing by our liberal principles. I would hate to see someone in the governor’s office start capitulating to what the current administration is asking.”
Democrat Eric Hurley is undecided in the governor’s race. But he wants someone who’ll stand up to the Trump administration.
Jennifer Harris, 56, is a single mom in Monrovia who oversees payroll at a food manufacturing company. She has to stretch each of her dollars to make ends meet; soon she’ll be shelling out $30,000 a year for her daughter to go to college. Buying a home, Harris said, is out of the question.
She confessed to chuckling at the governor’s memes — an over-the-top oeuvre that includes Newsom as super hero, Newsom as religious beacon, Newsom as romance-novel hunk — and his other cheeky jabs at the president. “But that’s not an adult way to handle it,” Harris said between errands in Monrovia’s quaint shopping district. “It’s not solving any problems.”
Better, she said, for the next governor — she hasn’t decided whom she’ll support — to focus on practicalities: improving the economy, making housing and healthcare more affordable, dealing with homelessness and the underlying mental health issues.
Jennifer Harris said Gov. Newsom’s over-the-top social media presence is amusing. But she wants the next governor to focus on more practical things.
Britnee Foreman echoed that sentiment.
The 41-year-old, who lives in Azusa and works in the music business, was meeting a friend, Priscilla Vega, 43, for lunch in Monrovia. Along with a meal, the two Democrats shared their concerns about inflation and income inequality.
“Memes are great for publicity,” said Foreman, who’s deciding between Becerra and Porter, based on their policy experience. (Vega, a lifestyle marketer, has yet to narrow down her choice.)
Britnee Foreman says the next governor needs policies “with teeth,” not an active social media presence.
“But I prefer policy,” Foreman went on. “I don’t want them just to be the popular person out there on social media. It’s great if they’re tweeting and have a cute little Insta-story. But I need their policies to have teeth and actively move us forward. And not just look like it’s moving forward.”
After nearly eight years, amid widespread unease, California seems ready to put the Newsom era in the past. It’s just not clear what path voters will choose, or which candidate they’ll prefer to steer the state toward, hopefully, a better place.
Armed groups operate along the extensive Venezuela-Colombia border. (AFP)
Caracas, May 15, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan government expressed “deep concern” on Wednesday over the “escalation of violence” in Colombia’s border region of Catatumbo.
Caracas’ reaction came one day after the Colombian Armed Forces announced the killing of seven combatants from the National Liberation Army (ELN) during a bombing operation that Colombian President Gustavo Petro said was carried out “within the framework of agreements” with Venezuela.
“Venezuela has been taken by surprise by these events and rejects any armed action that jeopardizes peace, stability, and the security of border communities,” Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil stated in an official communiqué. The statement added that Venezuelan authorities are concerned with “how this new escalation once again impacts the lives of people on both sides of the border,” causing “serious consequences” for local populations.
However, just 24 hours earlier, Petro had stated on social media that the Colombian army and air force carried out the attack against the ELN “within the framework of agreements with Bolivarian Government of Venezuela” led by acting President Delcy Rodríguez.
At the same time, Petro clarified that there is currently no peace process with the ELN, rejecting claims that the guerrilla organization resumed armed operations because of state noncompliance.
“Organizations that continue to seek total or partial control over illicit economies and reject agreements aimed at dismantling those structures are not part of any peace process,” he wrote.
Petro and Rodríguez met in Caracas on April 24, where they pledged to “combat organized crime” along the more than 2,200-kilometer shared border between the two countries. The meeting also resulted in plans for joint military coordination, intelligence-sharing mechanisms, and expanded security cooperation.
Details of the Operation
According to Colombian Armed Forces commander General Hugo López, the operation dealt a “major blow” to a unit of the Luis Enrique León Guerra Front, commanded by the guerrilla leader known as “Sucre,” which was reportedly responsible for providing security to the ELN’s Central Command and National Directorate.
The military stated that seven guerrillas were killed during the bombing operation. Nevertheless, insurgents reportedly abandoned the camps and removed the bodies of those killed, according to local outlet Blu Radio.
Colombian forces also reported discovering fortified camps, explosives, drone-launching devices, and materials used in the fabrication of anti-personnel mines.
The ELN, however, denied suffering casualties. In a video posted on Facebook, the guerrilla organization claimed that the attack “fell flat.”
“They attempted to surprise ELN guerrilla units fighting the 33rd Front, but this time they failed (…) We suffered no casualties as a result of this bombing,” the group stated. “Our forces remained active in responding to enemy aggression and continue to hold territory.”
The 33rd Front is a dissident faction of the former Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The group joined peace talks with the Colombian government and currently maintains a ceasefire while Temporary Location Zones are established for regrouping under Resolution 161 of May 2026. Nevertheless, it is now facing an escalating conflict with the ELN in border.
The latest attack was the third bombing operation carried out in Colombia in 2026 and the twentieth such military strike under Petro’s administration. Of those, three targeted the ELN, five targeted the Clan del Golfo, and twelve were directed against FARC dissident groups.
Colombia’s armed conflict, which has persisted for more than six decades, has intensified again in 2026 amid growing fragmentation among armed groups competing for territorial control. Despite the 2016 peace agreement between the Colombian government and the FARC, as well as Petro’s ongoing “total peace” initiative, forced displacement and violence against civilians have reached record levels in regions such as Catatumbo and Colombia’s Pacific coast.
The porous and extensive border has also led armed groups such as the ELN to establish a significant presence inside Venezuelan territory, controlling territories and with documented involvement in drug trafficking and mining activities.
Venezuela on different occasions attempted to facilitate peace negotiations in the Colombian conflict. Caracas hosted dialogue rounds between the Petro government and the ELN before talks broke down.
SACRAMENTO — As Los Angeles prepares to host the 2028 Olympics, state lawmakers are raising concerns that potential clashes with President Trump could cause chaos.
State Sen. Susan Rubio (D-Baldwin Park), speaking at a legislative hearing this week on the 2028 Games, expressed concern about Trump’s animosity toward California and questioned whether that could affect the federal financial support that is essential to the Olympics.
“I know we rely a lot on the federal funding,” Rubio said. “Can you assure me that we’re not going to be left in the middle of the planning carrying the bag?”
Rubio was addressing Joey Freeman, the vice president of state affairs for the LA28 Organizing Committee, who testified before lawmakers.
Freeman assured legislators that the organizing committee had a “wonderful working relationship” with the Trump administration. He said the committee successfully advocated for $1 billion in federal funds for state and local law enforcement, and $94 million to boost transportation planning.
LA28 leaders previously projected that the Games will cost more than $7.1 billion. They’ve said the money will come from a mix of sources, including corporate sponsors, ticket sales, merchandise, the federal government and the International Olympic Committee.
Rubio, however, said she remained worried that the federal dollars could fall through.
“As a state, our funding is also stretched thin, and at the end of the day we don’t want to have to step in to save the Olympics,” Rubio said.
Several other concerns were raised during the roughly three-hour hearing, including questions about how to best protect visitors and participants from federal immigration raids. The Trump administration’s increased enforcement actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Border Patrol last year in the Los Angeles area led to clashes with protesters and widespread concerns about immigrant rights.
Sen. Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) said legislators were working on a package of bills to help rein in ICE during the event.
“Immigration is still front and center,” she said. “People are feeling even more worried that they’ll continue to be deported and kidnapped.”
Other lawmakers grilled Freeman for more information about ticket sales. LA28 previously advertised tickets as being affordable for locals, but many shoppers last month were dismayed to find prices in the thousands.
Freeman said he did not have specifics on the community ticketing program, which earned a rebuke from Sen. Laura Richardson (D-San Pedro).
“You’re in an official state hearing and I think you know there was a problem because it was well-publicized in the news,” she said. “The fact that we came to this committee and you don’t know how many tickets were issued, you don’t know how many of those were under $100 — you don’t have the information that we need.”
Paul Krekorian, executive director of the Los Angeles Office of Major Events, chalked up many of the concerns surrounding the games to political negativity. He pointed to the success of the Olympics in Los Angeles in 1932 and 1984.
“You hear the tickets are too expensive, there aren’t going to be enough opportunities, it’s going to be a big disruption, there’s going to be a lot of traffic, the city just went through these horrible fires, how are we going to pull this off?” he said. “I just want to remind all of us — L.A. knows how to do this.”
Voters in California may get a chance to remake the state’s open primary system in two years.
Political consultant Steve Maviglio filed an application Friday with state officials that seeks to alter California’s voting system by reverting to a traditional primary. Under the proposal, the top candidates from each party would advance to the general election in November.
The current system allows the top two candidates, regardless of party, to move on to the runoff. That has led to instances in which two Democrats or two Republicans have faced off in the general election.
The state’s gubernatorial election, for example, has prompted concern that two Republicans could shut out the Democratic candidates. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton have polled high in various surveys and are facing a large field of Democrats.
Democratic voters vastly outnumber Republicans in California, yet some political consultants said they feared there were so many Democrats running that voters wouldn’t coalesce around one candidate and the field would be split. Those fears have eased somewhat in recent months as some Democratic candidates advance from the pack.
The state’s top-two primary system has been in place since California voters passed Proposition 14 in 2010. The goal was to help end partisan gridlock in Sacramento and force candidates in primaries to appeal to a wider range of voters, rather than just those in their own party.
Proposition 14, as well as the state’s once-a-decade redistricting process, has led to some dramatic races, including the 2012 face-off between Democratic Reps. Brad Sherman and Howard Berman for a congressional seat in Los Angeles’ San Fernando Valley. Amid aspersions and attack ads, the pair nearly came to blows at a community debate.
Maviglio described the ballot measure as a simple repeal of Proposition 14, and said he was inspired by the governor’s race.
“It was extremely scary to envision the November ballot for governor with Republicans on it,” Maviglio said.
The New York Times first reported on the ballot measure proposal.
A news release from Maviglio states that the proposed repeal of Prop. 14 “is fueled by concerns that California’s primaries are disenfranchising a majority of California voters by limiting choice to candidates from one party.”
A website for the effort includes criticisms of the current primary system by Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks and Ron Nehring, former chairman of the California Republican Party.
Maviglio’s ballot initiative proposes to appear on the 2028 ballot and take effect in 2030.
Talk of changing Proposition 14 has been swirling in Sacramento for months.
Secretary of State Shirley Weber told reporters at an unrelated news conference last week that she had voted years ago against Proposition 14. She questioned whether it had actually succeeded in creating more diversity.
“I did not like the open primary,” Weber said. “I didn’t think it would solve any problems. They had a list of problems it would solve, and none of those have been solved.”
TAIPEI, Taiwan — A resolute Secretary of State Marco Rubio took to the White House lectern Tuesday and declared the United States, under President Trump’s leadership, had launched a bold new operation to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, based on the principle that international waterways must remain free.
An hour later, Trump walked it all back, ending the complex military endeavor after less than a day.
It was just the latest evidence to America’s allies that the word of the U.S. government is subject entirely to the president’s whims. And such is the worry fueling concerns in Taipei ahead of Trump’s state visit to China this week.
Privately, senior administration officials have assured Taiwanese leadership ahead of the trip that Trump has no intention of changing long-standing U.S. policy on the island, two sources familiar with the discussions said — a stance of “strategic ambiguity” that has avoided any declarative statements on Taiwanese independence since it was coined by Henry Kissinger 55 years ago.
A White House official was definitive that U.S. policy toward Taiwan “remains the same as the first Trump administration.”
“The U.S. One China policy, as our cross-strait policies are collectively known, is based on the Taiwan Relations Act, the three U.S.-PRC Joint Communiques and the Six Assurances to Taiwan,” the official said. “There is no change to our policy with respect to Taiwan.”
But Chinese officials told The Times that their president, Xi Jinping, intends to raise the matter as a top priority, knowing that only one person — Trump himself — speaks for the administration today.
Whether Xi can leverage the intimacy of a private audience to shift Trump’s stance, potentially linking it to other U.S. objectives, is the source of significant concern here.
Taiwanese officials fear even the most subtle rhetorical change in policy from Trump could imperil a delicate status quo that has held, to its benefit, for decades. They have similarly sought assurances that the administration will follow through on a pending U.S. arms sale worth over $10 billion, which received approval from Taiwan’s legislature on Friday.
“The most serious scenario would be if President Trump were to make an impromptu statement, such as, ‘I oppose Taiwanese independence,’ particularly if he were to link this to trade, the Iran issue, or a summit agreement,” said Chienyu Shih, of the Institute for National Defense and Security Research in Taiwan. “This would constitute a rhetorical concession of substantial significance to Beijing.”
Rubio told reporters at his news conference Tuesday — with a similar confidence he expressed on the Iran file — that China understands Washington’s long-standing position on the island.
“I’m sure Taiwan will be a topic of conversation. It always is. The Chinese understand our position on that topic — we understand theirs,” Rubio said.
“I think both countries understand that it is in neither one of our interests to see anything destabilizing happen in that part of the world,” he added. “We don’t need any destabilizing events to occur with regards to Taiwan, or anywhere in the Indo-Pacific. And that’s to the mutual benefit of both the United States and the Chinese.”
Trump has suggested a willingness to shift U.S. policy on Taiwan before.
During his initial campaign for the presidency in 2016, Trump openly questioned the One China policy, drawing ire from Beijing for suggesting he might endorse Taiwanese independence. He accepted a call from Taiwan’s president after his victory and would later support significant arms sales to Taipei.
And yet, at a 2017 meeting with Xi, Trump vacillated, telling the Chinese leader he could “deal with” the Taiwan issue in “a matter of months,” according to the Wall Street Journal. The Chinese were reportedly so flabbergasted by the comment that they dismissed it as rhetorical flourish.
“There is concern that the conversation between the two leaders could veer into sensitive territory on the topic of Taiwan,” said Brian Hart, deputy director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “but there are many in the administration who would still appreciate the importance of general continuity in U.S. policy.”
U.S. support for Taiwan’s democratic movement used to be a matter of principle. Today, Washington sees it as a matter of national security. Over 60% of semiconductors are produced in Taiwan, including 90% of the world’s most advanced chips. And it is viewed as the clasp of the first island chain guarding against Chinese maritime expansion.
A robust debate between Taiwan’s Cabinet and the opposition in parliament ended Friday not over whether to accept U.S. defense equipment, but over how much to spend. The Legislative Yuan approved $24 billion in purchases — including a defense package passed by Congress in December and the pending arms sale — falling short of Taipei’s $40-billion proposal.
Anticipation for the president’s state visit is high here in the capital city, where local news is filled with questions over the influence Trump’s war in Iran might have on his appetite for supporting Taiwan.
Chinese defense analysts have seen the war as a sign of U.S. weakness. But Taiwanese defense experts have taken away a different lesson: cheap equipment from a lesser military, such as dumb mines thrown in a strait, may just be enough to paralyze a superpower.
The latest U.S. National Security Strategy, released by the Trump administration in December, emphasized the importance of support for Taiwan and the status quo.
But the Taiwanese took note that the strategy also called for an end to forever wars in the Middle East, offering little preview of the president’s sudden strategic pivot on Iran in February, launching a war few saw coming.
What Trump chooses to say in China “might be difficult to predict,” said Jyh-Shyang Sheu, a scholar of Chinese politics and military capabilities based in Taiwan.
But “in Taipei, we are still focusing on the U.S. policy,” he added, “more focusing on what he does instead of what he says.”
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — For 21 years, Steve Fowler and Sam Wilson have performed together in a band on Memphis’ renowned Beale Street. And for the last decade, the men have been neighbors on a quiet, leafy avenue.
But as of Thursday, they will no longer cast the same ballot despite living across the street from each other.
That’s because Tennessee’s Republican-controlled Legislature redrew the congressional district of Memphis, which has long enjoyed its own Democratic-leaning U.S. House seat. Now, the city is split into three Republican-leaning districts, its majority-Black population sliced up and bound to mostly white, rural and conservative communities along lines that branch away from Fowler and Wilson’s East Memphis neighborhood.
A line runs down the middle of the street, placing Fowler in the 8th Congressional District, which runs hundreds of miles to central Tennessee across a dozen counties. Wilson is zoned for the 9th District, which extends across most of the state’s southern border before curving up to encompass the largely white and affluent Nashville suburbs.
“I think it’s horrible,” said Fowler, who is white. “This isn’t just going to be bad for Black folks in Memphis, but poor whites in these new districts also aren’t going to get services. How are any of these congressmen going to serve all these different counties?”
A national competition
The redraw was sparked by a ruling from the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court that may be a death knell for congressional representation of majority-Black Southern communities such as Memphis.
For 60 years, a provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act required mapmakers to prove they were not discriminating against racial minorities in how they drew districts, often leading to political boundaries that allowed some minority communities to vote for their preferred representative rather than having their vote diluted by white majorities surrounding them.
The rule had the greatest effect in Southern states, where neighboring Black and white communities remain highly polarized in partisan politics.
On April 29, the justices severely weakened that requirement, ruling that the way courts had handled it improperly injected racial matters into redistricting in violation of the Constitution. Republicans across the South immediately leaped at the chance to redraw their maps before the November elections to eliminate as many Democratic-held, majority-minority congressional seats as possible.
Tennessee’s Legislature was the first in a GOP-controlled state to finalize a new map. But it is one of several Southern states — Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina among them — engaged in a broader partisan redistricting competition sweeping the country.
Republicans have long complained that the Voting Rights Act prevented them from doing to Democratic, majority-Black districts what Democrats in states they control do to conservative-leaning, white and rural areas — scatter their voters for partisan gain.
That is what Tennessee Republicans did in their initial congressional map in 2021 to the state’s other large reservoir of Democrats in Nashville, where they did not have to step gingerly because that city is majority white.
“Tennessee is a conservative state and our congressional delegation should reflect that,” said Republican state Sen. John Stevens, who shepherded the bill for a new map that made all nine congressional districts solidly Republican.
The nationwide gerrymandering wars began after President Trump pressured Texas to redraw its map to favor Republicans. Some Democratic states, including California, countered by redrawing their congressional maps for partisan advantage. With the U.S. Supreme Court ruling reining in the Voting Rights Act and the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision to toss out voter-approved maps that favored Democrats in that state, the GOP has gained the upper hand.
A ‘central place’ in pursuit of racial justice
Wilson, the Memphis musician who is Black, was less distraught by the carving up of his neighborhood for partisan purposes. He saw the move as just another trial facing the city after a surge of federal agents sent by Trump to combat crime and amid narratives about Memphis’ safety from neighboring suburbs and Republican state lawmakers.
“It’s a hustling community. We’re going to make ends meet for our families,” Wilson said. “The legacy of Memphis is music and our civil rights history,” he said, adding the two were intertwined. “Hard times mean you’re going to try and find your gift. That’s what we do here; music in Memphis is a way of life.”
The Memphis district predates the Voting Rights Act. For at least a century, well before Congress acted to protect minority voting rights, Tennessee has believed it made sense for its metropolis on the Mississippi River to have its own U.S. House district. But since that law was passed in 1965, anyone who tried to split up the district for partisan gain could be sued and have the maps thrown out. Now, legal experts say that is not much of a risk.
Nonetheless, Democrats and civil rights groups are suing to block the map. The symbolism is especially sharp as the city is home to the National Civil Rights Museum, built around the motel where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in 1968. When the Legislature passed the new maps, Democrats and protesters shouted, “Hands off Memphis!” and waved signs accusing Republicans of bringing back Jim Crow.
“Memphis is not just any city; it holds a central place in the national story of our quest for racial justice in this country and how, over time, we have increasingly achieved civil, voting, and economic rights for all Americans,” said Eric Holder, a former U.S. attorney general who chairs the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. “Black citizens protested, marched and died there for the right to vote.”
A city-state divide
Memphis has faced dual stories in recent years. Billions of dollars in private investment and federal dollars have flooded into the area in recent years, but many local businesses still express concerns about a lagging regional economy.
Residents who spoke with the Associated Press expressed concerns about safety and public services but bristled at stereotypes about rampant crime. The twin stories are often on display in the river city, where pothole-filled streets run from empty storefronts to ornate mansion-filled neighborhoods and leafy college campuses only blocks away.
The city has long had a contentious relationship with the rest of the state, which voted for Trump in 2024 by a roughly 2-1 margin.
The conservative Legislature in Nashville has clashed repeatedly with Memphis and accused its leaders of broad mismanagement. Legislators passed a law blocking many police overhaul efforts in Memphis that were put in place after the death of Tyre Nichols, an unarmed Black man, at the hands of city police officers in 2023. It passed another measure seizing control of Memphis’ airport board and those of other cities across the state, and gave the state attorney general, also a Republican, the power to remove Memphis’ elected district attorney.
“The state Legislature is trying to take it over,” said U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, the white Democrat who still represents the city in Congress until the new lines kick in after the midterms. “And that’s absurd. It was all partially because it’s a majority Black city.”
Lack of representation seen
Thomas Goodman, a politics and law professor at Rhodes College in Memphis, says the new congressional districts may lead to greater friction over who receives attention — and funding — from lawmakers. Memphis residents will soon share districts with Republican towns with starkly different economies, geographies and demographics. Whoever holds those congressional seats will have an incentive to pay attention to those voters and not to Memphis’ population.
“It would not only deprive Black Tennesseans of proper representation,” Goodman said. “These changes also break up the city of Memphis as an entity into multiple districts, thereby removing a dedicated agent in government who knows the people, who understands their concerns and can speak for them and deliver on behalf of their interests and desires.”
Chris Wiley’s house sits in what was, before last week, a quiet street in Midtown Memphis dotted with duplexes, tidy lawns and sports fields. Now his neighborhood will be carved apart at the intersection of three congressional districts. That is not surprising, he said, because “Tennessee is all about the dollar” rather than residents.
“Memphis is majority Black, so if you mess with that, what’s the point of even voting in Tennessee?” said Wiley, a 29-year-old sports stadium worker who is Black. “Whatever the congressional numbers, whatever that is, we don’t count on the scale as high, anyway.”
Brown writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Nicholas Riccardi in Denver and videojournalist Sophie Bates contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — White House economists estimate that President Trump’s deals with pharmaceutical companies to drop some of their U.S. prescription drug prices to what they charge in other countries could save $529 billion over the next 10 years.
The analysis obtained by the Associated Press includes the first economy-wide projections behind a policy at the core of Trump’s pitch to voters going into November’s midterm elections for control of the House and Senate. Democratic lawmakers have been doubtful about the savings claimed by Trump and these new numbers are likely to trigger additional questions about the data.
Cost-of-living issues are at the forefront of voters’ concerns and higher energy prices tied to the Iran war have deepened the public’s anxiety. Trump has tried in part to address affordability concerns by focusing on his efforts to cut deals with companies so that the cost of prescription drugs in the U.S. would no longer be dramatically higher than in other affluent nations.
“Now you have the lowest drug prices anywhere in the world,” Trump said at a Friday rally before a crowd of seniors in Florida. “And that alone should win us the midterms.”
The analysis was done by administration officials for the White House Council of Economic Advisers. They also estimated that federal and state governments could save a combined $64.3 billion on Medicaid during the next decade because of what Trump calls his “most favored nation” policy on drug prices.
Few of the details of the deals struck by the Trump administration and 17 leading pharmaceutical companies have been made public, making it hard to independently verify the projected savings. The White House analysis sought to estimate the prospective savings as more medications come onto the market and fall under Trump’s framework — with one model in the report tallying the possible savings at $733 billion over a decade.
Trump and his Department of Health and Human Services have touted his drug-pricing deals as transformative and urged Congress to codify their principles into law. Democratic lawmakers have challenged the administration’s claims of savings. Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and 17 Senate Democrats in April proposed a measure requiring the administration to disclose the terms of the agreements signed by pharmaceutical companies.
“If these deals are so great, why is the Trump administration afraid of showing them to the public?” Wyden said when announcing the measure. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said his team would share details that didn’t include proprietary information or trade secrets.
The White House said it has not shared the text of the agreements because they include highly sensitive data that could move financial markets.
The potential savings estimated by the Trump administration would be substantial as Americans spent $467 billion on prescription drugs in 2024, according to the most recent government data available. The analysis is premised on the idea that foreign countries would also pay more for their prescription drugs, which would diversify drugmakers’ sources of revenue and preserve their ability to innovate with new treatments.
Outside economists have caveated that any savings might not flow directly to patients, many of whom already pay discounted prices for their drugs through their insurance coverage.
The Congressional Budget Office in October 2024 estimated that a plan similar to what Trump ended up adopting could reduce prescription drug prices by more than 5%, though the decrease “would probably diminish over time as manufacturers adjusted to the new policy by altering prices or distribution of drugs in other countries.”
The scope of the savings claimed by the Trump administration are likely to intensify the scrutiny by Democrats, who counter that any price reductions would be offset by higher costs for prescription drugs not covered by the “most favored nation” framework. One of their main critiques is that pharmaceutical companies have increased their profit margins while working with the administration.
In April, staff working for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., released an analysis that looked at 15 of the companies that have agreed to this drug-pricing plan and found that their combined profits jumped 66% over the past year to $177 billion. The report noted that the tax cuts Trump signed into law last year “exempted or delayed many of the most expensive drugs” from price negotiations with Medicare.
The Trump administration has countered that they consider Sanders’ critique to be flawed, saying that it’s based on the list prices for pharmaceutical drugs instead of the actual price that patients pay.
WASHINGTON — A federal magistrate judge on Monday pressed a jail official to explain why a man charged with trying to storm the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner and attempting to kill President Trump was placed on restrictive suicide watch after his arrest.
Officials at the city jail in Washington removed Cole Tomas Allen from its designated “suicide status” over the weekend after his attorneys complained that he had been unnecessarily confined in a padded room with constant lighting, repeatedly strip-searched and placed in restraints outside his cell.
But the relaxed conditions didn’t satisfy U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui’s concerns that Allen may have received disparate, punitive treatment in violation of his due process rights. Faruqui noted that the D.C. jail routinely houses convicted killers and others charged with violent crimes without placing them on 24-hour lockdown.
“It could drive a person crazy to be in that situation,” he said.
Faruqui apologized to Allen over his confinement conditions. In response to a news report on that apology, U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro criticized him in a social media post that said Faruqui “believes a defendant armed to the teeth and attempting to assassinate the president is entitled to preferential treatment in his confinement compared to every other defendant.”
Allen’s lawyers said he wasn’t showing any suicidal risk factors after his arrest. But a jail psychiatrist evaluated him and initially concluded that he posed a suicide risk, according to Tony Towns, acting general counsel for the city’s corrections department.
“Every case is different, your honor,” Towns said.
Allen was moved into protective custody after the jail lifted the suicide prevention measures. His attorneys didn’t object to his new confinement status. They had asked the magistrate to cancel Monday’s hearing, but Faruqui forged ahead with it due to his “grave concerns” about Allen’s treatment in jail.
Allen was injured but was not shot during the April 25 attack at the Washington Hilton, which disrupted one of the highest-profile annual events in the nation’s capital.
Allen was armed with guns and knives when he ran through a security checkpoint and pointed his weapon at a Secret Service agent, who fired back five times, authorities said. Pirro has said that Allen fired a shot that struck the agent’s bullet-resistant vest.
Allen later told FBI agents that he didn’t expect to survive the attack, which could help explain why he was deemed to be a possible suicide risk, said Justice Department prosecutor Jocelyn Ballantine.
Allen, 31, of Torrance, is charged with attempted assassination of the president and two additional firearms counts. He faces up to life in prison if convicted of the assassination count alone.
Defense attorney Eugene Ohm said Allen was prohibited from having anything in his cell. He asked for a Bible and a visit from a chaplain but hasn’t received either, according to Ohm.
After winning his first race for Congress in 1992, 34-year-old Xavier Becerra credited a wave of community supporters in Los Angeles, many Latino, for backing his upstart campaign, saying he hoped his win was proof that grassroots politics was more valuable than “heavy dollars.”
More than 30 years later, Becerra, 68, is again an upstart candidate — this time for California governor. Again he is facing monied competition — including from chief Democratic rival Tom Steyer, a self-funded billionaire — and relying on Latino and other grassroots support.
California gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra speaks during a campaign event in Los Angeles on April 18.
(Jae C. Hong / Associated Press)
“You are the people power that it takes,” he told a crowd of supporters at a recent “Fighting for the California Dream” town hall in Los Angeles. “California wasn’t built by billionaires. It was built by your families. It was built by our families.”
That Becerra is still fighting in the race — and drawing new people to his events — reflects a remarkable and hard-to-explain turnaround for a campaign that appeared all but dead less than a month ago, then bounded back into contention after Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped from the race and resigned from Congress amid sexual assault allegations.
Before Swalwell’s collapse, Becerra’s biggest splash in the race came in March, when USC excluded him and other low-performing candidates from a planned debate. The criteria left every candidate of color out, and after Becerra and others complained, the forum was canceled.
A California Democratic Party tracking poll, released in early April before the Swalwell scandal broke, showed Becerra near the bottom of the field with 4% support among likely voters. In a party poll taken after it broke, Becerra’s support jumped to 13% — the biggest increase of any candidate.
Certainly some of Swalwell’s supporters shifted to Becerra, but political observers are still pondering why so many did — and not to Steyer, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter or other Democrats with single-digit support, such as former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa or San José Mayor Matt Mahan.
Whatever the answer, Becerra’s surge has sparked fresh interest in his candidacy. It also has raised questions about his time as California attorney general, when he sued the first Trump administration more than 120 times, and U.S. Health and Human Services secretary, when he backed the Biden administration’s strict COVID-19 rules and oversaw the agency’s response to a massive influx of unaccompanied minors at the southern border.
It has also put a growing target on Becerra’s back — including at Wednesday night’s gubernatorial debate, when rivals criticized him as a “D.C. insider” with poorly detailed plans for the state — and sparked hope among many Latinos that California will elect one of them as governor for the first time in state history, sending a strong message of resistance to the intensely anti-immigrant Trump administration.
Of course, Becerra faces hurdles. Steyer, a hedge fund founder who has donated more than $130 million to his own campaign, has been ahead of him in polling, as have two Republicans: Silicon Valley entrepreneur and former Fox News host Steve Hilton, who has President Trump’s endorsement, and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. Only the top two candidates in the June 2 primary advance to the November election.
Still, Becerra now has a path to victory, one that did not exist even a month ago, and new funding. Many Democratic voters remain undecided, and many — shocked by the Swalwell scandal — are looking for another Democratic front-runner to back.
In an interview with The Times, Becerra said he’s the man for the job, because “California needs a work horse, not a show horse.”
Xavier Becerra, left, gathers with other candidates for Los Angeles mayor in 2000.
(Gary Friedman / Los Angeles Times)
Rising wave of Latino political power
A Sacramento native and the son of a Mexican immigrant mother and a Mexican American father, Becerra graduated from Stanford Law School and served as a deputy to California Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp before being elected in 1990 to the California Assembly.
In 1993, Becerra entered Congress on a rising wave of Latino political power and the heels of a fractious presidential election in which former White House aide Pat Buchanan challenged President George H.W. Bush in the Republican primary on a stridently anti-immigrant, “America First” message — one Trump repurposed in both 2016 and 2024.
It was a defining political moment for Latinos across the country, and for Becerra personally, said Fernando Guerra, founding director of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University.
“He certainly has been and is part of the incorporation of Latinos into California history and California politics, and it really begins in the early ’90s,” Guerra said. “His rise and political career is really a reflection of the rise and political incorporation of Latinos.”
In 1994, Becerra helped oppose Proposition 187, a state initiative to deny undocumented immigrants access to public education and healthcare. In 1996, he sharply criticized the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which cut federal benefits for many legal immigrants. By 1997, Becerra — just 39 — was chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the first Latino member to serve on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.
By 2016, Becerra, 58, was the highest-ranking Latino in Congress when then-Gov. Jerry Brown tapped him to replace a Senate-bound Kamala Harris as California attorney general. There, Becerra played a key role in defending the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, against Republican attacks.
Then-U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra arrives for a hearing to discuss reopening schools during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021.
(Greg Nash / Associated Press)
Criticism and praise
In a rush of endorsements in recent days, Becerra’s supporters have lauded his executive experience, calling him a “proven leader” who, amid constant threats from the Trump administration, is “ready to fight back on day one.”
Becerra’s critics also have pointed to his leadership record, but to highlight what they contend are glaring failures.
Steyer spokesman Kevin Liao alleged Becerra was “absent, ineffective, or too late” in responding to COVID-19 and other public health crises as health secretary, and that California “cannot afford incompetence, or someone who disappears when things get hard.”
The remarks echoed others made during the pandemic, including by Eric Topol, who is executive vice president of Scripps Research in La Jolla, a professor of translational medicine and a cardiologist. During the pandemic, Topol accused Becerra of being “invisible” in the fight to control it. In a recent interview, he said he still believes that.
Topol said the Biden administration’s COVID response was defined by poor data collection and “infighting” among agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, including on vital issues such as when Americans should receive booster shots and how long they should isolate after infection.
Becerra “basically took a very absent, low profile — didn’t show up, didn’t harmonize the remarkable infighting,” Topol said. “The buck stops with him.”
Dr. David A. Kessler, the Biden administration’s top science official on COVID-19 and now a professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at UC San Francisco, fiercely defended Becerra, crediting him with rolling out some 676 million vaccines and steering the nation out of a wildly unfamiliar health crisis with substantial success — what Kessler called a “historical achievement” that proved government “can do big things.”
Kessler said Becerra rightly assessed that the country needed to hear from medical experts, not politicians, and so deferred at times to the doctors, epidemiologists and vaccinologists he smartly surrounded himself with and trusted — but he was never absent. “He enabled us. He was there. Anything I needed, he helped deliver,” Kessler said.
Becerra said there were a lot of people involved with the COVID-19 fight, including a White House team launched before his confirmation as health secretary. Still, it was his agency that ultimately led the response, and helped bring the pandemic to an end, he said.
“At the end of four years, when we had put some 700 million COVID shots into the arms of Americans and pulled the country and our economy out of the COVID crisis, it was HHS — and I was the secretary of HHS,” he said.
Becerra’s rivals in the governor’s race also have attacked him for how he responded to an influx of unaccompanied immigrant minors during the pandemic. They allege Becerra rushed their release to relatives and other sponsors while ignoring concerns from career health staff that some of those placements weren’t safe — resulting in thousands of kids being lost to the system, forced into child labor or trafficked.
The criticism stems in part from a sweeping New York Times investigation that found the health department couldn’t find some 85,000 children it had released, that Becerra had relaxed screening processes for sponsors and that placement concerns from career health staff went ignored or were silenced.
The investigation by reporter Hannah Dreier found that thousands of the 250,000 or so migrant children who arrived in the U.S. between early 2021 and early 2023 had “ended up in punishing jobs across the country — working overnight in slaughterhouses, replacing roofs, operating machinery in factories — all in violation of child labor laws.”
Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra holds a news conference in Border Field State Park in San Diego in 2017.
(Francine Orr/ Los Angeles Times)
It found there were many signs of “the explosive growth of this labor force,” and that staff had repeatedly flagged concerns about it in reports that reached Becerra’s desk. It also reported that, during a staff meeting in the summer of 2022, Becerra had pressed staff to move children even more quickly through the process, comparing them to factory parts.
“If Henry Ford had seen this in his plants, he would have never become famous and rich. This is not the way you do an assembly line,” Becerra said, according to a recording of the meeting obtained by the newspaper.
Danni Wang, another Steyer spokesperson, said children “were handed to gang members, traffickers, and abusers because [Becerra] stripped the background checks that had protected them for years.”
Becerra said the controversy is one he has addressed publicly for years, including in multiple congressional hearings. He said his team worked diligently to properly vet sponsors and do right by the thousands of children in their care, despite Congress failing to provide the budget needed to restore a system of licensed care facilities that the first Trump administration had dismantled.
“It was a wreck. They had closed facilities, they had fired the licensed caregivers. And remember, this was during COVID, [when] you didn’t want anyone to be near each other,” he said. “How do you take care of thousands of kids in a center that could house maybe 50 kids?”
He said he led an aggressive push to stand up temporary facilities — including in places like the San Diego Convention Center — while rebuilding the licensed care facilities Trump had dismantled and working to place kids into the community as quickly and safely as possible.
Ron Klain, who served as Biden’s chief of staff for the first two years of the administration, said Becerra helped lead the administration out of the crisis by being “an outspoken advocate” for the children in its care.
“Xavier was very, very insistent in meetings and very outspoken on the risk that some of these people [the kids] were being placed with were not the proper people to place them with, and pushed hard for more rigor in the process,” Klain said.
Becerra also has faced criticism and questions related to the federal indictment of his former chief of staff Sean McCluskie, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud after authorities accused him of stealing some $225,000 from Becerra’s dormant state political campaign account.
Becerra was not implicated in the scandal — which he’s previously described as a “gut punch” — and said he did everything he could to ensure McCluskie and others were held accountable once it came to light, including by providing “testimony and documents” to the FBI and federal prosecutors.
Hilton has said the scandal, which also implicated a former aide to Gov. Gavin Newsom, showed that “corruption has become totally ingrained and systemic” under Democratic rule in California.
Looking ahead
Experts said Becerra’s long resume will help him stand out in a race with less experienced competitors and no household names — and that Californians electing a Latino for the first time, as the Trump administration conducts one of the largest ever deportation campaigns, dismantles immigrant rights and targets people on the street based largely on their looking and sounding Latino, would be a major political moment.
Becerra said his extensive experience should matter to voters, because such experience will be necessary in the pivotal and no doubt chaotic Trump years ahead, when “pizzazz and dazzle” will matter less than steady competence from “someone who’s actually been in the midst of that hurricane” before.
“It helps to have gone through these things. I’ve been there, I’ve done that, and I’ve done it successfully,” he said. “I’ve proven that, whether it was taking on Donald Trump toe to toe as the [attorney general], whether it was getting us out of COVID working closely with the White House to deploy the resources and get that done, we made it happen.”
The Red Roses jamboree roared into Bristol, attracting a record crowd for their third consecutive match at this Six Nations and bringing with it a sea of white shirts, red cowgirl hats and rose-petal headwear galore. And, most importantly, tries.
Fresh from crossing 12 times against Scotland at Murrayfield last week, England scored another 10 tries in a 62-24 victory over Wales – a result that leaves John Mitchell’s side top of the table with maximum points from three matches.
With a fifth consecutive Triple Crown secured, they remain on course for a record eighth straight Women’s Six Nations title.
Impressive statistics. But attack coach Emily Scarratt told BBC Two the dressing room was a little “muted” after the game.
Yes, England won comfortably and without ever losing control to extend their record unbeaten run to 36 Tests, but this wasn’t the steamrollering many expected, with Wales – to use Mitchell’s word – “surprising” them.
The visitors scored four tries – including two in the final 10 minutes as England’s concentration wandered – to pick up a valuable bonus point, and twice profited after bamboozling England with their line-out routine.
England were, at times, guilty of poor discipline – giving away nine penalties – and sloppy handling. Improvements will need to be made by the time they face title rivals France in round five.
“You’re always in a Test match when you play a team like Wales,” said Scarratt. “I thought they really brought it today and posed some different challenges for us, which is pretty awesome in our development.
“We still got a pretty good job done. There’s a muted sense in the group, which is obviously a really good feeling when you put a score on like that.”
But while Wales fired a couple of warning shots, this was another routine win for England and one that does little to assuage concerns the Six Nations is too predictable and their dominance may not benefit themselves and the game.
Passengers have been advised to check with their airlines before they travel
The Department for Transport has said ‘we recognise that families may be concerned’ amid jet fuel worries(Image: Getty)
The Government has said it is “closely monitoring” UK jet fuel stocks as airlines prepare for a potential shortage. UK airlines have insisted they are “not currently seeing a shortage of jet fuel” as they buy it in advance and airports maintain stocks, the Department for Transport (DfT) said in an update published on Friday evening.
But airports will also make it easier for airlines to cancel flights without running the risk of losing their allocated “slots” – scheduled times for take-off or landing which some UK airports assign to airlines – if fuel shortages prevent them from flying.
Passengers have been advised to check with their airlines before they travel – and ensure they have appropriate travel insurance, according to the DfT.
This comes as oil prices continue to soar on the back of the US-Israel war on Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
“There is no current need to change upcoming travel plans,” the DfT statement said.
“Since the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, we have been closely monitoring UK jet fuel stocks and working with airlines, airports and fuel suppliers to ensure passengers keep moving and businesses are supported.
“Government regularly meets with industry to monitor risks, understand pressures and ensure clear communication with passengers, should circumstances change.”
It added: “We recognise that families may be concerned, and that aviation and tourism businesses are operating in challenging global conditions.
“We are working hand in hand with industry to help flights keep operating.”
The DfT said airlines will also no longer be required to follow the “use it or lose it” rule at UK airports, whereby airlines must use at least 80% of their allocated slots during a season to keep them for the following year.
“Airport Coordination Limited, the independent body that manages slot allocation at UK airports, has updated its guidance so that airlines will not lose their slots if fuel shortages prevent them from flying,” the DfT update said.
“Airlines can now apply for an exemption from the ‘use it or lose it’ rule in these circumstances.” A spokesperson for Jet2 said its flight schedule remains unaffected for the foreseeable future.
“We remain in continual dialogue with our fuel suppliers, as is standard practice,” the spokesperson said. “Based on the conversations we have been having, we see no reason not to look forward to operating our scheduled programme of flights and holidays as normal.”
The airline also confirmed there will be no surcharge on any booked flights or holidays to cover cost increases, including those linked to jet fuel.
“Amidst speculation that some airlines and travel companies may introduce such surcharges, which would mean their customers facing additional costs after making a booking, Jet2 has removed the surcharge provision across all flights and holidays, even though the company has never previously applied them,” the airline announced on Friday.
Steve Heapy, CEO of Jet2, said: “Holidaymakers should have every right to book their hard-earned break in the sun, without worrying about being hit with additional costs, and they can have that complete assurance when they book a flight or holiday with Jet2.
“As a result of today’s announcement, customers booking with Jet2 know that they are locking in their price without additional cost surprises later and we strongly believe that is the right thing to do by them.”
It is understood that Virgin Atlantic and easyJet are also expecting to operate as normal.
LOGAN, Utah — President Trump’s administration took the unusual step this week of sending a government plane to Cuba to return a 10-year-old from Utah who is at the center of a complicated and contentious custody fight involving the child’s gender identity.
The child’s parent, Rose Inessa-Ethington, a transgender woman, is accused of taking the child to Cuba without the permission of the biological mother. Federal and state authorities sought the return of the child after a family member expressed concern that Inessa-Ethington went to Havana to get the child gender transition surgery.
Inessa-Ethington, who had run a popular Utah political blog in the 2010s, was arrested along with her partner, Blue Inessa-Ethington, and charged in the U.S. with international parental kidnapping.
The couple traveled with the child to Canada ostensibly for a camping trip in late March with Blue’s 3-year-old child. However, the two adults turned off their phones after telling the older child’s mother they had arrived in Canada. They flew from Vancouver to Mexico and then to Cuba on April 1, according to a criminal complaint filed Monday in federal court in Utah.
The charges don’t say if the couple actually planned on getting the child gender-affirming surgery in Cuba or how they would get it because that surgery isn’t legal for children in Cuba.
The FBI said that Blue Inessa-Ethington withdrew $10,000 from her checking account before leaving. Agents also found at their home a note with instructions from a mental health therapist in Washington, D.C., “to send the therapist the $10,000.00 and instructions on gender affirming medical care for children.” That note didn’t mention Cuba.
The use of the Department of Justice plane in a parental kidnapping investigation comes after the Trump administration sought to block access to gender-affirming care for minors and pressured healthcare providers over the issue.
The Associated Press left telephone and email messages with the court-appointed attorneys who represented Blue and Rose Inessa-Ethington in Virginia. The defendants will be returned to Utah to face one count each of international parental kidnapping, according to court filings.
Search began after child wasn’t returned as scheduled
The search for the child began on April 3 when they were not returned to the mother in Utah as scheduled, court documents show.
The 10-year-old’s mother, who was divorced from Rose Inessa-Ethington and had shared custody of the child, filed a missing-person report with police in Logan, Utah, a college and dairy farming town about 70 miles north of Salt Lake City.
Logan City Police Chief Jeff Simmons said his department’s initial focus was on the custodial interference allegations in the case, and he said investigators did not learn until later about concerns over gender-affirming surgery.
Logan police spokesperson Sgt. Brandon Bevan said those concerns were raised by one family member. He declined to say who.
“They just had the concern about it, no actual physical evidence,” Bevan said.
A Utah state judge ordered the return of the 10-year-old to the child’s mother on April 13. Three days later, a federal magistrate judge issued an arrest warrant for the Inessa-Ethingtons. On the same day, Cuban law enforcement located the group. They were deported to the U.S. aboard the government plane Monday and arraigned in federal court in Richmond, Va.
The 10-year-old was returned to the child’s biological mother, First Assistant U.S. Atty. Melissa Holyoak in Utah indicated in a statement. Representatives of the FBI and U.S. attorneys office in Utah declined to say what happened to the 3-year-old child who had been with the group.
Parents engaged in custody dispute
The custody dispute between the parents does not appear to be a new development. An online fundraiser created five years go by Blue Inessa-Ethington titled “Help a Trans Mother Keep Custody of Her Child” raised $9,766.
“Last week, Rose’s ex relocated several counties away, negatively impacting Rose’s parent-time with the child,” she wrote on the fundraising page. She said the money would be used to seek a court order that would keep the child “safe and stable throughout this process.”
Anyone who has spent time with Rose knows “how much care and thought she puts into parenting her gender open child,” she wrote.
Family members said the child was assigned male at birth but identifies as a girl because of what they believed to be “manipulation” by Rose Inessa-Ethington, according to an April 16 affidavit from FBI Special Agent Jennifer Waterfield.
Gender-affirming care for minors has been limited
The Trump administration moved in December to cut off gender-affirming care for minors, prompting a third of states to sue.
It was the latest in a series of clashes between an administration that says transgender healthcare can be harmful to children and advocates who say it’s medically necessary.
Gender-affirming surgery is rare among U.S. children, research shows. Guidance from several major medical organizations calls for caution around surgery for minors and says decisions about treatments are case-by-case. Fewer than 1 in 1,000 U.S. adolescents receive gender-affirming medications, such as hormones or puberty blockers.
In Cuba, gender-affirming surgeries are banned for minors and performed only for adults through the public health system under strict supervision in designated public hospitals for Cuban citizens. They must be authorized by a medical commission after a comprehensive review of the patient’s file. That process often takes years because it requires a wide range of medical and psychological evaluations.
Brown, Boone and Schoenbaum write for the Associated Press. Brown reported from Billings, Mont., and Boone from Boise, Idaho. AP journalists Eric Tucker in Washington, Cristiana Mesquita in Havana and Devi Shastri in Milwaukee contributed to this report.
A former executive at Live Nation, the world’s largest live entertainment company, is suing the company, alleging that he was wrongfully terminated after he raised concerns about alleged financial misconduct and improper accounting practices.
Nicholas Rumanes alleges he was “fraudulently induced” in 2022 to leave a lucrative position as head of strategic development at a real estate investment trust to create a new role as executive vice president of development and business practice at Beverly Hills-based Live Nation.
In his new position, Rumanes said, he raised “serious and legitimate alarm” over the the company’s business practices.
As a result, he says, he was “unlawfully terminated,” according to the lawsuit filed Thursday in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
“Rumanes was, simply put, promised one job and forced to accept another. And then he was cut loose for insisting on doing that lesser job with integrity and honesty,” according to the lawsuit.
He is seeking $35 million in damages.
Representatives for Live Nation were not immediately available for comment.
Rumanes’ lawsuit describes a “culture of deception” at Live Nation, saying its “basic business model was to misstate and exaggerate financial figures in efforts to solicit and secure business.”
Such practices “spanned a wide spectrum of projects in what appeared to be a company-wide pattern of financial misrepresentation and misleading disclosures,” the lawsuit states.
Rumanes says he received materials and documents that showed that the company inflated projected revenues across multiple venue development projects.
Additionally, Rumanes contends that the company violated a federal law that requires independent financial auditing and transparency and instead ran Live Nation “through a centralized, opaque structure” that enables it to “bypass oversight and internal checks and balances.”
In 2010, as a condition of the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger, the newly formed company agreed to a consent decree with the government that prohibited the firm from threatening venues to use Ticketmaster. In 2019 the Justice Department found that the company had repeatedly breached the agreement, and it extended the decree.
Rumanes contends that he brought his concerns to the attention of the company’s management, but his warnings were “repeatedly ignored.”
ATLANTA — U.S. Rep. David Scott, a Georgia Democrat and the first Black chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, has died. He was 80.
Scott, who was seeking his 13th term in Congress despite challenges from within his party, was once a leading voice for Democrats on issues related to farm aid policy and food aid for consumers and a prominent Black member of the party’s moderate Blue Dog caucus. But he faced criticism and concerns in recent years because of declining health, enduring a primary challenge in 2024 and facing another one at the time of his death.
Democrats on Capitol Hill praised the longtime lawmaker.
“The news of Congressman Scott’s passing is deeply sad,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters on Wednesday.
“David Scott was a trailblazer who served district that he represented admirably, rose up from humble beginnings to become the first African American ever to chair the House Ag Committee,” Jeffries said. “He cared about the people that he represented. He was fiercely committed to getting things done for the people of the great state of Georgia, and he’ll be deeply missed.”
News of Scott’s death came during the Congressional Black Caucus’ weekly luncheon on Capitol Hill. The Black Caucus’ chair, Rep. Yvette Clarke, told lawmakers at the outset of the meeting, according to a person who insisted on anonymity to discuss a private conversation. Many lawmakers in the room, some of whom had served with Scott for decades, were shocked and saddened by the news.
Scott’s death slightly widens Republicans’ narrow House majority going into the thick of this midterm election year.
The congressman was not especially active on the campaign trail in 2026. But he had been dismissive of pressure to retire.
“Thank God I’m in good health, moving and doing the people’s work,” Scott said in 2024.
David Albert Scott was born in rural Aynor, South Carolina, on June 27, 1945, in the era of Jim Crow segregation. He graduated from Florida A&M University, one of the nation’s largest historically Black college campuses — and in office he was an outspoken advocate for federal support of HBCUs. Scott also earned an MBA from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.
He was already a veteran state lawmaker in Georgia before being elected to Congress in 2002.
Barrow, Brown and Amy write for the Associated Press. Brown reported from Washington.
DENVER — The Dodgers announced Monday that Edwin Díaz will undergo surgery to remove “loose bodies” in his right elbow and the closer isn’t expected to return until some point in the second half of the season.
Díaz, 32, has a 10.50 ERA in seven appearances this season for the Dodgers, who made a splash signing the high-profile free agent to a three-year $69-million deal, a record for a reliever.
The Dodgers recalled 27-year-old left-handed long reliever Jake Eder to replace Díaz on the roster.
Díaz gave up three runs and failed to get an out in the Dodgers’ 9-6 loss to the Colorado Rockies in a non-save situation Sunday, in what was his first appearance in nine days.
He entered the game and gave up a walk and three base hits, including a two-RBI single to Edouard Julien. Afterward, Dodgers manager Dave Roberts expressed concern about Díaz’s performance: “I know what it’s supposed to look like, and when it doesn’t look like that, it gets a little concerning, really.”
Before the Dodgers played their final game of the four-game series against the Colorado Rockies on Monday, Roberts said that the diagnosis provides some clarity, and that Díaz only began feeling discomfort in his elbow Sunday.
Before that Roberts said the plan was to “tread lightly” with the pitcher’s workload, unsure why the velocity of his pitches was down.
“Obviously, we all saw the stuff [Sunday], and it sent up red flags,” Roberts said. “And so, after the game, he had a conversation with our training staff, and felt that he had some elbow discomfort. So we just wanted to be proactive, and felt that it was smart to get an MRI, get imaging, which we did do, and it showed loose bodies.”
Having experienced the same thing as a player, Roberts explained, “you have loose bodies and they’re asymptomatic until they’re not.”
Dodgers closer Edwin Díaz jogs to the mound during the ninth inning against the Cleveland Guardians at Dodger Stadium on March 31.
(Ronaldo Bolanos / Los Angeles Times)
A 10-year veteran, Díaz is a three-time All-Star. For his career, he has 257 saves in 300 opportunities with 849 strikeouts.
General manager Brandon Gomes said the Dodgers are “as confident as we can be” that Díaz will return to top form.
“Our understanding is that it’s a pretty straightforward procedure,” Gomes said. “We’re going to take our time with getting him back and being mindful of the buildup, and make sure he’s in a really good position to come out and compete at the highest level of what we expect.
“It’s the benefit of having a deeper staff and a talented team that it’s never easy to lose somebody like Edwin, but we’ll get through it and it’ll be a collective effort to keep winning baseball games.”
Roberts said he doesn’t plan to name a substitute closer in Díaz’s place, and the manager acknowledged that the news will significantly alter how he’ll use the bullpen.
“It does change it. In a big way,” Roberts said. “I do think being able to deploy guys in their right lanes or pockets has been helpful. But with that, I do think that Alex [Vesia] has been throwing the baseball really well. Tanner [Scott has] been throwing the baseball really well, and outside of last night, Blake [Treinen] was throwing the baseball really well.
“But it does kind of not allow us to work from the back end, which is certainly a luxury.”
The Dodgers have had unfortunate luck signing big-name relievers. In 2025 they signed left-hander Scott to a four-year $72-million deal. He then led the league with 10 blown saves last season and the Dodgers removed him from their postseason roster, replacing him with left-hander Justin Wrobleski, who was set to start Monday as the team played for a series split at Coors Field.
