Donald Trump

On Tuesday, voters in Pennsylvania’s third congressional district — which encompasses much of Philadelphia’s urban core — will decide what kind of progressive champion they want representing them in the United States House of Representatives.

Four candidates are vying for the Democratic nomination in Tuesday’s primary. They include state Representative Chris Rabb, state Senator Sharif Street, pediatric surgeon Ala Stanford and lawyer Shaun Griffith.

On the whole, all four campaigns are markedly progressive, focusing on issues such as expanding healthcare, affordability and housing.

But supporters say the race exposes the fault lines within the Democratic Party as it seeks to rally opposition to Republican President Donald Trump in the 2026 midterm cycle.

Marc Stier, who served as the director of the Pennsylvania Policy Center, a progressive think tank, until earlier this year, noted that there are few differences in the candidates’ platforms.

“They’re all opposed to Donald Trump. They’re all talking about civil rights, healthcare and voting rights,” said Stier, who backs Rabb. “So the differences aren’t that great.”

But the race has drawn nationwide attention, including endorsements from top Democrats.

For Stier and other local experts and leaders, the divisions come down to a duel between ideals and pragmatism — and how the candidates wish to be perceived along that spectrum.

A Democratic stronghold

The primary is highly symbolic for the Democratic Party. Pennsylvania’s third congressional district is considered one of the most left-leaning areas in the US.

According to The Cook Political Report, the district was 40 percentage points more Democratic than the national average in the most recent presidential election.

That makes it a key party stronghold in a pivotal swing state: Pennsylvania has alternated between voting Democratic and Republican in the last four presidential races, most recently siding with Trump.

Since 2016, Democrat Dwight Evans has represented the area. But in June, he announced he would not seek reelection after holding congressional office for a decade.

That opened a gateway to a heated primary, with no incumbent to lead the pack.

Street, Rabb and Stanford are considered the frontrunners. No independent polling has been conducted in the race, but surveys gathered by the candidates or their supporters show a volatile three-way contest.

An April poll sponsored by 314 Action, a group supporting Stanford, found the surgeon leading with 28 percent of voter support, followed by Rabb at 23 percent and Street at 16 percent.

Meanwhile, a November survey sponsored by Street found the state senator ahead with 22 percent support, ahead of Rabb at 17 percent and Stanford at 11.

A three-way race

Each of the three candidates has positioned themselves as the Democrat who will shake up the status quo and deliver results.

“The same old politics and the same old politicians are not going to cut it,” Stanford declared at a forum hosted by WHYY public radio in February.

“We need people who step up in a storm, who lead when others wilt away, and that’s what I’ve done and will do for this city.”

There are differences, however, in how the candidates are presenting themselves.

Stanford is campaigning as the political outsider whose public health advocacy offered critical leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is her first political run.

Street, on the other hand, is seen as the political veteran backed by party leadership. He first entered the state Senate in 2017, becoming the first Muslim elected to the chamber, and his father was a former Philadelphia mayor.

Then there’s Rabb, a democratic socialist who has positioned himself as the firebrand progressive in the mould of New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

He, too, has served in government since 2017, representing northwest Philadelphia in the state House of Representatives.

All three have embraced progressive rallying cries, such as increasing affordable housing, widening access to healthcare, and abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency accused of racial profiling and violent tactics.

But Street has set himself apart by wedding his reputation to the Democratic establishment. From 2022 to 2025, he served as chair of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party.

“Street has very strong relationships with the political machine here: the party establishment, the ward leaders and committee people, and other legislators,” Stier said.

Supporters weigh in

But amid the frustration with the Democratic Party, particularly after its defeat in the 2024 presidential race, Street’s opponents have sought to distance themselves from the left-wing establishment.

“Rabb clearly says his goal is to push the envelope on issues and build public support for bolder ideas than Street is likely to push forward,” said Stier.

But Stier acknowledges that some voters see progressives like Rabb as all talk and no action.

“As my ward leader says, Rabb is one of those people that makes a lot of speeches but doesn’t get much done,” Stier said.

He dismisses such remarks as hackneyed. “It’s the kind of standard attack that is made by the establishment against people who are very outspoken and don’t always get along with the party establishment in Harrisburg.”

But it is the kind of argument Lou Agre, a ward leader and retired lawyer, sympathises with.

Formerly the president of the Philadelphia Metal Trades Council, Agre is backing Street in the upcoming election. He is not convinced that Rabb’s progressive positions can lead to tangible results.

“Street has always stood behind organised labour,” Agre said.

To Agre, Street represents experience, while Rabb is heavy on rhetoric. “This is a race between a guy with a record and another guy who has a platform that he’s using to get a point across,” he explained.

Duelling endorsements

In many ways, local leaders say that the difference between Tuesday’s primary candidates comes back to familiar arguments that often divide centrist and progressive Democrats.

Those labels have, in part, translated into endorsements — and behind-the-scenes party battles.

The news outlet Axios reported this month that Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro privately warned local building trade unions that attacking Stanford could inadvertently help Rabb, who has been critical of the governor.

Rabb, meanwhile, has earned the endorsements of some of the country’s most prominent progressives, including Ocasio-Cortez, Representative Ilhan Omar and Senator Chris Van Hollen.

Street, by contrast, has become the candidate of choice for some of Philadelphia’s biggest power brokers, including local labour unions, city council members and Mayor Cherelle Parker.

For her part, Stanford has scored the endorsement of the outgoing congressman, Evans, whom all three hope to succeed.

Tuesday’s primary will be key. The winner will almost certainly prevail in the general election in November. No Republicans have come forward with a bid.

But with the race split narrowly between the three candidates, the outcome may ultimately boil down to turnout, and which candidate can rally the most supporters.

“If people come out to vote, if turnout is high in North and West Philadelphia, parts of the southwest and those neighbourhoods, then Sharif will win,” Agre said of his preferred candidate. “If not, who knows what will happen?”

He described Stanford, whom some have depicted as a middle ground between Street and Rabb, as a complicating factor in the race.

“Ala Stanford’s the wild card. Is she fading, or does she still have her slice of the electorate? I don’t know,” Agre said.

Stier, meanwhile, acknowledged that each of the three candidates has a path to victory.

“There are pockets of support for all these candidates,” Stier noted. But he thinks the more moderate approach of Street and Stanford may open a path for victory for Rabb.

“The winner of this race is not going to have a majority. Someone’s going to win this race with 35 to 40 percent of the vote,” he explained.

“And I think Rabb’s campaign is expecting that Stanford and Street will split the more centrist vote, and he will get all the progressive votes, and he’ll run to victory that way.”

May 18 (UPI) — Alex Saab, a billionaire Colombian businessman and longtime ally of ousted Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, appeared in a Miami federal courtroom on Monday, days after he was extradited to the United States.

Saab, 54, made his initial court appearance in the Southern District of Florida, where a federal indictment was unsealed, charging him with conspiracy to launder money through U.S. banks.

U.S. authorities have long accused Saab of corruption, specifically of using his connections to the Maduro regime to skim money from government programs intended to benefit Venezuela’s poor and of helping Maduro evade sanctions.

The case is centered on the Venezuelan government program Local Committees for Supply and Production, known as CLAP, an acronym of its Spanish name. Created in 2016 in response to the collapse of Venezuela’s economy, CLAP was intended to provide subsidized food to the country’s poor.

Federal prosecutors allege that Saab and his unnamed co-conspirators paid bribes to Venezuelan government officials to be awarded the CLAP contracts to import food, but instead enriched themselves by siphoning hundreds of millions of dollars from the program.

The charging document further accuses Saab and others of expanding the scheme to include the illegal sale of Venezuelan oil, starting in at least 2019 and continuing until the return of the indictment, which is dated Jan. 14.

The U.S. charges stem from the accusation that at least some of the allegedly ill-gotten money was transferred through U.S.-based bank accounts. If convicted, Saab faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.

“When illicit proceeds are moved through the United States financial system, our courts have jurisdiction and our prosecutors will act,” U.S. Attorney Jason Reding Quinones of the Southern District of Florida said in a statement.

The indictment announced Monday is the second a Trump administration has brought against Saab, and his extradition on Saturday is the second time he has been sent to the United States to face criminal charges.

Maduro’s government has been a target of President Donald Trump since his first administration, which sought to oust the authoritarian leader through a so-called maximum pressure campaign of sanctions, including designating Saab in 2019 over the alleged CLAP scheme.

Saab was then arrested in June 2020 in Cape Verde at the request of the United States and was extradited.

But he was returned to Venezuela by the Biden administration in 2023 in exchange for 10 detained Americans. As part of the prisoner exchange, Saab was issued a full pardon for charges included in the first indictment.

After his re-election in 2025, Trump ousted Maduro and brought him to the United States to face narco-terrorism charges in a clandestine early January military operation.

Then in February, under the government of Maduro’s former vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, who was elevated to president following her predecessor’s U.S. arrest, Venezuelan authorities detained Saab at the request of the United States.

Saab’s return to U.S. custody now raises speculation that he could be used in the federal prosecution’s case against Maduro, given his former proximity to Maduro and members of Maduro’s family.

“Saab would be a powerful witness in the prosecution of Maduro — and could offer insights into Delcy’s role in building South America’s prototypical kleptocracy,” Benjamin Gedan, a foreign policy scholar and director of the Stimson Center’s Latin America Program, said in a social media statement.

In the northwest corner of the United States, Oregon has fostered a reputation as a left-wing stronghold. Since the 1980s, the Beaver State has consistently elected Democrats in most of its statewide races.

But even in a comfortably blue state like Oregon, the fight to hold onto political power can be competitive.

On Tuesday, the state will hold its latest primary races, with each of the major parties picking its nominees for November’s midterm elections.

But a packed field of roughly 25 contenders, both Democrats and Republicans, is jockeying to replace Tina Kotek as she seeks a second term as governor.

Tuesday’s vote could also serve as an economic bellwether. Voters will weigh in on a referendum that could repeal a state fuel tax, as the US-Israel war on Iran heaps strain on consumers at the gas pump.

Who is running? And which races have attracted the most attention? We tackle those questions and more in this brief explainer.

What time do polls open?

Polls will open on Tuesday at 7am Pacific US time (15:00 GMT) and close at 8pm (4:00 GMT).

Who is running for governor?

Incumbent Governor Kotek is making a bid for a second four-year term. But she is fielding competition from dozens of other candidates, including nine Democrats.

Going into the Democratic primary, Kotek is the frontrunner. Her challengers include a children’s book author, the leader of an Indigenous nonprofit and an inventor who hopes to address water shortages.

Even more contenders are angling for the Republican gubernatorial nomination.

Among them is State Senator Christine Drazan, who ran against Kotek in 2022. Drazan has been critical of President Donald Trump’s tariff policies but supportive of his tough stance on immigration.

Also on the Republican ballot is former NBA player Chris Dudley, who was the Republican gubernatorial candidate in 2010. He had the smallest losing margin of any Republican candidate in decades.

State Representative Ed Diehl, meanwhile, is hoping to capitalise on the momentum he gained after leading the charge to block Kotek’s gas tax and fee increase package.

What are the opinion polls saying about the governor’s race?

Polls show Drazan leading the race to receive the Republican nomination, with 35 percent support.

Kotek is likely to grab an easy victory in the Democratic primary, with none of her opponents polling close behind.

What about the Senate race?

Another Democratic incumbent attempting to hold onto his seat is US Senator Jeff Merkley.

The 69-year-old, who began his career working on affordable housing, is running for a fourth consecutive six-year term. He first took office in 2009.

But while the senator faces eight rivals on the campaign trail – one Democrat and seven Republicans – his seat is considered relatively safe.

He is expected to win the Democratic primary on Tuesday and become the frontrunner for November’s general election.

What other positions are up for grabs?

All six of Oregon’s members of the US House of Representatives are running for re-election and will face the primary process on Tuesday.

Five are Democrats. One, Cliff Bentz, is a Republican, and he represents Oregon’s second congressional district, a sprawling area encompassing the entire eastern half of the state.

Also on Tuesday, voters will choose their party representatives in races for the state Senate and House.

The election will also determine a nonpartisan commissioner to lead the state Bureau of Labor and Industries.

Why does this race matter?

Oregon is a closed primary state, meaning that voters choose nominees only for the party they are registered under.

Given the state’s left-wing bent, the winners of the statewide Democratic primaries will likely emerge as frontrunners in November’s midterm races.

Still, there is room for surprise. According to state voter rolls, less than 25 percent of Oregonians are registered Republicans. But only 32 percent are registered Democrats, with the largest proportion of voters identifying as “non-affiliated” with any party.

Primary races in right-leaning areas like Oregon’s second congressional district could signify how closely the state’s Republican politicians want to align with President Trump.

Voters will also have a chance to vote on the referendum that could repeal the gas tax increase on Tuesday’s ballot.

Democrats in the state legislature raised Oregon’s gas tax to pay for roads and supplement the state’s transportation budget.

But as the US-Israel war on Iran causes gas prices to skyrocket, Republicans have used the referendum to appeal to voters on the cost of living. Gas is now averaging about 80 cents more in Oregon.

In addition, there are nearly 100 local measures sprinkled on ballots across the state, tailored to different counties. Many will focus on funding local fire departments, schools and libraries.

When are results expected?

Preliminary results are expected on Tuesday evening, shortly after polls close at 8pm local time.

But ballots will continue to arrive after election day, as mail-in votes and provisional ballots are counted, and some races may not be officially called until days later.

Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Tehran says Iranian leaders are ‘projecting defiance’ and rejecting ‘public pressure’ from the US.

The Trump administration has frequently accused US allies of failing to live up to mutual defence obligations.

The United States has said it will not take part in a joint board for continental defence with Canada, depicting the country as failing to live up to its defence obligations.

On Monday, US Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby wrote on social media that his department would halt its involvement in the Permanent Joint Board on Defense to “reassess” the forum’s benefits.

The board dates back to World War II and has served as a forum for regional security. But relations with Canada have grown strained since US President Donald Trump returned to office for a second term in 2025.

“A strong Canada that prioritizes hard power over rhetoric benefits us all. Unfortunately, Canada has failed to make credible progress on its defense commitments,” Colby wrote on X.

“We can no longer avoid the gaps between rhetoric and reality. Real powers must sustain our rhetoric with shared defense and security responsibilities.”

The announcement is the latest instance of the Trump administration chiding Western allies for what the president believes is an overreliance on US military power.

Allied countries have largely refuted his claims, arguing that they are ramping up military spending and taking steps to take greater control over regional security.

Just last year, at a NATO summit in The Hague, nearly every member state agreed to increase defence spending to 5 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP). Spain petitioned to be excluded from the agreement, though.

Canada, under Prime Minister Mark Carney, was among the countries committing to the increased spending.

Of the 5 percent earmarked for defence, 3.5 percent would go to bolstering Canada’s “core military capabilities”, Carney’s government said. The rest would go to security-related expenses, including port improvements, emergency preparedness and other resources.

Since taking office as prime minister in March 2025, Carney has been an outspoken supporter of lessening Canada’s dependence on the US’s military and economy.

In a speech this year, he outlined a vision in which “middle powers” like Canada banded together to sidestep the current “era of great power rivalry”, a veiled reference to countries like the US, Russia and China.

While the US and Canada are neighbours, Trump’s second presidency has resulted in fraying bonds between the two countries, even beyond matters of security.

Trump has accused Canada of pursuing unfair trade policies and failing to crack down on the illicit traffic of people and drugs across the border, though critics have questioned the legitimacy of these claims.

To force Canada to comply with his policies, the US president has pursued an aggressive tariff regimen to tax cross-border imports.

Trump has suggested in the past that Canada could avoid such penalties by ceding its sovereignty and becoming the US’s 51st state.

“Cooler and wiser brains are needed to preserve a close alliance w/ our neighbor,” US Republican Representative Don Bacon said in a social media post on Monday, criticising the decision to pull out of the defence forum with Canada.

“This all started w/ taunts of ‘Canada will be the 51st state’ and ‘their Prime Minister will be the 51st governor’. The insults gained us nothing but animosity that cost us economically and now militarily.”

The US, Canada and Mexico are set to negotiate an updated version of a regional free trade agreement, known as the USMCA, later this year.

The race pitting a candidate endorsed by President Donald Trump against Congressman Thomas Massie, a rare Republican critic of Israel, has become the most expensive House of Representatives primary contest in the history of the United States.

The avalanche of spending, totalling more than $34m by Monday, according to official records, highlights the significance of the elections that could oust one of the few Republican opponents to the war with Iran.

In the final stretch of the campaign ahead of Tuesday’s vote, Massie has sought to highlight the oversized role of pro-Israel groups – including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – in the race.

He said the election will be a “referendum on foreign policy” and whether pro-Israel lobby groups will be able to “bully” members of Congress.

“You can tell that I’m ahead in the polls, and they’re desperate,” Massie told ABC News on Sunday.

“That’s why they’re sending the secretary of war to my district tomorrow. That’s why the president’s losing sleep and tweeting about this. That’s why AIPAC has dumped another $3m into my race this weekend.”

Trump has been incessantly bashing Massie on social media, and in an unusual move, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth has travelled to Kentucky to campaign for Ed Gallrein, the Navy SEAL veteran challenging the congressman.

Massie has been critical of the unconditional US military aid to Israel and of the country’s abuses in Gaza and Lebanon. He has also helped spearhead the push for the release of government files related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The money

Despite the intensity of the race, the candidates have not raised record amounts of money themselves.

The bulk of the spending, more than $25.8m, has come from outside groups, known as super political action committees (super PACs).

Super PACs are usually used by special interest groups to spend heavily to oppose or support a candidate without the constraints of legal limits on direct campaign contributions.

Pro-Israel groups and donors have played a central role in the flood of funds and ads directed against Massie, with three groups linked to them spending more than $15.5m in the race, Federal Election Commission (FEC) data shows.

United Democracy Project (UDP), AIPAC’s election arm, has spent more than $4.1m.

The RJC Victory Fund, which is affiliated with the Republican Jewish Coalition, came in with around $3.9m.

MAGA KY has been the largest spender, at $7.5m.

The PAC’s finances have not been made fully public. But available records show that one of the group’s top funders is Paul Singer, a pro-Israel billionaire investor who has also made the largest individual donation to UDP over the past year – $2.5m.

MAGA KY also received funds from Preserve America PAC, a group linked to Israeli-American megadonor Miriam Adelson.

Details of the finances of Preserve America PAC remain unclear for this election cycle. But Adelson donated $106m to the PAC in 2024 to help elect Trump as president.

Trump has openly admitted that Adelson and her late husband Sheldon Adelson have influenced his Middle East policies.

Before the race in Kentucky’s Fourth Congressional District, the most expensive House primary was the 2024 election that ousted then-Democratic Congressman Jamaal Bowman, in which pro-Israel groups, including AIPAC, were also the largest spenders.

The third most expensive primary also involved AIPAC and its pro-Israel allies, who succeeded in helping defeat progressive Congresswoman Cori Bush in 2024.

The Trump factor

Beyond the millions of dollars in pro-Israel spending, Massie needs to survive another potent force in Republican politics – Trump’s wrath.

The US president has all but purged the party of lawmakers who have disagreed with him on major issues.

Most recently, Senator Bill Cassidy – who voted to convict Trump after the January 6, 2021, US Capitol riot – lost his primary to a challenger backed by the US president.

Trump is actively campaigning against Massie. In less than 24 hours between Sunday and Monday, the US president fired off three social media posts berating the congressman, calling him “weak”, “pathetic” and a “bum”.

“The worst Congressman in the long and storied history of the Republican Party is Thomas Massie,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Monday. “He is an obstructionist and a fool. Vote him out of office tomorrow, Tuesday. It will be a great day for America!”

However, Massie appears to have a few advantages that other Republican dissidents lacked.

Over the years, the congressman has built a reputation as a combative, principled libertarian and has gained popularity among right-wing commentators.

His campaign directly raised $5.5m, significantly more than Gallrein’s $3.1m, while also receiving outside support from pro-gun rights and libertarian PACs.

Massie has also been endorsed by some of his Republican colleagues, including Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, an outspoken right-wing lawmaker.

And due to the involvement of pro-Israel groups, Massie’s supporters are arguing that the race is not all about Trump, who remains popular amongst Republican voters.

“Why does Trump hate Massie? Is the congressman a secret liberal? Not at all,” right-wing commentator Tucker Carlson said in his newsletter on Monday.

“Unlike nearly everyone else in the Republican Party, Massie has refused to go along with the White House’s abandonment of the America First principles that got the president elected. He is one of the few honest people in politics. Everyone who cares about our country should root for him.”

United States President Donald Trump has withdrawn his $10bn lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) stemming from a leak of his tax returns and said his administration will create a $1.77bn anti-weaponisation fund that would compensate some of Trump’s political allies.

The court filing, released on Monday in Florida, did not disclose the terms of the deal, including whether either party settled.

However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Monday announced the establishment of a $1.77bn fund called the Anti-Weaponisation Fund that would “provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponisation and lawfare”.

The DOJ said in its press release that it was part of the settlement agreement.

ABC News first reported last week that the president was prepared to drop the lawsuit as part of a deal that would create the fund to pay Trump allies who were perceived as wrongly investigated and prosecuted.

Trump, his adult sons Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization sued the IRS in January, arguing the agency should have done more to prevent a former contractor from disclosing their tax returns to media outlets during the president’s first term.

The case arose from former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn’s leak of Trump’s tax returns to media outlets, including the New York Times and ProPublica, in 2019 and 2020.

Those returns showed that Trump paid little or no income taxes in many years, the Times reported in 2020.

Prosecutors charged Littlejohn in 2023 with leaking tax records of Trump and thousands of other wealthy Americans to the media, saying he was motivated by a political agenda. Littlejohn later pleaded guilty to improper disclosures, and a judge sentenced him to five years in prison.

Trump filed the lawsuit personally, not in his official capacity as president.

Political pushback

While the court filing did not mention the terms of any potential deal, news that the president would create a fund to protect his political allies sparked backlash.

Representative Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland, called the idea “unconstitutional”.

“This, of course, is a political grievance fund that Donald Trump can use to pay off his friends,” Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an interview on Sunday with the ABC News programme This Week.

“If these people have a valid cause of action, they should bring it to the court like every other American does, and use the system of due process, and prove things by clear and convincing evidence, or a preponderance of evidence. Go and prove it. But the idea that Donald Trump can just pass it out like a pardon is absurd,” he said.

California Governor Gavin Newsom also criticised the president amid reports of the deal.

“Donald Trump wants to settle his joke lawsuit against his own IRS department to hand out $1.7 BILLION of OUR TAX DOLLARS to Jan. 6th insurrectionists and his cronies,” Newsom said in a post on X.

“It is an outrage that the American taxpayers are having to pay for this and that we have a president who is exercising such open corruption in front of everyone and expecting us to go along with it,” Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Democrat from Washington state, told the progressive MeidasTouch network.

Despite the criticisms, it is not clear who would specifically benefit from the funds.

Trump has long claimed that the DOJ under his predecessor, President Joe Biden, a Democrat, was weaponised against him, pointing to the criminal charges where he faced allegations that he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, which Trump lost by more than seven million votes, and that he retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

Merrick Garland, the attorney general during the Biden administration, denied allegations of politicisation. The Justice Department also investigated prominent Democrats, including Biden’s son Hunter Biden and former US Senator Bob Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey.

“The machinery of government should never be weaponised against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again,” said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a release.

However, the Trump administration has actively pursued cases against perceived political enemies, including former FBI director James Comey and former Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, Fed Governor Lisa Cook, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, and California Senator Adam Schiff. 

The DOJ said that there is legal precedent for the fund, pointing to a programme called “Keepseagle” under the administration of former US President Barack Obama, a Democrat. That created a fund to address allegations of racism against the federal government.

The White House referred Al Jazeera to the DOJ for a request for comment. The DOJ did not respond.

The government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) announced on X that it would be investigating how the funds would be used.

“While Americans are struggling with an affordability crisis, President Trump plans to use nearly $1.8bn in taxpayer money to pay off his friends and allies—including potentially the violent insurrectionists who attacked the Capitol on January 6th,” CREW’s president, Donald K Sherman, said in a statement provided to Al Jazeera.

“By settling his absurd $10bn lawsuit against his own administration, Trump and the Justice Department just engaged in the most brazen act of self-dealing in the history of the presidency, and did so quickly in order to avoid the scrutiny of the judicial process, while quite likely violating the Constitution’s Domestic Emoluments Clause in the process. This is one of the single most corrupt acts in American history.”

A long time coming

Lawyers for the president asked a federal judge in April to pause the case for 90 days while the two sides worked to reach a settlement or resolution.

“This limited pause will neither prejudice the parties nor delay ultimate resolution,” the filing in April said. “Rather, the extension will promote judicial economy and allow the Parties to explore avenues that could narrow or resolve the issues efficiently.”

When asked in February how he would handle any potential damages from the case, Trump said, “I think what we’ll do is do something for charity.”

“We could make it a substantial amount,” he said at the time. “Nobody would care because it’s going to go to numerous very good charities.”

The litigation against the IRS raised novel legal questions, including conflicts of interest, about whether a president can sue his own government. It is not clear if the judge will accept Trump’s withdrawal of the case.

Under the US Constitution, federal courts may only hear genuine disputes between litigants with opposing stakes in the outcome.

US District Court Judge Kathleen Williams in Miami, who oversees Trump’s lawsuit, wrote last month that it was unclear whether the parties to the lawsuit were “truly antagonistic to each other”.

Williams had set a court hearing for May 27 to hear arguments on whether she should dismiss the case on those grounds.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Monday moved to withdraw his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns after reports that his administration was poised to create a fund to compensate some of his allies.

The disclosure was made in a filing in federal court in Florida, where the lawsuit was filed last year.

ABC News first reported last week that Trump was prepared to drop his lawsuit as part of a deal that would create a $1.7 billion fund to pay allies of the president who believe they were wrongly investigated and prosecuted.

The court filing did not mention terms of any potential deal.

News that the Trump administration was contemplating a fund to pay Trump allies drew an immediate backlash from Democrats, including Rep. Jamie Raskin, who called the idea “unconstitutional.”

“This, of course, is a political grievance fund that Donald Trump can use to pay off his friends,” Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an interview Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

“If these people have a valid cause of action, they should bring it to the court like every other American does, and use the system of due process, and proving things by clear and convincing evidence, or a preponderance of evidence, go and prove it. But the idea that Donald Trump can just pass it out like a pardon is absurd,” he added.

It was not immediately clear who precisely will stand to benefit from the fund but its creation reflects Trump’s long-running claims that the Biden administration Justice Department was weaponized against him.

He has cited as proof the since-dismissed criminal charges he faced between his first and second terms of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election he lost and of retaining classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Several aides of his were also prosecuted, as were hundreds of Trump supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Merrick Garland, who served as attorney general during the Biden administration, has repeatedly denied allegations of politicization and has said his decisions followed facts, the evidence and the law. His Justice Department also investigated Biden for his handling of classified information and brought separate tax and gun prosecutions against Biden’s son Hunter.

Nonetheless, Trump’s current Justice Department has actively pursued the president’s retribution campaign and grievances, bringing criminal charges against some of his perceived adversaries and initiating a wide-ranging investigation that aims to establish a years-long conspiracy between law enforcement and intelligence officials to destroy Trump’s political prospects and keep him power.

No charges have been brought in that investigation and it is not clear that any ever will be.

Trump filed a lawsuit earlier this year in a Florida federal court, alleging that a previous leak of his and the Trump Organization’s confidential tax records caused “reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, unfairly tarnished their business reputations, portrayed them in a false light, and negatively affected President Trump, and the other Plaintiffs’ public standing.”

The president’s sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, are also named plaintiffs in the suit.

Hussein, Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press.

May 18 (UPI) — President Donald Trump has renewed his threats of mass violence against Iran, warning Tehran that “the Clock is Ticking” as the stalemate in talks to end the war shows no signs of ending.

In a statement on his Truth Social platform on Sunday night, Trump wrote: “For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them.”

“TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!”

The two-sentence statement echoed the scale of violence he threatened April 7, shortly before the cease-fire was announced, when he warned Iran to make an agreement to end the war or “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”

Trump has been seeking an agreement with Iran to end the war since the conflict was halted April 8 with a cease-fire to permit negotiations.

Those negotiations have progressed little if at all since talks broke down in Islamabad in mid-April.

An Iranian proposal recently sent to the United States was rejected by Trump, who told reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday en route to Washington from China that he looked at it and found the first sentence unacceptable.

“Well, I looked at it, and if I don’t like the first sentence, I just throw it away,” Trump said.

Asked what the first sentence was, Trump replied, “An unacceptable sentence.”

Trump said he is seeking a lengthy suspension of Iran’s nuclear program, stating that two decades may comply with his demands but “it’s got to be a real 20 years.”

According to Iranian state media Press TV, Iran’s proposal calls for a comprehensive end to the war, full compensation from the United States for damages, the removal of sanctions, the release of frozen Iranian assets and recognition of Iran’s sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency reported the United States responded with five demands: no compensation, no unfreezing of assets, the handover of 881.8 pounds of uranium to the United States, only one nuclear facility remaining active and making a halt to the war on all fronts conditional on negotiations.

In response to Trump’s threat on Sunday, Brig. Gen. Abolfazl Shekarchi, senior spokesman for Iran’s Armed Forces, called Trump “delusional,” the Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

“Repeating any foolishness to compensate for America’s disgrace in the third imposed war against Iran will bring no consequence other than receiving more crushing and severe blows for that country,” Shekarchi said.

He warned Trump if the United States resumed its attacks, “the assets and decayed army of that country will face new, offensive, surprising and stormy scenarios.”

May 18 (UPI) — Taiwanese President William Lai Ching-te said Taiwan would not do anything to trigger confrontation with China but vowed the island would never allow itself to be traded away or give up sovereignty.

In an online post Sunday, Lai said that “as a responsible party in the region and across the Taiwan Strait, Taiwan will not provoke or escalate conflict,” but neither would it yield to pressure to relinquish its “national sovereignty and dignity, or its democratic and free way of life.”

Lai’s statement came after Beijing warned U.S. President Donald Trump to be “extra cautious” over Taiwan, which Beijing regards as a breakaway province, saying it could result in clashes and potential conflict that could place the entire Sino-U.S. relationship “in great jeopardy.”

Speaking aboard Air Force One on his way back to Washington from his summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump said he had “made no commitment” either way on the Taiwan question or an $11 billion deal to sell arms to the island that was sent to Congress for approval in December.

Trump said he and Xi had discussed the arms deal in depth and that he would make a determination on whether it would go through “over the next fairly short period of time.”

“I’m going to say I have to speak to the person that right now is, you know, you know who he is, that’s running Taiwan,” Lai’s name apparently having slipped his mind.

Trump also strictly adhered to Washington’s long-held position of strategic ambiguity by refusing to answer questions over whether the United States would come to Taiwan’s aid militarily, were it attacked.

Beijing wants reunification and has not ruled out retaking Taiwan by force, particularly if it declared independence.

Back in the United States, Trump appeared to urge caution over Taiwan independence, telling Fox News on Friday that while nothing in the United States’ policy on Taiwan had changed, he wasn’t “looking to have somebody go independent.”

“I’m not looking to have somebody go independent. And, you know, we’re supposed to travel 9,500 miles to fight a war. I’m not looking for that. I want them to cool down. I want China to cool down,” he said.

Although the United States switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei in favor of Beijing in 1979 and acknowledged there is only one China of which Taiwan is a part– the so-called “One China” policy it follows to this day — the Taiwan Relations Act requires it to treat any effort to alter Taiwan’s future by force as a threat to peace in the region and U.S. interests.

The legislation requires the United States to provide the island with arms to defend itself and for the United States to maintain its own capacity “to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or social or economic system, of the people of Taiwan.”

However, there is no guarantee of committing U.S. troops to help defend the island.

In his post, Lai expressed gratitude for the United States’ “continued support” for peace in the Taiwan Strait, as well as ongoing military assistance.

“Given China’s unwavering commitment to the use of force to annex Taiwan and its continued military expansion in an attempt to alter the regional and cross-strait status quo, the United States’ continued arms sales to Taiwan and its deepening of U.S.-Taiwan security cooperation, even to the point of necessity, are crucial elements in maintaining regional peace and stability,” wrote Lai.

EXPLAINER

The fear of renewed US strikes in Iran looms while Israeli attacks continue in Lebanon despite extended ‘ceasefire’.

United States President Donald Trump has warned Iran that the “clock is ticking” to clinch a deal to end the war as reports have emerged that Washington and Israel might be planning to carry out air strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure.

“For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. “TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!”

Iranian Ministry of Defence spokesperson Reza Talaei-Nik said on Sunday that the military is “fully prepared” to confront any new aggression from the US and Israel.

Saudi Arabia on Monday said it intercepted three drones, a day after a drone strike hit the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant in the United Arab Emirates.

Meanwhile, Israel has continued its bombardment of Lebanon despite another “ceasefire” extension.

As the US-Israeli war on Iran continues for its 80th day, here is what we know:

In Iran

• Mohsen Rezaei, a member of Tehran’s Expediency Council and former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander, issued a warning to the US to lift its blockade of Iranian ports, saying the Iranian military is ready for further confrontation. Rezaei made this warning while speaking to state television.
• Talaei-Nik said the Iranian armed forces are “fully prepared to confront any new potential attack by the US and the Israeli regime against the country”.

War diplomacy

• Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia’s envoy to international organisations in Vienna, suggested in an X post that Iran appoint a special envoy to Moscow, similar to Tehran’s arrangement with China.
• In an X post, Jean-Luc Melenchon, the leading figure of France’s left-wing La France Insoumise party, condemned “European complicity” in the US-Israeli strikes on Iran, which have triggered a wider regional war.

In the Gulf

• The New York Times reported that the Israeli military has operated two “covert” outposts in Iraq’s western desert and killed a shepherd and a soldier in a bid to hide one of the sites near the town of al-Nukhaib.
• After the drone attack on the nuclear facility caused a fire, the UAE Ministry of Defence said two other drones had been “successfully” dealt with after they were launched from the “western border”. It did not elaborate.
• The drone that got through the UAE’s defences hit an electrical generator outside the inner perimeter of the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant, the Abu Dhabi Media Office said. Radiological safety levels were unaffected, and there were no injuries, it said. The UAE’s Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation later confirmed that the plant remained safe with no radioactive material released from the strike.
• Saudi Arabia said the three drones it intercepted entered from Iraqi airspace and warned that it would take the necessary operational measures to respond to any attempt to violate its sovereignty and security.

In the US

• Marjorie Taylor Greene, a former US congresswoman and a once-close ally of Trump, has warned in a post on X that any attempt to send US troops into Iran would trigger what she described as a “political revolution”.
• Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, speaking to the NBC broadcaster, urged Trump to “hurt” Iran, including launching attacks on its energy sites, until it agrees to US terms on its nuclear programme. The US and Israel have hit civilian targets multiple times during the war on Iran. Attacks on civilian facilities are considered war crimes under international law.

In Israel

• Israel’s Channel 13 reported that dozens of US cargo planes carrying ammunition from bases in Germany have landed in Tel Aviv.
• Israeli media reported that the military is preparing for renewed hostilities with Iran. The public broadcaster Kan quoted an unnamed security official as saying that Israel would join any new US strikes and target Iranian energy infrastructure.

In Lebanon

• Israeli strikes have continued in southern Lebanon, where Israel issued evacuation orders for four towns and villages and then struck two of those locations.
• Strikes were also reported in Az-Zrariyah on a moving vehicle while another raid in Tayr Debba resulted in some significant casualty numbers, Al Jazeera’s Obaida Hitto reported from Tyre, Lebanon.

Global markets

• Stalled peace efforts between Iran and the US caused oil prices to rise again on Monday. This pushed the price of the global benchmark Brent crude up to about $111 per barrel, close to its highest level in weeks.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has hosted a nine-hour prayer event on the National Mall in Washington, DC, as part of its efforts to commemorate the country’s 250th anniversary.

Sunday’s event was called “Rededicate 250: A National Jubilee of Prayer, Praise and Thanksgiving”, and it took place from 9am to 6pm Eastern US time (13:00 to 22:00 GMT).

On the jubilee’s website, organisers explained that their aim was to mark “rededication of our country as One Nation to God”.

The event featured performers, pastors and civil rights leaders, as well as Trump’s Republican allies, among them Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina.

“Our rights don’t come from the government,” Scott told the crowd. “No, our rights come from God, the king of kings.”

Members of the Trump administration, including the president himself, also recorded video messages that were broadcast from the stage.

Trump’s video showed him seated behind the Resolute Desk in the White House, reciting a speech from the Book of Chronicles that God gave to King Solomon, promising protection to his followers and destruction to those who forsake him.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, meanwhile, used his video to describe the US as a country uniquely shaped by the “Christian idea”.

“Before the Christian West, most societies – and civilisations, for that matter – thought in stagnant cycles: the flooding of the Nile, the return of the rains, the cycle of the harvest. History for them was a wheel to nowhere,” Rubio said.

“But our faith calls us outwards into the limitless darkness of the unknown. It tells us to go forth and preach the gospel to the world as a witness unto all nations and to the ends of the earth.”

The event was not without controversy, though. Critics pointed out that only one speaker, a rabbi, was non-Christian.

Some religious leaders even rejected the event as a political stunt, rather than a sincere testament to faith.

Paul Raushenbush, a reverend and president of the Interfaith Alliance, posted on social media that his objections did not stem from an “antipathy towards religion”. Rather, he said his faith compels him to cherish the “rich tapestry of beliefs” that come together in the US.

“Rededicate 250 is a betrayal of America’s founding values guaranteed in the First Amendment – which made clear that there shall be no establishment of religion by the government and that each one of us should be free to live out our beliefs in our own way,” Raushenbush wrote.

Traditionally, the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution has been interpreted as prohibiting the government from establishing or imposing religious beliefs on its citizens.

But critics argue the Trump administration has blurred the separation between church and state, including by having regular prayer services at the Department of Defense.

Trump, however, has accused the federal government of “anti-Christian bias“. He launched a task force last year to root out the purported discrimination.

Evangelical Christians form a pillar in Trump’s right-wing base of support. The demographic is a powerful force during election seasons in the US, and Trump has sought to rally Christian voters ahead of major votes.

Their views could reshape how the US Constitution is interpreted. A survey from the Pew Research Center released last week found a slight uptick in the number of US adults who believe Christianity should be named as the country’s official religion. Seventeen percent now share that view, up from 13 percent in 2024.

That said, Pew researchers noted that a majority of Americans, roughly 54 percent, still believe in the separation of church and state.

About 52 percent also said that “conservative Christians have gone too far in trying to push their religious values in the government and public schools”.

United States President Donald Trump has reiterated his threats against Iran, as negotiations to end the conflict between the two countries continue to flounder.

In a Sunday morning post on his platform Truth Social, Trump warned that time was running short before a fresh wave of US military action might be launched.

“For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them,” Trump wrote in the short, two-sentence message. “TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!”

The post was the latest example of Trump using violent rhetoric against Iran as his administration struggles to achieve its goals in the war.

Just a day earlier, Trump had posted an AI-generated image of himself atop a military ship, labelled, “It was the calm before the storm.”

The conflict began on February 28, when Israel and the US jointly attacked Iran.

Since then, Trump has put forward a range of objectives for the resulting war, including dismantling Iran’s missile arsenal, severing its relations with regional allies, and ending its nuclear enrichment programme.

On April 7, Trump coupled those demands with a social media post suggesting wholesale destruction in Iran. Critics have likened the post to a call for genocide.

“A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will,” Trump wrote.

Within hours of the post, the US and Iran agreed to a ceasefire that has been in place ever since, though both sides have accused each other of violations.

The US president had previously threatened to attack the country’s civilian infrastructure, including its power plants and bridges, which legal experts warn could amount to a violation of the Geneva Convention.

Separately, in a May interview with Fox News, Trump said Iranian officials will “be blown off the face of the earth” if they attack US vessels.

Iran has denounced such rhetoric and rejected Trump’s demands as excessive.

Mehr, a news agency sponsored by the Iranian government, issued a statement on Sunday saying that the US has offered “no tangible concessions” in its latest proposals.

It also accused the US of seeking to “obtain concessions that it failed to obtain during the war”, a strategy that “will lead to an impasse in the negotiations”.

Separately, a spokesperson for Iran’s armed forces, Abolfazl Shakarchi, was quoted as warning the US against further threats.

“Repeating any folly to compensate for America’s disgrace in the Third Imposed War against Iran will result in nothing but receiving more crushing and severe blows,” he told Mehr.

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera correspondent Almigdad Alruhaid said that the Iranian government has indicated that violent rhetoric from the US will not be tolerated.

“From what we understand, this kind of language is not acceptable here in Tehran. They are projecting defiance rather than [giving] an immediate response to this kind of rhetoric,” Alruhaid said.

He added that the increasingly hostile remarks from both sides signal that the ceasefire could be at imminent risk of shattering.

“Behind all of this rhetoric, there is awareness that the diplomatic window right now is narrowing,” Alruhaid said.

“We do know that there is hard language, hard messaging from both sides — that the finger’s on the trigger on both sides.”

But Adam Clements, a foreign policy analyst, told Al Jazeera there could be a “domestic element” to Trump’s hardline rhetoric, including his latest flurry of messages.

“Of course, Iran would have to take it seriously,” Clements said of Sunday’s post.

“At the same time as well, President Trump is known for his bombastic tweets, his bombastic statements, perhaps for domestic audiences.”

Clements added that it will be critical to watch whether Trump’s statements are echoed by his officials in the coming days, and whether they are also matched by increased military activity.

“ The White House press office has been known to post these type of strange memes, or AI-generated memes and cartoons in the past,” he explained.

“So I think it’s necessary here to sometimes look past some of the political noise, some of the things for show, and really try to pay attention to these clear signals.”

May 17 (UPI) — Sen. Bill Cassidy, a 15-year veteran of the U.S. Congress, lost Louisiana’s Republican primary this weekend and appeared to take aim at President Donald Trump in his concession speech.

Cassidy, who has represented Louisiana in the U.S. Senate since 2015, said that though the election didn’t turn out the way he wanted, “you don’t pout, you don’t whine, you don’t claim the election was stolen.”

“Let me just set the record straight: Our country is not about one individual,” he said, NBC reported. “It is about the welfare of all Americans, and it is about our Constitution. And it is the welfare of my people and my state and my country and our Constitution, to which I am loyal.

“And if someone doesn’t understand that, and attempts to control others through using the levers of power, they are about serving themselves. They’re not about serving us. And that person is not qualified to be a leader.”

Saturday’s election results showed that U.S. Rep. Julia Letlow received the most votes in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate seat, with 44.84% of the vote. Louisiana State Treasurer John Fleming narrowly took second place with 28.28% of the vote and Cassidy came in third with 24.8%. The results mean Letlow, who has Trump’s backing, will face Fleming in a runoff on June 27, NOLA.com reported.

Trump was less veiled in his attacks on Cassidy in a post on Truth Social on Saturday night. He described the senator’s loss as “unprecedented.”

“That’s what you get by voting to Impeach an innocent man, especially one who made it possible for Cassidy’s Senate win,” Trump wrote.

Cassidy was one of six Republicans in the Senate to vote in favor of proceeding with an impeachment trial for Trump. He ultimately voted to acquit Trump in the president’s second impeachment trial in 2021.

Cassidy represented Louisiana’s 6th Congressional District from 2009 to 2015, when he was first elected to the U.S. Senate.

Bill Cassidy is among seven Republican senators who voted to convict Trump after the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

US Senator Bill Cassidy has lost his Louisiana Republican primary after years of criticism from supporters of Donald Trump over his vote to convict the United States president during his 2021 impeachment trial linked to the January 6 Capitol attack that year.

Cassidy failed to secure enough support in the southern state on Saturday to advance to a run-off, finishing behind Representative Julia Letlow and State Treasurer John Fleming. The two will face each other in a second round of voting on June 27.

The result underlines Trump’s continued influence over the Republican Party as he targets politicians seen as disloyal, even as he faces growing political pressure over inflation, falling approval ratings and criticism of the US-Israeli war on Iran.

Cassidy was one of seven Republican senators who voted to convict Trump after the attack on the US Capitol by Trump supporters who sought to overturn Trump’s 2020 election loss. While several Republicans who broke with Trump chose not to seek re-election, Cassidy campaigned aggressively for a third six-year term and heavily outspent his rivals.

On the morning of the vote, Trump attacked Cassidy on social media, calling him “a disloyal disaster” and “a terrible guy”. Speaking after his defeat, Cassidy appeared to respond indirectly to Trump’s remarks. “Insults only bother me if they come from somebody of character and integrity,” he told supporters.

He added: “Our country is not about one individual. It is about the welfare of all Americans, and it is about the constitution.”

Letlow, meanwhile, embraced Trump’s backing during her victory speech. “I want to say thank you to a very special man, … the best president this country has ever had, President Donald Trump,” she said.

She later described Cassidy’s impeachment vote as evidence that he had “turned his back on Louisiana voters”. Trump celebrated Cassidy’s loss online, writing: “That’s what you get by voting to impeach an innocent man.”

The Louisiana race is the latest in a series of contests in which Trump has backed efforts to remove Republicans who opposed him. Earlier this month, several Indiana state senators were also defeated after they had rejected Trump’s redistricting plan aimed at winning more seats in the US Congress for Republicans.

Saturday’s elections also took place amid confusion after a recent US Supreme Court ruling weakening part of the Voting Rights Act related to electoral district maps.

While the Senate primary went ahead as planned, Louisiana officials postponed primary elections for the US House of Representatives to redraw district boundaries. Civil rights groups challenged the delay, arguing it violates both the US Constitution and the Louisiana Constitution.

Eddie Martinez can’t stand Donald Trump. So when Eric Swalwell entered the race for California governor, Martinez had his candidate.

“I liked the way he took Trump on, the impeachment thing in Congress,” Martinez said of the former Bay Area congressman, a Trump nemesis who served as one of the House prosecutors in 2021 when Democrats held the wayward president to account for the second time.

Then, suddenly, Swalwell’s campaign collapsed under the weight of allegations of abuse, including charges he sexually assaulted a former aide. With Martinez’s choice out of the running, the Democrat turned to the candidate who’d been his second pick all along, Xavier Becerra.

Martinez has been familiar with Becerra for decades, going back to when the former congressman, state attorney general and Biden Cabinet member was in the state Assembly. To his credit, said the 65-year-old retired public relations strategist, Becerra has largely kept clear of controversy and there’s never been a whiff of personal scandal — an important consideration after Swalwell’s spectacular self-destruction.

On top of all that, Martinez said as he prepared to drop his mail ballot at a post office in Alhambra, it would be nice for California to elect its first Latino governor in modern times. It’s been, Martinez observed, more than 150 years.

With the gubernatorial primary entering its final two weeks, a contest that had been stubbornly formless has finally gained coherence. Becerra, who’d been widely given up for dead as he foundered near the bottom of polls, has unexpectedly emerged as the Democrat to beat.

“He has the most experience,” said Ruben Avita, a 57-year-old actor who leans Democratic and is tilting toward Becerra over hedge-fund billionaire Tom Steyer. “At this point,” Avita said as he waited to catch a double feature at a cineplex in Monterey Park, “I want someone with a proven track record.”

Among the Republicans running, Trump’s pick — conservative commentator Steve Hilton — seems firmly ensconced atop the GOP field.

“He’s got a lot more common-sense approach than any of these other idiots,” said Wayne The Flame — yes, he explained, that’s his legal name —which, while not exactly a ringing endorsement, still counts as a vote.

The Claremont independent, retired at 73 after a career selling motorcycles and hot rods, described Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, the other major GOP contestant, as a racist and dismissed the entire Democratic field with a string of epithets. “Dumb—,” he said of the voters who keep putting the likes of them in power.

Peaches, a chihuahua/boxer rescue, stands alongside her owner, Wayne The Flame

If not terribly enthused, at least The Flame has made up his mind. Many voters remain undecided — or, at least, not entirely wed to a candidate.

Some are holding on to their ballots longer than usual, awaiting any last-minute developments and weighing the election odds as though wagering in a high-stakes game of poker.

Like many Democrats, Bryce Dwyer’s concern is that Hilton and Bianco will seize both spots in June’s top-two primary, advancing to a November runoff and giving California its first Republican governor in 16 years.

A 40-year-old project manager at the Getty Research Institute, Dwyer held his 2-year-old daughter as his son, 6, romped on a pleasant afternoon in Sierra Madre’s Memorial Park. Across the street, the bells of Christ Church chimed the hour.

“None of the Democrats are putting forth anything that is making me excited,” said Dwyer, who’s ruled out Becerra (he doesn’t see much there) and is deciding between Steyer and former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter. He’s trying to cast his ballot strategically, the East Pasadena resident said, and “it’s the first time in a while I haven’t really had a clue who I’m going to vote for so close to election day.”

Democrat Priscilla Vega of Monrovia has yet to settle on her candidate for governor

This is a deeply unsettled season in California, with precious little hope the next governor — whoever he or she turns out to be — will make things better anytime soon. That mix of discouragement and discontent surfaced repeatedly, like a dull ache, in conversations with dozens of voters across the San Gabriel Valley.

The region’s ethnic and economic diversity — from the working-class neighborhoods of Pomona through the Asian-majority suburbs to the mountainside mansions of San Dimas and Pasadena — make the valley a prime battleground in the race for governor.

Alana H., who asked not to use her last name, said she wasn’t even bothering to vote.

She ticked off some reasons: The soaring price of gas and rising cost of, essentially, everything else. The fear her college-age daughter will never be able to buy a home in California. Worse, is her loss of faith. She no longer believes in the promise, once taken for granted, that each generation will improve its lot over the last. And, Alana said, she’s not alone: “Anyone who’s an average person is in the same boat, we’re all just trying to stay afloat.” Standing in front of the post office in Alhambra, the 52-year-old paddled her arms as though to keep from sinking.

Jaunenito Pavon, in his Glendora wine and chocolate bar, would like California to elect a governor who could unify the state. He’s still deciding on a candidate

The politicians in both parties are “so out of touch,” she said, “all they’re doing is fighting over this and that, when everyone I know doesn’t care what party you’re in. They just want to put food on their table. They want their kids to have a better life.”

Shelby Moore has some of the same concerns. Forget about ever buying a home, said the 30-year-old California native, a Democratic-leaning independent. It’s no small feat scraping up money for rent. “I’ve lost almost every single friend that I went to high school or college with,” Moore said between waiting tables at a Mediterranean restaurant in Glendora. “They’ve all moved out of state.”

Shelby Moore, 30, a waitress in Glendora, said all her friends from high school and college have left California because it’s so expensive.

She’ll definitely vote, Moore said, though she doesn’t know for whom. One of the Democrats. Someone who’ll work to make California more affordable and keep people like her friends from being priced out.

In Claremont, Eric Hurley was another undecided Democrat. He attended last month’s gubernatorial debate at Pomona College, where the 56-year-old professor teaches psychological science and Africana studies. Otherwise, he’s been too busy to pay much attention to the race.

But it’s important, Hurley said, that whoever wins “keep fighting the good fight and standing by our liberal principles. I would hate to see someone in the governor’s office start capitulating to what the current administration is asking.”

Democrat Eric Hurley is undecided in the governor’s race. But he wants someone who’ll stand up to the Trump administration.

Others seconded that notion, that California needs to stand as a bulwark against Trump and his excesses, such as the draconian crackdown that has terrorized the state’s large immigrant population.

But there’s not a great appetite for the sort of performative pushback that’s won the current governor a wide audience on social media and boosted Gavin Newsom’s political stock as he positions himself ahead of the 2028 presidential campaign.

Jennifer Harris, 56, is a single mom in Monrovia who oversees payroll at a food manufacturing company. She has to stretch each of her dollars to make ends meet; soon she’ll be shelling out $30,000 a year for her daughter to go to college. Buying a home, Harris said, is out of the question.

She confessed to chuckling at the governor’s memes — an over-the-top oeuvre that includes Newsom as super hero, Newsom as religious beacon, Newsom as romance-novel hunk — and his other cheeky jabs at the president. “But that’s not an adult way to handle it,” Harris said between errands in Monrovia’s quaint shopping district. “It’s not solving any problems.”

Better, she said, for the next governor — she hasn’t decided whom she’ll support — to focus on practicalities: improving the economy, making housing and healthcare more affordable, dealing with homelessness and the underlying mental health issues.

Jennifer Harris said Gov. Newsom’s over-the-top social media presence is amusing. But she wants the next governor to focus on more practical things.

Britnee Foreman echoed that sentiment.

The 41-year-old, who lives in Azusa and works in the music business, was meeting a friend, Priscilla Vega, 43, for lunch in Monrovia. Along with a meal, the two Democrats shared their concerns about inflation and income inequality.

“Memes are great for publicity,” said Foreman, who’s deciding between Becerra and Porter, based on their policy experience. (Vega, a lifestyle marketer, has yet to narrow down her choice.)

Britnee Foreman says the next governor needs policies “with teeth,” not an active social media presence.

“But I prefer policy,” Foreman went on. “I don’t want them just to be the popular person out there on social media. It’s great if they’re tweeting and have a cute little Insta-story. But I need their policies to have teeth and actively move us forward. And not just look like it’s moving forward.”

After nearly eight years, amid widespread unease, California seems ready to put the Newsom era in the past. It’s just not clear what path voters will choose, or which candidate they’ll prefer to steer the state toward, hopefully, a better place.

May 15 (UPI) — President Donald Trump said Friday that wants to build the National Garden of American Heroes, an exhibit of statues in West Potomac Park in Washington, D.C.

Trump posted on social media that the public space would include landscaping and statues of the founding fathers, military soldiers, religious leaders, civil rights figures, athletes, artists and entertainers.

“This magnificent exhibition of statues will be located in West Potomac Park, which we are transforming into one of the World’s most beautiful public spaces,” Trump posted. “Right now, it is a totally BARREN field of Prime Waterfront Real Estate along our Mighty Potomac River.”

The project is the latest of Trump’s announcements to mark the United States’ 250th anniversary. He has said he wants 250 statues included in the garden.

Trump has ordered other projects in Washington, D.C., including renovation of the East Wing of the White House and repainting the basin of the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool. These projects have drawn criticism over Trump exerting unilateral authority to put them in motion, bypassing congressional approval.

The White House has not clarified whether it will seek congressional approval for the statue garden.

The National Capital Planning Commission and Commission of Fine Arts are typically involved in reviewing projects like this in Washington, D.C.

The newly formed National Garden of American Heroes Foundation is fundraising for the garden project.

w

May 15 (UPI) — The Texas Supreme Court refused to remove state Rep. Gene Wu, D-Houston, from office, despite the efforts of Gov. Greg Abbott after the 2025 redistricting showdown.

Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock, who once worked as an Abbott aide, wrote that the courts “have uniformly recognized that it is not their role to resolve disputes between the other two branches that those branches can resolve for themselves.”

“The courts’ institutional ‘reluctance … to involve themselves in contests of factional political power,’ a reluctance we reiterate and reinforce today, is a check on the judicial power ‘of ancient standing,’ not an optional preference we are at liberty to discard,” Blacklock wrote.

The fight stems from August 2025 when Texas began an effort to redistrict the state’s congressional seats to create more Republican-leaning districts. Democrats in the state’s legislature fled Texas to prevent a quorum in the House. They eventually returned, and the measure passed.

Texas House Democratic Caucus Chairman Gene Wu led the charge during the exodus of his party members, drawing the ire of Abbott. The governor had threatened to expel any Texas House members who fled the state, of whom there were more than 50.

Wu posted on X Friday: “Texas House Democrats refused to be complicit as Texas Republicans delivered Donald Trump the extra congressional seats he begged for, and now, Gov. Abbott’s final attempt at revenge has been put to rest.”

Texas House Democrats posted: “Today, we won. We’re not going anywhere.”

Republicans hold 24 of Texas’ 38 seats in the U.S. House, with one vacancy. The new map is expected to add five Republican representatives from the state.

Blacklock indicated the matter could be considered in the future.

“Whatever wrong may have been committed by the absent House members, the Texas Constitution’s internal political remedies, none of which involve the judicial branch, were sufficient to the task of restoring the House’s ability to do business,” Blacklock wrote. “Should those remedies unexpectedly prove inadequate in a future case, we might have occasion to consider whether any judicial remedy could ever be available in circumstances such as these.”

May 16 (UPI) — The Trump administration is considering the creation of a $1.776 billion fund to compensate people allied with President Donald Trump who were investigated during the Biden administration.

The fund would be part of a settlement with Trump that would result in him dropping his lawsuit with the Internal Revenue Service over the leaking of his tax returns six years ago, ABC News and The New York Times reported.

The deal emerged after months of negotiations between the White House and Department of Justice, which had originally been aiming to directly pay Trump, but conflict of interest concerns steered toward the compensation fund.

Although Trump has the right to sue as a private citizen, his position as president means that he also can instruct agencies within the executive branch, which would make him both the plaintiff and defendant in a trial.

The concept is partially modeled on an Obama administration compensation fund for Native American farmers and ranchers that distributed $760 million from the Treasury Department’s Judgment Fund.

In addition to Trump allies’ legal fees linked to investigations during his first term, the fund also likely would be open to people charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol building that saw the building get ransacked by Trump supporters.

Critics of the plan have called it a “slush fund” for Trump and his allies.

“An insane level of corruption — even for Trump,” U.S. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said of the plan earlier this week.

May 15 (UPI) — Representatives of both parties in the House on Friday demanded to know why the Department of Defense stopped deployment of troops to Poland, and top Army leaders didn’t have clear answers.

House Armed Services Committee members said the halting of troop deployment with no notice was a surprise to Congress, Politico reported. They had a hearing Friday with top Army leaders who gave them few answers.

“I just want to say this is a slap in the face to Poland; it’s a slap in the face to our Baltic friends,” Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., said. “It’s a slap to the face of this committee.”

The deployment was a long-planned rotation of 4,000 troops based in Texas, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth put a sudden stop to it.

Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., on Friday questioned Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, who said the rotation was canceled “just a couple days ago,” though acting Army Chief of Staff Gen. Christopher LaNeve said the decision was made in the “last two weeks.”

Neither man gave an explanation for the decision.

“We don’t know what’s going on here, but I can just tell you we’re not happy with what’s being talked about, particularly since there’s been no statutory consultation with us,” committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., told Driscoll and LaNeve.

On Thursday, acting Pentagon press secretary Joel Valdez said the decision was “not an unexpected, last-minute decision.”

“I don’t see how [the Pentagon] statement can be true,” Scott said.

LaNeve confirmed that some equipment was already in Europe or en route when Hegseth canceled the deployment.

Driscoll said the Army can adjust its plans based on the preferences of regional commanders or the secretary of defense.

“This is not meant to hide the ball; this is to say this type of conversation is going on throughout the year every single year,” he said.

On April 30, President Donald Trump decided to remove 5,000 troops from Germany after German Chancellor Friederich Merz said the United States was “humiliated” by Iran.

Trump has often complained about NATO, but he has called Poland a “model ally” for its move to spend more on defense. In September, Trump said he would support Poland and stand with Warsaw “all the way” after the candidate he backed, Karol Nawrocki, won the election for president.

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., said Army leaders should be able to give a straight answer to Congress.

“The only answer I’ve got is, ‘Well, that’s what they told us to do.’ OK, why?” Smith asked the Army leaders. “If there’s some strategy behind it, then you guys ought to know and you ought to be able to communicate it to us.”

Bacon said that Polish officials were “blindsided” by the move, which he learned from a phone call from Poland.

“They called me yesterday, they did not know, they were blindsided,” The Hill reported Bacon told Driscoll and LaNeve. “These are some of our best allies, and they had no idea. They still don’t know what the plan is.”

Bacon said he knew the Army leaders didn’t make the decision, but he called it “reprehensible” and “an embarrassment to our country … what we just did to Poland.”

He added, “I know I may not represent 100% of people in this committee, but I think I represent the views of the vast majority. We disagree. … We’re sending a terrible message to Russia and to our allies.”

Rep. Marilyn Strickland, D-Wash., said, “When we take that many troops away, it says that we are not a reliable ally.

Lebanon’s Ministry of Health said Israeli attacks have killed 2,951 people since March 2 with at least 8,988 wounded.

The lawyers for Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University student targeted for deportation by the United States government over his pro-Palestine advocacy, have called on an immigration appeals court to reopen and terminate his case.

The latest legal appeal points to new evidence, some of which was documented in media reports, that Khalil’s lawyers said it “suggests that the Trump Administration secretly engineered the outcome of his immigration case to make an example of him”.

It comes just over a month after the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a final order of removal for Khalil, who was first detained by immigration enforcement agents in March 2025, one of several students targeted for their participation in pro-Palestine campus protests that swept the US the previous year.

Khalil, a US permanent resident who is married to a US citizen, has long maintained that he has been unjustly targeted for his political views.

His legal team said on Friday that “apparent procedural abnormalities” support that view.

“It’s clear that the revelations of DOJ misconduct corroborate what we have known since Mahmoud was arrested–that the administration has reverse-engineered its desired outcome by weaponising a farcical proceeding littered with abnormalities,” Johnny Sinodis, a lawyer representing Khalil, said in a statement.

The new evidence includes a report by The New York Times that found that Khalil’s case had been flagged as high priority before it had arrived at the Board of Immigration Appeals, in what his lawyers say indicated the case was being “fast-tracked”.

The report, citing case documents, also found that the court had been instructed to treat Khalil’s case as if he were still in detention custody, which typically results in an expedited processing timeline.

Khalil was released from immigration detention in June 2025 following a federal judge’s order. An appeals court later ruled the judge did not have jurisdiction over the matter. He is also appealing that decision, during which time authorities are barred from re-detaining or deporting him.

The New York Times report also found that three judges at the Board of Immigration Appeals recused themselves from the case. While the reasons for the recusals were not made public, experts familiar with the board’s procedures have said the rate of recusals was extremely rare.

The Board of Immigration Appeals is meant to be independent. Like other immigration courts, it falls under the Department of Justice in the executive branch, which critics say makes it more vulnerable to interference.

Other federal courts fall under the independence of the judicial branch.

The Trump administration has framed Khalil’s deportation as part of a crackdown on anti-Semitism. They have presented no evidence to back the claims against him, and Khalil has never been charged with a crime.

This week, The Intercept news site reported that shortly after he was detained by immigration agents, the FBI had closed an investigation into a tip that Khalil had called for “violence on behalf of Hamas”, saying it did not warrant further investigation.

In targeting Khalil, US Secretary of State Marco had invoked a rarely used provision of the Immigration and National Act that allows the deportation of individuals deemed to be a national security threat based on “past, current or expected beliefs, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful”.

The manoeuvre raised questions over freedom of speech and whether those protections extended to permanent residents like Khalil. The government later added the claim that Khalil had intentionally failed to disclose his past work for the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) on his immigration application.

Administration officials have repeatedly stood by the claims and maintained that Khalil received proper due process.

In a statement on Friday, Khalil said the administration “wants to arrest, detain, and deport me to intimidate everyone speaking out for Palestine across this country, and they are willing to violate longstanding US rules and procedures to do it”.

He added, “No lies, corruption, or ideological persecution will stop me from advocating for Palestine and for everyone’s right to free speech.”