control

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.”

Iran has significant oil and gas reserves, and is a key supplier to China.

A member of US President Donald Trump’s inner circle has said control of those reserves is a key United States aim amid the country’s war against Iran.

So, how valuable are Iran’s natural resources? And could they be a factor in US thinking?

Presenter: Imran Khan

Guests:

Foad Izadi – Professor in the faculty of world studies at the University of Tehran

Mohammad Reza Farzanegan – Professor of Middle East economics at Marburg University

Paolo von Schirach – President of the Global Policy Institute, an independent think tank

Tehran has carried out more attacks on Gulf states – despite an apology by the president to Iran’s neighbours.

Civilian targets have been hit, including airports and vital infrastructure.

Who’s in control in Iran – and how will Gulf states react as the attacks continue?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

John Brennan – Former director of the Central Intelligence Agency under the administration of US President Barack Obama

Bader Al-Saif – Professor at Kuwait University and fellow at Chatham House, specialising in Middle East history and politics

Trita Parsi – Executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft

The U.S. war effort against Iran was “accelerating” as American and Israeli forces fought for control of Iranian airspace and pressed farther inland to seek and destroy Iranian missile capabilities, top U.S. officials said Wednesday.

“Four days in, we have only just begun to fight,” said U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

“The throttle is coming up,” said Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

However, a reported Iranian missile strike at NATO member Turkey — intercepted by NATO defense systems — was not expected to immediately broaden the war theater by triggering a NATO clause requiring other member nations to get involved, Hegseth said.

Hegseth, striking an unapologetic tone, said Iran’s surviving leadership “don’t know what plays to call” after exhausting initial retaliatory strategies devised prior to the U.S. assault, while the U.S. is firing on all fronts and stacking up wins — including an American submarine recently sinking an Iranian warship with a torpedo in international waters, which Hegseth called the first such sinking since World War II.

“We are just getting started. We are accelerating, not decelerating,” he said. “We can sustain this fight easily for as long as we need to.”

Caine, striking a far more measured tone at the Pentagon briefing, spoke of the “sacrifice” of the six U.S. service members who have been killed in the conflict to date and the “clear military objectives” of the operation, which include dismantling “Iran’s ability to project power outside of its borders, both today and into the future.”

And he said the U.S. has made “steady progress” toward those goals in recent hours. He said Iran’s “ballistic missile shots” were down 86% from the first day of fighting, and down 23% “just in the last 24 hours.” He said their “one-way attack drone shots” are down 73% from the “opening days” of the war.

That has allowed the U.S. to establish “localized air superiority across the southern flank of the Iranian coast and penetrate their defenses with overwhelming precision and firepower,” Caine said. “We will now begin to expand inland, striking progressively deeper into Iranian territory and creating additional freedom of maneuver for U.S. forces.”

Hegseth and Caine spoke against a backdrop of escalating destruction across the Persian Gulf region, as Iran — which Hegseth acknowledged is a “formidable” enemy — continued to unleash a wave of retaliatory strikes and Israel pushed into Lebanon and against Iran-allied Hezbollah fighters there.

Their message of U.S. control in the region belied chaos in many parts of it — as sirens blared in Bahrain, U.S. and other foreign citizens scrambled to flee the area, global air traffic was in disarray and tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a key artery for the flow of global energy, was down by about 90%, according to the Associated Press.

Turkey’s defense ministry announced Wednesday that NATO air defenses had shot down a ballistic missile fired toward Turkish airspace from Iran, which raised additional questions about a rapidly expanding footprint of the war given that Turkey is a NATO member and protected by a treaty clause — Article 5 — stating that an attack on one member is an attack on all.

Hegseth said the U.S. was aware of the strike, but that he did not believe it would trigger Article 5 or force all of NATO into the conflict — which has already drawn in nations throughout the Gulf region as Iran has targeted U.S. allies and military facilities.

Hegseth jettisoned any pretense of constraint or measured force by the U.S., instead casting its operations as an all-out assault on “radical Islamist Iranian adversaries” that he suggested both Democrats and the U.S. media were badly misrepresenting to make President Trump look bad.

He suggested the U.S. media was overly focused on losses, such as the deaths of U.S. military personnel, and not nearly focused enough on the progress the U.S. has made toward destroying Iran’s military capabilities in a matter of days.

“They are toast, and they know it — or at least soon enough they will know it,” he said of Iran. “And we’ve only just begun to hunt, dismantle, demoralize, destroy and defeat their capabilities, just four days in.”

He said that the U.S. and Israel in “under a week” will “have complete control of Iranian skies — uncontested air space,” which he said will mean that “we will fly all day, all night, day and night, finding, fixing and finishing the missiles and defense industrial base of the Iranian military, finding and fixing their leaders and their military leaders.”

“Death and destruction from the sky, all day long,” he said. “We’re playing for keeps.”

It was unclear what exactly Hegseth meant by that, given the Trump administration’s constant messaging that the war on Iran will not be another “endless” engagement for the U.S. in the Middle East.

The U.S. was using rules of engagement that are “bold, precise and designed to unleash American power, not shackle it,” Hegseth said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight, and it is not a fair fight. We are punching them while they’re down, which is exactly how it should be.”

Disruptions to tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, and their potential effect on global and U.S. gas prices, were clearly on Trump’s mind. On Tuesday, he posted to his Truth Social platform that the U.S. would be providing wartime insurance for “ALL Maritime Trade” through Gulf shipping lanes — as other insurers began canceling coverage — and that the U.S. Navy would begin escorting tankers if necessary.

“No matter what, the United States will ensure the FREE FLOW of ENERGY to the WORLD,” he wrote.

The message drew immediate concern from some of Trump’s political opponents, who questioned the cost to the U.S. of securing energy shipments for the entire world, including rivals such as China, one of the largest purchasers of crude oil from the region.

“Very few, if any, of these tankers are coming to the United States,” Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) wrote on X. “This certainly looks like the United States will be subsidizing and protecting oil shipments to China.”

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) is preparing for President Trump to declare a national emergency in order to seize control of this year’s midterm elections from the states, including by bracing his Senate colleagues for a vote in which they would be forced to either co-sign on the power grab or resist it.

In the wake of reporting last week that conservative activists with connections to the White House were circulating such an order, Padilla sent a letter to his Senate colleagues Friday stating that any such order would be “wildly illegal and unconstitutional,” and would no doubt face “extremely strict scrutiny” in the courts.

“Nevertheless, if the President does escalate his unprecedented assault on our democracy by declaring an election-related emergency, I will swiftly introduce a privileged resolution [and] force a vote in the Senate to terminate the fake emergency,” wrote Padilla, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.

Padilla wrote that such an order — which could possibly “include banning mail-in voting, eliminating major voting registration methods, voter purges, and/or new document barriers for registering to vote and voting” — would clearly go beyond Trump’s authority.

“Put simply, no President has the power under the Constitution or any law to take over elections, and no declaration or order can create one out of thin air,” Padilla wrote.

The same day Padilla sent his letter, Trump was asked whether he was considering declaring a national emergency around the midterms. “Who told you that?” he asked — before saying he was not considering such an order.

The White House referred The Times to that exchange when asked Tuesday for comment on Padilla’s letter.

If Trump did declare such an emergency, a “privileged resolution,” as Padilla proposed, would require the full Senate to vote on the record on whether or not to terminate it — forcing any Senate allies of the president to own the policy politically, along with him.

Experts say there is no evidence that U.S. elections are significantly affected or swung by widespread fraud or foreign interference, despite robust efforts by Trump and his allies for years to find it.

Nonetheless, Trump has been emphatic that such fraud is occurring, particularly in blue states such as California that allow for mail-in ballots and do not have strict voter ID laws. He and others in his administration have asserted, again without evidence, that large numbers of noncitizen residents are casting votes and that others are “harvesting” ballots out of the mail and filling them out in bulk.

Soon after taking office, Trump issued an executive order purporting to require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship before registering and barring the counting of mail-in ballots received after election day, but it was largely blocked by the courts.

Trump’s loyalist Justice Department sued red and blue states across the country for their full voter rolls, but those efforts also have largely been blocked, including in California. The FBI also raided an elections office in Georgia that has been the focus of Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him.

Trump is also pushing for the passage of the Save America Act, a voter ID bill passed by the House, but it has stalled in the Senate.

In recent weeks, Trump has expressed frustration that his demands around voting security have not translated into changes in blue state policies ahead of the upcoming midterm elections, where his shrinking approval could translate into major gains for Democrats.

Last month, Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, “I have searched the depths of Legal Arguments not yet articulated or vetted on this subject, and will be presenting an irrefutable one in the very near future. There will be Voter I.D. for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not!”

Then, last week, the Washington Post reported that a draft executive order being circulated by activists with ties to Trump suggests that unproven claims of Chinese interference in the 2020 election could be used as a pretext to declare an elections emergency granting Trump sweeping authority to unilaterally institute the changes he wants to see in state-run elections.

Election experts said the Constitution is clear that states control and run elections, not with the executive branch.

Democrats have widely denounced any federal takeover of elections by Trump. And some Republicans have expressed similar concerns, including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who chairs the Senate rules committee.

In the Wall Street Journal last year, McConnell warned against Trump or any Republican president asserting sweeping authority to control elections, in part because Democrats would then be empowered to claim similar authority if and when they retake power.

McConnell’s office referred The Times to that Journal opinion piece when asked about the circulating emergency order and Padilla’s resolution.

Padilla’s office said his resolution would be introduced in response to an emergency declaration by Trump, but hoped it wouldn’t be necessary.

“Instead of trying to evade accountability at the ballot box,” Padilla wrote, “the President should focus on the needs of Americans struggling to pay for groceries, health care, housing and other everyday needs and put these illegal and unconstitutional election orders in the trash can where they belong.”