control

For Democrats or, for that matter, anyone who believes in checks and balances, things are starting to look up.

President Trump’s days of untrammeled war-making, law-breaking and generally doing whatever he damn well pleases may finally be drawing to a close. Public opinion, history and, especially, the surging price of gasoline and groceries, all point to a Democratic takeover of the House in November’s midterm election.

There’s a direct correlation between a president’s approval rating and the way his party performs at the midpoint of his term. Anything below 50% favorability portends political trouble; right now Trump’s positive standing in polls hovers around a dismal 40%.

Then there’s the history part. Since World War II, the party out of the White House has gained an average of more than two dozen House seats in midterm elections. Democrats need to pick up just three to take control beginning in January.

(While the Republican grip on the Senate seems weaker than just a few months ago, the GOP is still favored to hang onto the chamber in November.)

There is, however, a looming threat causing nervousness among Democrats and their allies as they contemplate a celebratory fall, a landmine of sorts buried deep in the congressional election process.

Let’s acquaint ourselves with Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution.

The pertinent language written by the Framers states, “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.” In other words, it’s up to the House and Senate to acknowledge and abide by the will of voters as expressed in the election returns.

What could possibly go wrong?

Well, if you let your paranoia run wild, quite a lot. If the election outcome is close — and probably it would have to be very close — Republican lawmakers could theoretically seize on phony claims of fraud and effectively nullify the results of enough contests to deny Democrats control of the House.

There’s plenty of skepticism that would or could ever take place. But if it were to happen, hello, national crisis!

Normally, we could count on the occupant of the White House to humbly submit to the election returns, even if it’s a “shellacking” as President Obama called his walloping in the 2010 midterm election, or a “thumpin’ ” as President George W. Bush described his electoral spanking in 2006.

Not Trump.

This president has amply demonstrated the lengths to which he’ll go to overturn an honest election, siccing a violent mob on lawmakers certifying his 2020 defeat, telling endless lies and using the Justice Department to confiscate ballots and intimidate innocent election officials and others Trump deems his enemies.

He strong-armed Texas into a highly unusual, highly partisan redrawing of its congressional boundaries, an effort to net five seats and lengthen the odds against a Democratic takeover.

The move appears to have backfired, spurring voters in California and, last week, Virginia to redraw their state’s political maps to more than offset Texas and boost Democrats in November. (The Virginia results are being contested in court.)

Voters attend an Arlington Democrats redistricting vote watch party during a special election Tuesday in Virginia. A measure to redraw the state’s congressional map was narrowly approved.

(Valerie Plesch/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

That failure doesn’t take away Trump’s malign intent. And in the supine Speaker Mike Johnson, he has the perfect handmaiden to undermine the midterm vote.

In 2020, Johnson was the lead author of a Supreme Court brief seeking to overturn the results in four states that Joe Biden had indisputably won. That speaks to Johnson’s probity and integrity.

How would subversion of November’s election take place?

One theory goes like this: When the balloting is over, Johnson could appoint a House committee packed with Trump’s acolytes to investigate alleged voting irregularities. (And if you think Trump won’t be bellowing the words “rigged” and “fraud” in the face of defeat, you’ve either been in a coma or living on another planet for the last decade.)

Those hearings and the “evidence” they turn up could then be cited by election officials in key states — collaborators, if you will — as a reason to delay the certification of election results and block the seating of majority-making Democrats in the next Congress. In their place, the theory goes, Republicans could vote to fill those seats with GOP candidates who lost at the polls, keeping themselves in control.

Derek Muller, an election law expert, suggests that scenario is little more than a fever dream of doomsday devotees and overly nervous Nellies.

He said he’d be very surprised if all the election results weren’t certified by Jan. 3, when the new Congress convenes, given the legal remedies available to prevent stalling and undue delay. And, Muller said, there is no assurance Republicans would march in lockstep behind a plan to prevent the seating of Democrats.

Thwarting a duly elected Democratic majority “involves extraordinary coordination and precedents that have never occurred, with a unique convergence of factors,” said Muller, who teaches law at Notre Dame — though, he added, if control of the House came down to, say, a single seat “all bets are off.”

Far-fetched? Perhaps. Some of the spun-up theories surrounding November’s election do sound a bit like a product of political science fiction.

But what kind of president picks a fight with the pope? Plunges the world into crisis by unilaterally going to war with Iran with no exit plan? Demolishes the East Wing of the White House on an egotistical whim?

If Trump, an inveterate norm-buster, sees a way to keep his grip on unchecked power, don’t put anything past him.

Body language expert, Judi James, gives her analysis of the battle between the male stars during the clash on the I’m A Celebrity… South Africa live final and she reveals who came out on top

Male dominance took centre stage as the stars of the I’m A Celebrity… South Africa final battled out their differences during the live final on Friday night. Campmates Jimmy Bullard and David Haye clashed with show hosts Ant McPartlin and Declan Donnelly in tense scenes.

Speaking to the Mirror, leading body language expert Judi James shared her take on the shocking scenes that unfolded onscreen as she admitted seeing the men embroiled in a conflict rooted in a desire to obtain attention and the spotlight. Judi explained: “For this series the winning of that spotlight looked brutal, with arguments being the main form of currency to get attention on the final show here.

“You could see the rigid, unhappy and blank poker faces of Gemma [Collins], Scarlett [Moffatt] and Ashley [Roberts] as the lead men continued to steal the spotlight by continuing their arguments during the live final. Gemma, Scarlett and Ashley looked drained and resigned here while the battle for screen time raged about them.”

Judi also pointed out how Ant appeared to be particularly ‘angry’ as he fought to maintain his “professional authority” in the midst of the chaos. She continued: “And the rage did look real, especially from Ant, whose professional authority as host and as real star of the show with Dec also became compromised, leading to a stand-up spat between Ant and Jimmy.

“Jimmy made this show about him by dominating air time that should have been evenly dispersed. It became the Jimmy show and that appeared to be David’s cue to try to regain some attention by joining in. David’s body language display suggested a strong desire to gain profile interest and power by performing a full splay, throwing his arms out wide in a signature pose from his time in the ring.

“It suggested a desire to hold alpha status in the group too and it prompted Ant and Dec to try to close him down with an authoritative approach and some ‘cancelling’ hand gestures to stop a new conflict.

“At this point we could also see Sinitta vying to gain attention from her end with a raised arm and point. When she walked we could also see how she showboated to the cameras on the way out in an attention fight-back, whereas Gemma just walked out in what looked like genuine frustration.”

Judi then highlighted how one male cast member tried to disassociate himself from the antics of the others as Ant showed his position as the “authoritative leader.” She continued: “In one key moment of conflict we had David splaying, Jimmy standing and Harry Redknapp puffing dramatically and looking down to exit from any connection to the drama.

“When Gemma walked, Ant reached peak anger signals. Dec stopped mirroring him here and it was Ant taking total control as authoritative leader.

“His angry stare suggested this was not an act for the camera, and he stabbed both hands onto his own chest in a gesture that signalled he was in charge before engaging in a pointed finger ‘duel’ with Jimmy. There was one final, stabbing point gesture from Ant that should have warned Jimmy that he needed to stop.”

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on

TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

Reports of unauthorised access to one of the most powerful Artificial Intelligence models yet developed have emerged.

Nothing malicious, say the owners – but it has intensified focus on such technology falling into the wrong hands.

So, how is AI being controlled globally?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Ramesh Srinivasan – Professor at UCLA Department of Information Studies, AI and technology specialist.

Marc Einstein – Research director and global head of AI research at Counterpoint Research and digital transformation analyst

Adrian Monck – Senior adviser on AI and technology to the United Nations and Editor of the Seven Things newsletter in Geneva.

Passengers, especially from Britain, have been facing waits of up to three hours at border control, missing flights after new system was introduced

Spanish airports are taking steps to tackle border control chaos affecting British travellers, according to reports from the popular holiday destination. The European Union’s new Entry/Exit System became fully operational on April 10, 2026, and within hours, airports throughout the Schengen zone were plunged into turmoil. Passengers endured waits of up to three hours at border control, missed flights, and were left spending thousands arranging their own journeys home.

Several countries have already responded, with Greece temporarily suspending the new EES entry/exit border control system after non-EU passengers, particularly those from the United Kingdom, encountered lengthy queues. Now the Majorca Daily Bulletin reports that airport authority AENA has apparently directed staff to take whatever measures possible to streamline the process and cut waiting times.

According to VisaHQ, while officials at Madrid-Barajas, Barcelona-El Prat, Málaga, Alicante and Palma airports have confirmed the technology is functioning properly, they have admitted that passenger numbers during peak periods rapidly overwhelmed checkpoint capacity throughout Easter week. Based on guidance issued to frontline personnel on Tuesday evening, airports may temporarily redirect families and travellers with reduced mobility to conventional stamping queues when biometric queue waiting times surpass 25 minutes. They may also stagger flight arrivals through coordination with Aena’s slot management team, a measure already trialled in Málaga. These steps are reportedly “adjustments, not a suspension”, with biometric capture remaining compulsory for first-time registrants.

READ MORE: Spanish airport shuts for five weeks from tomorrow – Ryanair flights cancelled

The new EES system, which was initially introduced back in October, has faced substantial criticism from the travel industry and airlines, and several countries are said to be weighing up whether to follow Greece’s lead with the summer season mere weeks away and the travel sector having to contend with the Middle East crisis alongside threats of fuel shortages and rising airfares, which are doing little to bolster consumer confidence.

AENA airports

• A Coruña (LCG)
• Adolfo Suárez Madrid-Barajas (MAD)
• Albacete (ABC)
• Algeciras (AEI)
• Alicante-Elche Miguel Hernández (ALC)
• Almería (LEI)
• Asturias (OVD)
• Badajoz (BJZ)
• Bilbao (BIO)
• Burgos (RGS)
• Ceuta (JCU)
• César Manrique-Lanzarote (ACE)
• Córdoba (ODB)
• El Hierro (VDE)
• Federico García Lorca Granada-Jaén (GRX)
• Fuerteventura (FUE)
• Girona-Costa Brava (GRO)
• Gran Canaria (LPA)
• Huesca-Pirineos (HSK)
• Ibiza (IBZ)
• Jerez (XRY)
• Josep Tarradellas Barcelona-El Prat (BCN)
• La Gomera (GMZ)
• La Palma (SPC)

Budget carrier Ryanair this week announced that passengers requiring its airport check-in or bag-drop services will need to complete the process 20 minutes earlier. The airline confirmed it will close these services an hour before a flight’s scheduled departure – compared with 40 minutes at present – to allow passengers additional time to navigate security and passport checks. This will cut down on the “very small number of passengers” who miss their flight while caught in queues, the airline added. Ryanair’s website states that passengers who fail to check in on time “may be denied boarding without refund”.

The new policy will take effect from November 10 and follows the introduction of the EES.

The British travel association ABTA has said that alongside implementing the contingency measures, destinations and border authorities must do more to prepare for peak travel periods. This should include deploying additional border guards during the busiest times. Mark Tanzer, Chief Executive of ABTA – The Travel Association said: “The ambition of a project like EES means it was never going to go completely smoothly, and we were prepared for that.

“However, what is frustrating is that border authorities have it within their power to ease queues and deal with issues as they arise – but that doesn’t seem to be happening across the board. As we head towards peak travel periods, we’re urging border authorities to plan for busy periods and use the contingency measure available. It’s critical the Commission keeps a close eye on this.”

Ryanair chief marketing officer Dara Brady said the “small 20-minute change” will “allow these 20% of our customers who check in a bag more time to clear through airport security and passport queues, and get to their departure gate on time”. He added that this will be particularly important “during busy travel periods when some of these airport queues can be longer”. Numerous UK travellers are experiencing hold-ups at airports across continental Europe due to the introduction of new border regulations.

The EU’s Entry/Exit System (EES) requires visitors from non-member countries such as the UK to have their fingerprints recorded and photograph captured to enter the Schengen Area, which comprises 29 European countries, predominantly within the EU.

Earlier this month, over 100 easyJet passengers caught up in lengthy waits at passport control at Milan Linate airport missed their flight to Manchester. Ryanair has announced it is rolling out additional self-service bag drop kiosks throughout its network.

By October, more than 95% of the airports it operates from will be equipped with these facilities.

World number one Judd Trump recovered from a slow start to defeat Gary Wilson in their first-round match.

Trump, the 2019 champion, lost four of the first five frames as Wilson, ranked 27th, moved into a 4-1 lead.

But Trump then claimed the final four frames of the session, including superb breaks of 128 and 77, to hold a 5-4 advantage.

However, Wilson, a three-time ranking event winner, made the highest break of the session with a superb 139 clearance in frame five.

In the second session later on Tuesday, Wilson made a break of 58 to make it 5-5, but Trump pulled clear by winning five in a row to seal a 10-5 success.

Trump, 36, has been top of the world rankings since August 2024 and will extend that run if he reaches the quarter-finals.

“I like being number one, it’s going to be difficult to keep it unless I do really well in the next season but I take a lot of pride in it,” he said.

Trump lives in Dubai but, because of the recent conflict in the Middle East, he left the area temporarily.

“I had to stay in Thailand for a month, and I managed to practice for the World Championship, but it has been more back to normal now,” he said.

“Dubai is still my base, I’ve been back there in the last couple of weeks and everything is normal.”

A downbeat Wilson, speaking to BBC Four, said: “It’s just constant disappointment. I am, and always have been since the age of 13, a better player than this.

“It’s a constant struggle. The yips are getting worse and I’m just riding through it.”

April 17 (Asia Today) — Japan is moving to strengthen a government-wide system to boost defense exports, including creating a centralized control structure and easing restrictions on what military equipment can be sold overseas, according to media reports.

The government plans to establish a director-general-level coordination body involving key ministries to oversee arms export policy and execution, the Asahi Shimbun reported Thursday.

Tokyo is also considering revising guidelines tied to its Three Principles on Defense Equipment Transfers to remove restrictions on five categories – rescue, transport, patrol, surveillance and mine countermeasures – that have limited exports so far.

According to Reuters, the government could move as early as this month to revise the guidelines, with the ruling Liberal Democratic Party already approving the direction at a party meeting Sunday.

The policy shift reflects a broader strategy with two main goals: expanding the range of weapons Japan can export and overhauling how those exports are managed.

Japan has effectively limited defense exports to non-lethal equipment in the past but is now moving to include systems with lethal capabilities. At the same time, the new coordination body would bring together the foreign, defense and industry ministries, along with private companies, to align export approvals, regulatory changes and sales support.

Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi said in parliament that easing arms export restrictions would contribute to economic growth, signaling a shift toward treating defense exports as part of industrial policy rather than solely a security measure.

Japanese officials have argued that expanding exports is necessary to sustain the domestic defense industry, maintain production capacity and secure supply chains that are difficult to support through domestic demand alone.

Analysts say the move goes beyond regulatory changes and represents a broader effort to build a national system designed to facilitate arms sales.

If implemented, the revisions would significantly lower barriers to exporting finished weapons, marking a major shift from Japan’s traditionally restrictive defense export framework.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260417010005454

Top negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf says US naval blockade of Iran’s ports is ‘a clumsy and ignorant decision’.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGC) says the Strait of Hormuz is closed and that any ship that attempts to pass through the waterway will be targeted, a dramatic reversal less than 24 hours after the critical shipping lane was reopened.

In a statement carried by Iran’s Student News Agency, the IRGC navy said on Saturday the strait will be closed until the United States lifts its naval blockade on Iranian vessels and ports. It said the blockade was a violation of the ongoing ceasefire agreement in the US-Israel war on Iran.

“We warn that no vessel of any kind should move from its anchorage in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman, and approaching the Strait of Hormuz will be considered cooperation with the enemy, and the offending vessel will be targeted,” it said.

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliament speaker and a senior negotiator in talks between Washington and Tehran on ending the war, said in a television interview that “the Strait of Hormuz is under the control of the Islamic Republic”.

“The Americans have been declaring a blockade for several days now. This is a clumsy and ignorant decision,” he added.

The reassertion of control came just hours after Iran had briefly reopened the strait, in line with a 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. Oil prices dropped on global markets after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Friday that the waterway was “completely open for all commercial vessels.”

More than a dozen commercial ships passed through the waterway before the IRGC reversed course.

Iranian gunboats reportedly fired on two commercial ships on Saturday, according to United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO). India’s Ministry of External Affairs also said that two Indian-flagged ships were involved in a “shooting incident” in the strait.

Some merchant vessels in the region received radio messages from the IRGC Navy, warning that no ships were being allowed through the strait.

US President Donald Trump said Tehran could not blackmail Washington by closing the waterway and warned that he would put an end to the ceasefire if a deal before its expiry on Wednesday is not reached. Trump added that the naval blockade would “remain in full force”.

Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, meanwhile, said the navy was ready to inflict “new bitter defeats” on its enemies.

‘Two competing blockades’

Al Jazeera correspondent Zein Basravi said that Iran and the US are back where they were the previous day.

“Less than 24 hours ago, world leaders were praising what they thought was a breakthrough in this conflict, hoping Iran was signalling a confidence-building measure by opening the Strait of Hormuz, potentially leading to a ceasefire deal and a permanent end to the war,” he said.

“As disappointed as people may be, this isn’t entirely surprising. What we’re seeing now is a return to square one,” he added, saying there are now “two competing blockades in place”.

Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem, reporting from Tehran, said Iran was using the strait to send a message.

“It’s clear that Iran is dealing with a situation in which they are not sure what’s on the table. So the Strait of Hormuz is once again the only space for engagement, even if it’s a negative engagement. And it’s the space where they are sending and conveying messages to the Americans, showing their leverage,” he said.

PHOENIX — The top election official in Arizona’s most populous county will get more authority in running elections after a judge sided with his office in a prolonged legal fight with the local board that shares responsibility for overseeing the vote.

The decision could have broad implications in one of the nation’s most prominent battleground states, which will have several high-profile races this fall. Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, has been roiled by election conspiracy theorists ever since President Trump lost the state to Democrat Joe Biden during his bid for reelection in 2020.

Justin Heap, the Republican recorder in Maricopa County, sued the predominantly Republican county board of supervisors last summer, alleging it had illegally taken control of certain aspects of election administration. Heap claimed the board transferred funding, IT staff and some key functions — including management of ballot drop boxes and establishing early voting sites — away from his office through an agreement negotiated with his predecessor, whom he had recently defeated in a GOP primary.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney mostly sided with Heap’s office in his ruling, which was filed Thursday but appeared on the public docket Friday. The board of supervisors “acted unlawfully and exceeded its statutory authority by seizing the Recorder’s personnel, systems and equipment and refusing to return them” to the recorder, he wrote.

Blaney also ruled that the recorder’s office is responsible for overseeing in-person early voting, among other duties, while the board is responsible for other operations, such as selecting election day voting locations, supplying polling locations and hiring poll workers.

“The Board’s assertion of plenary authority over election administration through its general supervisory powers is inconsistent with Arizona law,” the judge wrote.

Board Chairwoman Kate Brophy McGee said the board will consider an appeal.

“I disagree with other portions of the ruling, and I will explore all options with the Board of Supervisors, including an expeditious appeal,” McGee, a Republican, said in a statement. “From day one, the Board of Supervisors has provided Recorder Heap the resources and staffing needed to fulfill his statutory duties. We will continue to do so because voters always come first.”

In a statement, Heap praised the ruling as a “clear and decisive victory for the rule of law and for the voters of Maricopa County.”

“The court confirmed that the Board cannot override state law, use funding as leverage, or take control of election duties assigned to the Recorder,” Heap said. “This ruling restores both the authority and the resources necessary for my office to do its job.”

Heap, a former Republican state lawmaker, was elected in 2024 after unseating incumbent Stephen Richer in the GOP primary and defeating a Democratic candidate in the general election. In the past, Heap has stopped short of repeating false claims that the 2020 and 2022 elections were stolen but has said voters don’t trust the state’s voting system and that it’s poorly run.

False claims of fraud since the 2020 presidential election led to threats of violence against Richer and others in the Maricopa County elections office. Richer blamed Heap for contributing to an atmosphere of distrust and vitriol directed toward the office.

“He catered to the really ugly stuff that the people in that office had to live through,” Richer said of Heap, in an interview last month. “And he allied with people who were very much in the eye of the storm in terms of creating it.”

Once he took office, Heap terminated a previous agreement that was reached between Richer and the board that had revised how election operations were divided between the two offices. Heap filed his lawsuit with the backing of America First Legal, a conservative public interest group founded by Stephen Miller, now deputy chief of staff in the White House.

Kelety writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Democrats who once saw retaking the U.S. Senate as a long shot in 2026 have newfound hope thanks to an unpopular president and a California donor machine that has snapped into action.

Californians provided the most out-of-state cash to Democrats in nearly every hotly contested race, and in several cases gave more than in-state donors, according to a Times analysis of campaign finance filings covering the first three months of 2026.

Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, who took in more than $14 million overall, received nearly as much from California backers as from supporters in his home state among donors who contributed at least $200 and whose identities were disclosed.

James Talarico, a Democratic Senate candidate in Texas, has raised a staggering $27 million so far this year, with California donors contributing just under $1.2 million to back his campaign — second only to Texas supporters among those donors whose names were disclosed.

Donors who give less than $200 are not required to be identified in campaign finance reports and made up a significant share of the donors to Ossoff’s and Talarico’s campaigns.

Republicans currently have control of the Senate with 53 of the chamber’s 100 seats. This year 35 seats are at play, including special elections in Florida and Ohio.

GOP still winning a key cash race

While more of the seats up for grabs are in Republican hands, polling showing the potential for tight races in several of them has given Democrats hope that they might be able to shrink or reverse their deficit in November.

Top Democratic candidates have out-raised their GOP rivals in the most competitive Senate races, but Republicans are winning the cash race among big-money committees that can accept checks far larger than the $7,000 cap on donations to candidate committees.

Those Democratic candidates have continued a tradition of relying on donors in the country’s most populous state to bankroll their campaigns.

“California has been a rich gold mine for many a candidate and continues to be that,” said Michael Beckel, director of money in politics reform at Issue One, a bipartisan advocacy group.

Democratic Senate candidates in a few races raised more from California donors than from donors in their home states, according to campaign finance reports filed Wednesday.

Democratic former Rep. Mary Peltola of Alaska, who is challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, brought in nearly $900,000 from California donors who had contributed at least $200. Alaska donors contributed just over $520,000 to Peltola in the same time period.

Two of the three leading Democratic hopefuls in Michigan’s open Senate race, Rep. Haley Stevens and physician Abdul El-Sayed, reported taking in more from California donors than from donors in Michigan. California was the second biggest bank of support for the other top Democratic contender, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow.

And in Nebraska, independent Dan Osborn, who is challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts, took in $80,000 more from disclosed California donors than from Nebraskans.

Dozens of California donors gave to at least five Senate candidates across the country, according to The Times’ analysis of the filing data.

Burbank playwright and screenwriter Winnie Holzman has donated to Democratic candidates in nine key races and said she has been inspired to give to them — and other candidates and political groups — because of concerns about the policies of President Trump’s administration and what she sees as its violation of the law.

“This isn’t just about who is in the Senate,” said Holzman, who wrote the script for the play “Wicked” and co-wrote its movie adaptations. “But if enough Democrats were in the Senate right now, there would be a lot more ability to push back on this.”

The impressive fundraising hauls by Democrats come with a significant caveat.

The two most prominent political committees that support Republican Senate candidates — the party-affiliated National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Senate Leadership Fund super PAC, have both outraised rival Democratic groups by a significant margin this cycle.

For the NRSC, an $11.5-million fundraising advantage since the start of 2025 has translated to a modest $2-million advantage in cash in the bank through the end of February compared with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

But the Senate Leadership Fund, which can accept unlimited amounts of cash from donors, had $91.6 million more to spend at the end of March than the Democratic rival Senate Majority PAC.

And the pro-Trump super PAC MAGA Inc. had a stunning $312 million in the bank at the end of February.

Money raised by candidate campaign committees does, however, bring some advantages over money raised by other committees. Most significantly, candidates are able to buy advertising at cheaper rates than other political committees.

That is an important distinction in a year when advertising spending in Senate races is expected to top $2.8 billion.

The Senate map

While political analysts expect that Democrats will likely perform well in congressional races — with early signs pointing to a strong possibility that the party regains control of the House — winning control of the Senate would be a much taller order.

“The Senate is going to be won or lost in red states,” said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.

Even in the best-case scenario for Democrats, to retake control of the chamber they would probably need to win in at least two states such as Iowa, Alaska, Ohio or Texas, all of which went to Trump in the 2024 presidential election by double-digit margins.

With the vast sums likely to be raised — and spent — by both sides, Kondik said that fundraising can reach a point of diminishing returns.

“You’d rather have more than less, obviously, but the actual effect is pretty debatable,” he said.

And history shows that fundraising prowess doesn’t necessarily translate to electoral success in November.

Take the example of Texas Democrat Beto O’Rourke.

In his 2018 challenge of incumbent Republican Ted Cruz, O’Rourke brought in more than $80 million, more than double Cruz’s fundraising haul of $35 million.

But it wasn’t enough to put the then-congressman from El Paso over the top.

O’Rourke lost the race by about 2.5 percentage points.

Chaos erupted as British passengers were left stranded at Linate airport in Milan due to huge delays at border control meaning they missed their flight back to Manchester

easyJet passengers were ‘close to passing out’ after being left in the heat as their flight left to Manchester without them due to border control chaos.

About 100 people have been left stranded in Milan on Sunday, April 12 after facing up to three hour queues at Milan’s Linate airport because of new border control checks.

As well as concerns over how to get home, many passengers were left vomiting and passing out due to the heat, according to the BBC.

easyJet said it was working to support passengers but that the situation was “outside of our control”.

Large queues formed at the international airport causing mayhem.

Pictures and videos shared online showed scenes of mayhem as large queues formed at the international airport.

The carnage comes after the UK government updated its guidance to people travelling to the European Schengen area, meaning they may have to register biometric details when they arrive.

The implementation of the EU entry and exit system (EES) is an electronic system that replaces the physical stamping of passports when going through boarding control.

The airline said that it held the plane for almost an hour extra, but eventually had to depart due to crew working hours.

Passengers have been left disappointed after arriving at the airport in plenty of time and now facing huge delays to return home.

Emily Benn, from Grimsby, was travelling with five others on the 11am flight. Her new flight will now go to Gatwick rather than Manchester, meaning a £400 taxi fare on arrival.

She told the M.E.N: “We got to the airport at 8am and our flight was due to leave Milan Linate at 11am. As soon as our gate came on the board, we went straight to it and there was already a huge queue.

“The queue was for three separate flights, and there were hundreds of passengers all trying to get through. The new EES wasn’t working, so we all had to be checked by two people on passport control.

“It got to 11:20am and we were told the flight had left without us. They put us all on a shuttle bus and sent us back to the arrivals area, where we had to go back to the easyJet desk.

“We were told to rebook flights, so have booked to Gatwick and will then pay £400 for a taxi back to Manchester as that’s where our car is parked. We are a party of five adults and one child, who is due to have spinal surgery in a few days.”

Other passengers shared the ‘nightmare’ experience on social media. One posted: “What a nightmare!

“You abandoned me and 122 other passengers in Milan. You flew to Manchester with 34 onboard.

“We queued for three hours and all the time the flight info remained at ‘boarding’ we were then told the delayed flight had left.”

An easyJet spokesperson said: “We are aware that some passengers departing from Milan Linate today experienced longer than usual waiting times at passport control and we advised customers due to fly to allow additional time to make their way through the airport.

“We held flight EJU5420 from Milan to Manchester for nearly an hour to give passengers extra time but it had to then depart due to crew reaching their safety regulated operating hours. Customers who missed the flight have been offered a free flight transfer.

“We continue to urge border authorities to ensure they make full and effective use of the permitted flexibilities for as long as needed while EES is implemented, to avoid these unacceptable border delays for our customers. While this is outside of our control, we are sorry for any inconvenience caused.”

Pro-Iran groups have used artificial intelligence to create internet memes in English to try to shape the narrative during the war against the U.S. and Israel and foster opposition to it.

Analysts say the memes appear to be coming from groups linked to the government in Tehran and are part of a strategy of leveraging its limited resources to inflict damage on the U.S., even indirectly. That includes how Iran has used attacks and threats to control the flow of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and maintain a stranglehold on the world’s economy. A ceasefire raised hopes Wednesday of halting hostilities, but many issues remained unresolved.

“This is a propaganda war for them,” Neil Lavie-Driver, an AI researcher at the University of Cambridge, said, referring to Iran. “Their goal is to sow enough discontent with the conflict as to eventually force the West to cave in, so it is massively important to them.”

It’s not the first time memes have been used in a conflict, and they have evolved to include AI images in recent years. AI imagery bombarded Ukrainians after the Russian invasion in 2022. Last year, the term “AI slop” became widely used to describe the glut of imperfect images posted online during the Israel-Iran war to try to destroy the country’s nuclear program.

In the conflict that began Feb. 28 with joint U.S.-Israel strikes, the memes have used well-honed cartoons that lambast U.S. officials.

The memes are steeped in American culture

The memes are fluent not just in English but in American culture and trolling. Published on various social platforms, they are racking up millions of views — though it’s not clear how much influence they have had.

They have portrayed President Trump as old, out of step and internationally isolated. They have referenced bruising on the back of Trump’s right hand that prompted speculation about his health; infighting in Trump’s MAGA base; and U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s fiery confirmation hearing, among other things.

“They’re using popular culture against the No. 1 pop culture country, the United States,” said Nancy Snow, a scholar who has written more than a dozen books on propaganda.

The pro-Iran images circulating online include a series that uses the style of the “Lego” animated movies. In one, an Iranian military commander raps, “You thought you ran the globe, sitting on your throne. Now we turning every base into a bed of stone,” as Trump falls into a bullseye built of “Epstein files,” the U.S. government’s investigative records on disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Analysts believe groups making the memes are cooperating with the government

The animations show levels of sophistication and internet access that indicate ties to government offices, said Mahsa Alimardani, a director of Witness, a human rights group working on AI video evidence.

“If you’re able to have the bandwidth needed to generate content like that and upload it, you are officially or unofficially cooperating with the regime,” she said, pointing to severe restrictions Iran has imposed on the internet as part of a crackdown on nationwide protests earlier this year.

State media has reposted some of the memes, including some from the account behind the “Lego”-style videos, Akhbar Enfejari, which means Explosive News.

Akhbar Enfejari described itself as an independent group of Iranians with no connection to the government. “We don’t even receive any funding. We’re just a group of friends working voluntarily — paying for our own internet, using our own laptops and computers, and doing all of this ourselves,” the group told the Associated Press on the messaging app Telegram.

The group said it is producing and upload from within Iran to try to disrupt decades-long dominance of Western control of the airwaves.

“They’ve long dominated the media landscape and, through that power, imposed narratives on many nations,” Akhbar Enfejari said. “But this time, something feels different. This time, we’ve disrupted the game. This time, we’re doing it better.”

In addition to the memes coming from pro-Iran groups, Iranian government accounts have trolled the U.S., including in a post Wednesday from Iran’s Embassy in South Africa that said, “Say hello to the new world superpower,” with a picture of the Iranian flag. Both the U.S. and Iran declared victory after agreeing to a ceasefire.

Analysts say the deep grasp of U.S. politics and culture is the fruit of more old-school methods of propaganda: a decades-long Iranian government program to promote narratives against the U.S. and Israel.

“This meme war comes from institutions that are very aware what the American public is aware of and pop cultural references that can appeal to them,” Alimardani said.

Messaging from the U.S. and Israel

Analysts say the U.S. and Israel do not appear to be engaging in the same kind of campaign — and given the restrictions Iran has put on internet access in the country, getting such messages to ordinary Iranians would be difficult.

Early in the war, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a video that used AI to make it seem like he was speaking in Farsi, in which he urged Iranians to overthrow their government. The White House has published a steady stream of memes, but those are aimed at a U.S. audience and feature clips from American TV shows and sports.

The U.S. government-run Voice of America, which for decades beamed news reports to many countries that had no tradition of a free press, does still broadcast in Farsi, though it is has been operating with a skeleton staff since Trump ordered it shut down.

“This world order is really changing overnight and the U.S. is not going to end up necessarily as the state that everybody listens to,” Snow said.

McNeil writes for the Associated Press.

Michael Gates is basing his run for California attorney general on his decade-long reign as Huntington Beach’s top lawman.

When we met at a Starbucks a block away from City Hall, he rattled off his hometown’s bona fides: A drop in crime and homelessness. Tourists from across the world. A thriving Main Street. A small-town feel “almost like the Midwest.”

His biggest obstacle in trying to convince voters that he should replace Rob Bonta, besides his Republican Party membership? Um, Huntington Beach.

For years, Surf City conservatives like Gates have reveled in playing the burr in the saddle of deep blue California. From a torrent of lawsuits against Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration to protests against COVID restrictions to the City Council’s vote to place a plaque outside the public library spelling out “MAGA,” Huntington Beach’s GOP leadership has yet to meet an anti-liberal stunt they didn’t characterize as a stance against tyranny worthy of Bunker Hill.

Their antics made Huntington Beach a national laughingstock — but Gates and his pals so far have had the last giggle.

They ran as a slate in two elections that transformed the City Council from a narrow Democratic majority in 2022 to an all-Republican body in an era when Orange County is turning more and more purple. The takeover became a sensation among California conservatives looking for victories in a state where Democrats maintain a supermajority in both legislative chambers and have held every statewide office for 15 years.

“We’ve morphed into this epicenter of fighting back,” said Mayor Casey McKeon, a third-generation Huntington Beach resident who’s up for reelection this year. “We are the model every city can follow. If I were running for state office, I’d run it on that.”

That’s exactly what the architects of MAGA-by-the-Sea plan to do this November.

In addition to Gates’ bid, gadfly-turned-Councilmember Gracey Van Der Mark is seeking an Assembly seat. Her former council colleague Tony Strickland won his state Senate seat last spring and is the co-author of a proposed state ballot initiative that would require voter ID for all elections. Huntington Beach voters approved a similar initiative in 2024, which was later struck down by the California Supreme Court.

The Huntington Beach red revolution now includes conservative commentator Steve Hilton, who launched his campaign for governor last spring near the city’s world-famous pier — even though he lives in Silicon Valley.

Hilton told me he has long loved Huntington Beach because it reminds him of Brighton, the seaside British town where he grew up. His affection for Surf City deepened the more he talked to people like Gates and Strickland, who sold him on their vision to stick it to Sacramento.

“There’s such a joy about it — it’s a place where it’s well-run and clean and orderly,” said the candidate, who has consistently led in polls as his Democratic opponents cannibalize each other’s share of the vote. “When I was thinking where to launch my campaign, it made sense [in Huntington Beach], because it felt like home.”

Then-City Council candidates Tony Strickland, left, and Gracey Van Der Mark attend a “meet and greet” event in Huntington Beach in 2022.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

Better not tell anyone in H.B. you’re an immigrant, Steve!

California Republican Party Chairwoman Corrin Rankin is confident the Huntington Beach crew can win.

“What happened there proves that conservative leadership works,” she said. “Currently, we have a former mayor of San Francisco who’s the governor. You look at the contrast of how each of those cities are.”

Strickland, who is Hilton’s campaign chair, swears that he and his former colleagues didn’t plan to take their crusade statewide, but “when you do a great job, other opportunities present themselves.”

“I think California is on the wrong track — most think that,” he added. If his team pulls off a November sweep — governor, attorney general, Assembly seat and the voter ID proposition — “it would be known as the major turnaround in the Golden State that made it golden again.”

Does drinking Surf City’s water grant you magical powers, too?

It’s easy to dismiss what Strickland, Gates and the others have created as a lucky local run that’s about to crash into the reality of running statewide as a Republican. Even in Huntington Beach, residents tired of perpetual culture wars rejected two ballot measures last year seeking to give the City Council more control over a municipal library system that Van Der Mark long claimed was essentially providing pornography to children.

But if there’s one thing I’ve learned while tracking H.B.’s ever-aggrieved conservatives for a quarter century, it’s to never underestimate them — the more you do, the more they fume, the more they scheme. They plan with the discipline of a Dodgers World Series team and brawl like hometown hero and mixed martial arts legend Tito Ortiz, who was on the council for a few months in 2021 before stepping down because he said the job “wasn’t working for me.”

Gates, 51, is so Huntington Beach that he looks it: Bull-necked. Blue-eyed. Bro-y. No-nonsense haircut. An aw-shucks countenance barely hiding a righteous anger that seeks to pile-drive progressive California into submission.

“I know what it looks like to be from a working-class family, a hardworking family, and find it very difficult to make ends meet,” said Gates, noting that his Irish American parents sometimes had to grab food and diapers for their children from the St. Bonaventure Catholic Church pantry. “So frankly, let’s take control away from the government and give control back to the working-class people.”

Fullerton College political science professor Jodi Balma teaches her students about Huntington Beach as an example of how “the power of a slate can really work” in an era of polarization. But when I asked if she thought the Surf City insurgents could upend California politics, the professor quickly said, “No.”

A majority of California voters think the state is heading in the wrong direction, and the number of undecided voters in elections ranging from California governor to the L.A. mayor’s race is putting the fear of God into Democratic leaders. But how deluded can Strickland and company be to think that aligning themselves more with President Trump — who just endorsed Hilton — is a winning strategy in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by nearly 2 to 1? And propping up Surf City — a wealthy beach town so full of itself that it makes Santa Monica seem as humble as Santa Ana — as the last, best hope to save California?

Hilton demurred when I asked if he agreed with everything his pals on the City Council have done over the years. “I’m not there, so I don’t see the day-to-day operation,” was his weak salsa reply.

Gates was more forthright.

“I think probably everybody in city leadership would admit the library thing got out of control,” he said. By then, Gates was working for the Department of Justice in Washington as a deputy assistant attorney general in the civil rights division, resigning after just 10 months because he said he missed home.

Sand art at Huntington City Beach in 2020.

(Raul Roa / Los Angeles Times)

Gates talked a good talk for most of our hourlong conversation. He and Hilton are pushing especially hard for Latino voters — they “can save California because they understand that new leadership can turn the state around.”

But for everything Gates said that might appeal to a frustrated Democrat like me, his Huntington Beach braggadocio continually won out.

He alternately hailed his own political astuteness (“You be patient, bide your time, be disciplined, keep your mouth shut. The long game will win.”), brought up transgender issues (“I want to protect our young girls. I want to stop all the mutilation surgeries happening in hospitals to our young people.”) and inveighed against out-of-control Democrats (“[Californians are] abused. And honestly, we’re pissed off. We’re getting really mad.”).

Most of all, Gates proclaimed time and time again just how darn special Huntington Beach is.

“We love our freedoms. We love flying our American flags,” he said. “We love our beach. I don’t know, it’s a different culture here.”

Good luck selling Californians on it.

MADISON, Wis. — Democrats hoped to increase liberal control of the state Supreme Court in Wisconsin on Tuesday in an election that has focused largely on abortion rights as cases affecting congressional redistricting, union rights and other hot button issues also await in the perennial battleground state.

This year’s Supreme Court election stands in stark contrast to the swing state’s previous two, where national spending records were set in battles over majority control. Spending and national attention is down dramatically this year without control of the court at stake.

Democrats are looking to tighten their control of the court just months before a November election in which they seek to keep the governor’s office and flip the state Legislature, where Republicans have held the majority since 2011. Democrats aspire to undo a host of Republican-enacted laws that made Wisconsin a focal point for the nation’s conservative movement in the 2010s.

In Tuesday’s Supreme Court race, Democratic-backed Chris Taylor, a former state lawmaker who also worked for Planned Parenthood, faces Republican-supported Maria Lazar. Both Taylor and Lazar are state Appeals Court judges.

Liberals would increase their majority on the court to 5-2 from 4-3 with a Taylor win. That would lock in the liberal majority until at least 2030.

Liberals took control of the state’s top court in 2023, ending 15 years under a conservative majority. They held onto their majority with last year’s victory in a race that drew involvement from President Trump and billionaires George Soros and Elon Musk, who personally handed out $1 million checks to voters in the state.

Liberals argued that democracy was at stake in the 2025 election, noting that when the court was controlled by conservative justices in 2020 it came just one vote shy of siding with Trump in his attempt to invalidate enough votes to overturn his loss in that year’s presidential election.

Since liberals took control, the court has reversed several election-related rulings, including one that overturned a ban on absentee ballot drop boxes, and it is poised to once again be in the spotlight around the 2028 presidential election.

Races for the court are officially nonpartisan, but support for candidates breaks down mostly along partisan lines.

Taylor has focused much of her campaign on abortion rights, with one TV ad saying that “abortion is on the ballot.” In another ad, she criticized Lazar for calling the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022 “very wise.”

Lazar, who was supported by anti-abortion groups in her run for the appeals court, tried to brand Taylor as nothing more than a politician who will push a partisan agenda on the court.

They sparred over each other’s partisanship during the campaign’s sole debate last week.

Lazar accused Taylor of being a “radical, extreme legislator” and a “judicial activist.” Taylor said that Lazar would bring “an extreme, right-wing political agenda to the bench.”

Lazar has had a much harder time getting her message out. Taylor had a large fundraising advantage and spent about nine times as much as Lazar on television ads, based on a tally by the Brennan Center for Justice.

The liberal-controlled court has already struck down a state law banning abortion and ordered new legislative maps, fueling Democrats’ hopes of capturing a majority this November.

Taylor has been a judge since 2020 and before that she spent 10 years as a Democrat representing the liberal capital city of Madison in the state Assembly.

Lazar, a judge since 2015, previously worked four years under a Republican attorney general in the state Department of Justice. In that role, she defended a law enacted under former Republican Gov. Scott Walker that effectively ended collective bargaining for most public workers.

A circuit court judge ruled in December that the law is unconstitutional, a decision expected to ultimately land before the state Supreme Court.

Lazar also defended laws passed by Republicans and signed by Walker implementing a voter ID requirement and restricting abortion access.

Democrats are optimistic given the past two Supreme Court elections, which saw candidates they backed winning by double digits.

The seat is open due to the retirement of a conservative justice. Another conservative justice is retiring next year, giving liberals a chance to take 6-1 control of the court if they win on Tuesday.

Bauer writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Monday that the United States and Iran are at a “critical point” in negotiating a potential ceasefire agreement, but the chances of reaching a deal by a Trump-imposed deadline on Tuesday evening appeared uncertain.

In a lengthy news briefing at the White House, the president echoed an expletive-laden Easter Sunday warning to strike Iran’s vital infrastructure if Tehran does not agree to open the Strait of Hormuz by 5 p.m. PDT on Tuesday.

“The entire country can be taken out in one night and that night might be tomorrow night,” Trump told reporters.

Mediators from Egypt, Pakistan and Turkey sent the United States and Iran a draft proposal of the 45-day ceasefire on Friday, the Associated Press reported. Its prospects seemed dim amid the president’s threats and a lukewarm response from Iranian leaders, who dismissed the president’s diplomatic overtures as “unrealistic” and denying direct talks with the United States.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei rejected the latest ceasefire proposal, saying Monday that the American demands were “both highly excessive and unusual, as well as illogical.”

Still, Trump continued to assert that Iranian leadership has been negotiating in good faith. He characterized newly installed leaders as an improvement over their predecessors.

“The people that we are negotiating with now on behalf of Iran are much more reasonable,” he said Monday.

Trump declined to comment further on the ceasefire proposal at the news conference, but told reporters that Iran is negotiating ahead of his Tuesday deadline.

“I can tell you they’re negotiating, we think in good faith,” Trump said. “We are going to find out.”

The president did not say whom the United States is negotiating with, but said the most difficult challenge so far has been establishing a reliable channel of communicating with Iranian officials who he said have “no method of communicating.”

Trump also declined to say whether he was prepared to offer Iran assurances to wind down the conflict, or whether he would escalate by following through with his threats to bomb critical Iranian infrastructure, leaving the door open to both diplomacy and military action.

“I can’t tell you — it depends on what they do. This is a critical period,” he said,

Central to the negotiations is Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz, a choke point that, if left blockaded, could continue driving oil prices higher and further destabilizing global energy markets.

Trump, in characteristically unorthodox fashion, floated the possibility of the United States seizing operational control of the waterway and charging tolls for passage, a proposal that he provided without much detail.

“Why shouldn’t we?” Trump said. “We have a concept where we’ll charge tolls.”

He also mused openly about seizing Iranian oil, as he has in recent social media posts in which he floated the idea of using the war to claim Iranian energy resources. He acknowledged public pressure was holding him back from that course.

“Unfortunately the American people would like to see us come home,” he said. “If it were up to me, I’d take the oil, keep the oil and make plenty of money.”

In addition to reopening the Strait of Hormuz, Washington is also demanding the permanent decommissioning of Iranian nuclear sites and an end to its uranium enrichment programs. The proposal also requires Iran to halt support for regional proxies and accept strict ballistic missile limits.

In exchange, the United States says it will provide sanctions relief and assistance with civilian energy production, according to media reports.

Speaking at the White House Easter Egg Roll earlier Monday, Trump showed no signs of softening his posture to bring “hell” to Iran if a deal doesn’t materialize.

“We are obliterating their country. And I hate to do it, but we are obliterating. And they just don’t want to say uncle. … And if they don’t, then they’ll have no bridges, they’ll have no power plants, they’ll have nothing,” he said, adding ominously that “there are other things that are worse than those two.”

Iran has warned of “more severe and expansive” retaliations if Trump follows through on the threats.

Also at Monday’s briefing, Trump celebrated the dramatic rescue of the American officer whose fighter jet was downed by Iran last week. He told reporters the operation to retrieve the wounded officer from “one of the toughest areas in Iran” was possible with a mix of “talent” and “luck.”

The president, however, was angered that a news outlet, which he did not name, reported that the weapons system officer had gone missing and was stranded behind enemy lines. Trump vowed to root out the source of that information, including by threatening to jail the journalist who broke the story.

“We have to find that leaker because that is a sick person,” Trump said. “We are going to find out, it is national security. The person who did the story will go to jail if he doesn’t say.”

Also Monday, Israel struck Iran’s largest petrochemical facility in Asaluyeh and killed Gen. Majid Khademi, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ intelligence organization.

The Israeli military also hit three Iranian airports, purportedly targeting dozens of helicopters and aircraft it said belonged to the Iranian air force.

Iran responded with missile strikes targeting Haifa, Israel, and energy infrastructure in Kuwait and Bahrain.

WASHINGTON — When President Trump ordered immigration raids in Los Angeles last June, only a handful of those arrested were violent criminals. The sweeps split families, cost businesses millions of dollars and drove many undocumented residents into hiding.

Activists protested the Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions, prompting the president to deploy thousands of federal troops in what he called a security operation. A federal judge called it unlawful and said the deployment caused “greater harm” to the city.

Now, Trump wants a redo.

At a Cabinet meeting Thursday, he called on the mayors and governors of several blue cities and states to allow troops to “come in and stop the crime,” pointing to purported successes in Washington, Memphis and New Orleans.

“Crime is down 75% in a short period of time,” Trump told his top advisors. “We could do that for L.A. and we could do that for, frankly, San Francisco.”

The president framed the deployments as both a crime-fighting and immigration enforcement tool, saying that federal authorities can remove people from cities in ways local officials cannot.

“We can do it much more effectively, because [local leaders] can’t do what we do,” Trump said. “All the time, people come up to me … and they say ‘thank you so much.’ I know immediately what they’re talking about. They’re able to walk to work.”

Trump also said this week that he would consider deploying the National Guard at airports to assist with mounting security delays amid a 40-day partial government shutdown.

The renewed call comes after a series of controversial federal interventions in cities across the country. In Washington, Trump has repeatedly touted a visible security presence near federal buildings, crediting it with improving public safety, though local officials and analysts have debated how much of any decline in crime can be attributed to his order.

U.S. Marines stationed outside the federal detention center in downtown Los Angeles in June.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

In January, Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to Minneapolis during the civil unrest that followed the fatal shooting of Renee Good by a federal immigration agent. The Pentagon prepared active-duty troops for a possible deployment, but they were ordered to stand down following the shooting of a second Minneapolis civilian, Alex Pretti, the same month.

Immigration sweeps in Los Angeles targeted workplaces, neighborhoods and churches, stirring widespread panic and forcing many undocumented residents — including those with long-term residency and native-born children — into hiding. As a result, businesses reported sharp declines in revenue and customer traffic. A county analysis found that 82% of surveyed businesses experienced negative impacts, with some losing more than half their income amid workforce shortages and traffic reductions.

During the fallout, Mayor Karen Bass condemned Trump’s deployment of some 4,000 California National Guardsmen and 700 U.S. Marines.

“Deploying federalized troops on the heels of these raids is a chaotic escalation,” she said. “The fear people are feeling in our city right now is very real — it’s felt in our communities and within our families, and it puts our neighborhoods at risk. This is the last thing that our city needs.”

The president called the occupation off after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that control of the California National Guard should be returned to the governor, rejecting the federal government’s authority to maintain control indefinitely. A similar Supreme Court ruling effectively ended federalized deployments throughout the country.

“The judges are really hurting this country,” Trump said Thursday. “Frankly, the justices — the Supreme Court — has really hurt our country, too.”

At the meeting, Trump also narrowed his comments on San Francisco and its mayor, Daniel Lurie.

“San Francisco was a great city, could quickly become a great city again,” Trump said. “But we can do it much more effectively.”

Last year, Trump considered carrying out similar federal law enforcement operations in the city. He backed off after a somewhat conciliatory phone call with Lurie, in which Trump said the mayor asked him “very nicely” to call off the deployment. Afterward, he agreed to give the newly elected mayor “a chance” to address crime in the city.

“In San Francisco, crime is down 30%, encampments are at record lows, and our city is on the rise,” Lurie said in a statement Thursday. “Public safety is my number one priority, and we are going to stay laser focused on keeping our streets safe and clean.”

A spokesperson for Lurie’s office said the two have not spoken since that October conversation, indicating Trump’s latest remarks do not reflect any new request or ongoing negotiations. Even so, the president struck a measured tone toward the San Francisco mayor on Thursday. He said Lurie is “trying very hard” but insisted federal intervention would get the job done faster.

Whether any Democrat-led city will take Trump up on that offer remains to be seen. City leaders have previously resisted federal deployments, arguing they undermine local control and risk inflaming already tense situations.

The White House did not respond to questions about whether any current plans exist to redeploy federalized troops to California cities.

Times staff writer Melissa Gomez in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

Jeffrey Epstein urged Canadian-American media and real estate mogul Mortimer Zuckerman to relinquish control of his financial affairs over what he claimed was the magnate’s “potentially dangerous” cognitive impairment, according to files released by the United States Department of Justice.

While Epstein’s business ties with Zuckerman, now 88 years old, have been a matter of public record for over two decades, the files suggest that the late sex offender also served as a confidant with access to the most intimate details of the billionaire mogul’s personal life.

After a meeting with Zuckerman and the Norwegian diplomat Terje Rod-Larsen in October 2015, Epstein wrote an email urging the tycoon to enter a guardianship or conservatorship for his own protection.

Epstein told Zuckerman, the owner and publisher of US News & World Report, that the mogul had requested his help during their meeting several days earlier, but that he “might not remember”.

“Your friends including me are very concerned that your cognitive impairment has now reached a serious and potentially dangerous level. There is serious concern for your financail, emotional physical and psychological safety,” Epstein wrote, using his typically idiosyncratic approach to spelling, punctuation and grammar.

Epstein suggested that Zuckerman grant Rod-Larsen, Zuckerman’s nephews, and “anyone else you trust” authority to manage his affairs, warning that his “remarkable abilities” were no longer enough to protect him.

“I am aware that your condition makes you prone to suspicion but that being said, the future predictable decline will be an ever increasing danger,” Epstein wrote.

“Admittting you have a problem will take courage and determination.”

Zuckerman, who previously owned The Atlantic and the New York Daily News, appeared to take Epstein’s advice seriously, thanking him for his “thoughtfulness and friendship” and asking for recommendations for a lawyer with “experience in such matters”.

Zuckerman suggested the two men meet after he returned from an upcoming trip to San Francisco, but Epstein advised him to cancel the trip and said the mogul had told him about his travel plans on four separate occasions.

“I know you dont remember each time. . MORT , you need a Guardian,” Epstein wrote. “you should choose one now, while your judgment peeks through the haze. waiting too long. will mean most likely a court imposed solution. NOT FUN.”

Epstein also discussed Zuckerman’s health with his nephew, Eric Gertler, advising the relative to oversee the sale of the businessman’s stocks, art collection, helicopter and plane.

“my expertise is the financial . take any other suggestion as merely transmitting from others skilled in this terrible situation,” Epstein wrote to Gertler, who is the current executive chairman of US News & World Report, in one email.

It is not clear if Zuckerman followed Epstein’s advice to pass over control of his affairs.

Zuckerman announced that he would step down as chairman of Boston Properties, one of the largest real estate investment trusts in the US, about six months after his correspondence with Epstein.

Zuckerman did not cite any health concerns at the time and kept the title of chairman emeritus at the company, which he cofounded in 1970.

His philanthropic organisations – the Zuckerman Institute and Zuckerman STEM Leadership Program – and Gertler did not reply to Al Jazeera’s requests for comment.

Zuckerman’s relationship with Epstein, who died in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges, occasionally made headlines during the early 2000s, before Epstein’s 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution.

In 2003, Zuckerman partnered with Epstein and several other prominent businessmen, including the disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, in an unsuccessful bid to buy New York Magazine.

The two men teamed up again the following year to invest $25m in the short-lived relaunch of the entertainment and gossip magazine Radar.

Investigative files released by the US Department of Justice in January showed that the late financier viewed Zuckerman as a client and close associate, as well as a business partner.

In 2013, Epstein drew up a $21m proposal to provide Zuckerman with “analysing, evaluating, planning and other services” related to the passing on of his estate, according to emails in the files.

It is unclear whether Zuckerman accepted Epstein’s proposal or otherwise employed him to manage his estate planning.

Epstein also pressured Zuckerman to alter coverage of his alleged sexual abuse of girls in the New York Daily News, suggesting a “proposed answer” to questions put to him by the newspaper in 2009. Zuckerman owned the New York Daily News at the time.

Travel expert Mark Wolters warns holidaymakers against saying certain phrases at passport control that could land them in hot water with immigration officers

Holidaymakers are being warned against uttering a ‘fun’ six-word phrase whilst going through passport control. A travel expert cautions this is because you could land yourself in serious trouble with immigration officials.

Mark Wolters, from Wolter’s World, has visited more than 80 countries throughout his travels. He now shares his expert advice for people who find themselves venturing across the globe.

In a recent video, Mark highlighted that travellers must avoid making jokes when passing through international borders.

He explained: “‘I’m going to stay here forever, I love your country’. That sounds like a fun thing to say to the passport control officer when you come into a country, but I want to tell you, that is something you don’t ever want to say when you come across a border.”

He emphasised that you shouldn’t “joke around” when at passport control. He encourages travellers to respond to them “politely”, reports the Express. He continued: “Don’t add in the dad jokes.

“I know for me, my go-to when they’re like, ‘What are you going to do here?’ I’m like, I’m going to help the British economy by spending lots of money.

“Yes, it’s a good dad joke but it’s best to be like, ‘I’m here for tourism with my family’. That’s one of those things, you have to realise those passport and those border officers aren’t allowed to have humour, they’re there doing their job.”

Mark explains that border force officers are stationed there to ensure the “wrong people aren’t coming in”, which means it’s unwise to mess about. He suggests you can make your “life easier” by staying composed and courteous.

Mark cautions there are certain phrases you should “never” utter at security. He continued: “You don’t ever say the word bomb, you don’t say human trafficking, you do not joke about drugs, you do not joke about overstaying, like, ‘I want to stay here forever’.

“You do not say any of those things because those are the trigger words where they go, ‘Oh wait, we need to do something’. Even if they know you’re joking, they don’t have a choice.”

The specialist also recommends people keep their passport out until they’ve cleared security. He mentions he’s frequently witnessed travellers packing away their documents and wandering off, only to be summoned back by passport control.

He stated: “If you’re putting your documents away before they feel it’s right, they could think, ‘Oh this person’s nervous, they’re trying to get away quicker’. That can lead to other questions, so just wait until they dismiss you.”

Holidaymakers are also advised to ensure they’ve got their accommodation sorted. He notes that arriving without lodgings arranged can frequently trigger “more questions” and raise concerns about trafficking.

“I sent my itinerary to myself, so we can say, ‘Oh we’re staying at the Marriott Amsterdam on this street here’,” Mark elaborates. “That makes it a lot easier because that’s one of those typical questions they might ask, so it’s good not to be vague.”