fund

Independent filmmaker Sylvia Ray always wanted to shoot her first feature film, “The Middle,” in California — as it’s set in Barstow, where she grew up.

Instead, she shot it in Mexico.

The math made the decision for her. Grants and incentives from the municipality of Torreón and the state of Coahuila covered 30-40% of her production budget, which came in under a million dollars. She didn’t pay for filming permits. On-site security was provided. Local hotels came in as sponsors. Over 21 days in March and April, the production hired 75 local crew members and college students.

“All I needed was a desert landscape and American homes. I could have definitely shot it in L.A. comfortably. Had I gotten more support and made it make sense for us financially,” Ray said. “But it just didn’t.”

Her budget was too small to qualify for any California film incentive at the time, as the state’s program doesn’t reach projects costing under $1 million. Filmmakers and producers say that gap is the whole problem. California’s incentives, even after the recent expansion, are built for productions several rungs above them.

Los Angeles County has plans to change that. Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Kathryn Barger are developing an Entertainment Evergreen Fund, first introduced last July, which would channel money to productions the state’s tax credit doesn’t reach. It isn’t a tax credit, rather a grant program.

No dollar amount has been attached and the county has not committed funding. The board intends to explore a public-private model, with funding sources, amounts and any cost sharing determined only after an outside consultant completes an analysis and presents recommendations. Any final proposal returns to the board for public discussion and a vote.

“Like every County initiative, this work must be balanced with our current fiscal realities,” Barger said in a statement, adding that she hopes to build “a sustainable … partnership that helps keep film, television, and digital media production” and keeps L.A. “the global leader in entertainment production.”

Horvath said in a statement that direct investment in productions, like with this fund, “is the best way to keep the work here in LA. “

“State tax credits have been the most instrumental tool to keep production local, and we want to amplify their success to make clear to the industry: LA County wants you here,” she added.

Director Sylvia Ray on set of “The Middle.”

(Alex Crunker)

Why L.A. got expensive for small films

The trouble small-budget indies run into in L.A. is location and permitting costs, said Philip Sokoloski, vice president of communications at FilmLA, the nonprofit that coordinates permits and tracks local production.

“Many property owners inclined to rent out their homes or places of business for filming are used to an era where there was a lot of money to go around … It’s not true anymore,” Sokoloski said. “Until that message is widely understood, there’s a certain priced-out-of-the-market feeling that many indies are experiencing.”

A fund, he said, could help offset those costs.

The broader production picture hasn’t recovered. Between April and June, the greater L.A. area logged 4,711 shoot days, down nearly 13% from the same period a year earlier, according to FilmLA’s second-quarter data. Feature film shoots fell 20% year over year.

Incentivized work is one of the few bright spots. FilmLA said 170 projects between July 2025 and July 2026 have benefited from the California Film & TV Tax Credit Program while 33% of the 443 feature film shoot days in 2026’s second quarter came from productions receiving tax credits.

Making an indie movie is harder than it has ever been, said Steven Wolfe, a producer whose credits include “(500) Days of Summer” and more than 45 other films. Companies are less willing to finance independent projects, buyers are spending less and the exhibition market is harder to navigate. Yet “there’s an audience that’s very hungry for them,” he said.

Wolfe is developing what he calls a passion project with a first-time feature director, set to shoot in Los Angeles. Whether it gets made, he said, depends on whether the fund materializes. “All of us recognize the need to take extreme action and soon on trying to rebuild Los Angeles as the film capital of the world,” he said.

What’s being proposed

The fund is being shaped with input from the Indie Film Task Force, a group of industry voices led by the nonprofit NewFilmmakers Los Angeles. The task force pushed for grants rather than a tax credit, arguing that budgets this small don’t generate enough tax liability for a credit to be worth much.

“We see this as a foundational level investment. It is a trickle-up incentive that’s going to feed into the studios,” said NFMLA Executive Director Larry Laboe. “This is a way to invest very little money in a lot of different productions and hope for some big wins from those productions that can trickle up.”

Laboe points out Curry Barker’s box office underdog “Obsession” as the latest example of a major low-budget indie success. The horror flick, which hit theaters in May, was made in Los Angeles for a budget of $750,000 and has since grossed nearly $475 million worldwide.

Laboe, one of the proposal’s leading advocates, has projected the fund’s ceiling could reach $100 million depending on fundraising. NFMLA isn’t positioned to administer it, though he’s open to a role.

Cast and crew on set of Sylvia Ray’s “The Middle.”

(Adriana Martinez Benavides)

Barger said her conversations with filmmakers, labor representatives and production companies have surfaced “several promising ways an Evergreen Fund could strengthen our local industry,” including “grant incentives that encourage productions of all sizes — including independent filmmakers — to choose Los Angeles County.”

The case against

Film and TV production incentives rarely deliver the economic benefit that justifies them and only occasionally change where a project shoots, said Patrick Button, an associate professor of economics at Tulane University who studies the programs. He sees a particular problem with targeting small productions: Indie filmmakers, already working on thin budgets, are the least likely to relocate in pursuit of a subsidy. Chasing incentives across jurisdictions is largely the province of major studios.

“Despite the goal with these incentives being to attract filmmaking and lead to economic stimulus, that’s not materialized in the data,” Button said. “In general, these incentives don’t have a good return on investment for the states and their counties.” Low-budget producers, he added, aren’t the ones moving around, “which creates even less rationale.”

He also noted “a lot of stress on the LA County budget right now, and a lot of other things that the money could be spent on,” and expects the fund’s effect to be “very small.”

Laboe countered that covering even 10% of an indie production budget would help keep work local, and said filmmakers may be able to layer a county grant with the state credit where it applies.

Who it would reach

Independent productions are a meaningful share of SAG-AFTRA members’ income, particularly as major studios chase incentives abroad. More small films shot locally would mean more roles, said SAG-AFTRA Secretary-Treasurer Joely Fisher.

“People are rolling up their sleeves, raising money and going to make a movie for under a million bucks,” Fisher said. “But also they’re able to take more chances. People are being discovered in these indie movies, and I think that that’s a great thing for our newer members, who can cut their teeth on something indie.”

Making the film is only half of it. The fund should address marketing costs, or the films won’t get seen, said Jackie Brenneman, president of the Independent Film & Television Alliance. Those budgets traditionally come from distributors, but more independent films now go directly to theaters without one.

“You have to be able to exploit the thing you make,” Brenneman said. “If we want to be able to access theaters, the theater’s first question is going to be, what’s your marketing plan? What’s your marketing budget? And if you don’t have one, then you’re more likely to get four-walled” — renting the screen themselves and absorbing the risk.

Ray is still editing “The Middle.” Whatever happens with the fund, it won’t reach her first feature. But she’s already thinking about her next one.

“After this film is done, I’ll have my next one to worry about,” she said. “As a filmmaker here, there are so many hurdles, and it would just be nicer to have a clear pipeline, a scaling budget for all of these things and [provide] access to people who want to support emerging talent and artists, not just the studio system.”

WASHINGTON — Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche cleared a critical hurdle Tuesday in his bid to be confirmed to the post after swaying Republican holdouts on a Senate committee to advance his nomination for a floor vote.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12-10 along party lines in support of the nomination of President Trump’s former personal attorney, who has aggressively pushed the Republican administration’s priorities since taking over from Pam Bondi in April.

The vote followed a deal struck late Sunday between Blanche and two Republican senators who had been threatening to block his confirmation over the settlement of Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service regarding the president’s leaked tax returns.

Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina had said they were withholding their support unless the Justice Department confirmed in writing that it was not moving forward with a $1.8 billion fund to compensate Trump allies who believe they were prosecuted for political purposes, which the administration had announced as part of the settlement.

After days of negotiations, Blanche issued an order Sunday evening confirming “beyond any doubt, that there is no Fund.”

Since the settlement of Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS was announced, “No Members were appointed; no funds were transferred; no process for receiving claims was established; no claims were paid,” the order said.

Cornyn and Tillis had also pressed for clarification on a separate part of the settlement that would grant Trump and members of his family immunity from tax audits.

Democrats complain about the fund

Under the deal, the Justice Department clarified in writing that the tax audit immunity agreement applies only to claims open at the time of the settlement and does not protect Trump from examination of future tax filings. It also makes clear that only the parties that brought the lawsuit — Trump, two of his sons, and the Trump Organization — are covered by the tax agreement.

Democrats say Blanche’s order doesn’t go far enough to prevent the Trump administration from reviving the fund after the acting attorney general’s confirmation and have called for legislation to permanently bar it. The order also doesn’t stop the administration from compensating Trump allies — including people who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — through a previously established process that allows people to file claims for damages if they believed they were wronged by the government.

The fund “can easily be revived with a new order from the Department of Justice 15 minutes after Mr. Blanche is confirmed as attorney general,” said Dick Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the committee.

Blanche’s independence has been called into question

Blanche has faced intense scrutiny regarding his ability to maintain independence from the White House, the Justice Department’s pursuit of the president’s political foes and the agency’s handling of files related to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking investigation.

But it was the settlement of Trump’s $10-billion lawsuit against the IRS that threatened to derail Blanche’s nomination, forcing a delay in the committee vote last week amid pressure from the two Republican senators, who are not returning to Capitol Hill after their terms end in January.

Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who chairs the committee, said Tillis and Cornyn’s demands were “common sense.” Grassley said the senators’ concerns about the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” and the IRS settlement were shared by many other lawmakers, including himself.

“I’m grateful that they as well as Mr. Blanche and the White House worked in good faith to solve them, formally rescinding the fund, clarifying the scope of the release of claims has put this issue to bed once and for all,” Grassley said.

Trump’s lawsuit has been sharply criticized because of the highly unusual way it was handled, with the president challenging an agency overseen by the executive branch he leads. A judge last month slammed the case as an improper exercise in self-dealing and referred one of Trump’s attorneys who filed it for potential disciplinary action.

Blanche was an important figure for Trump’s defense

Blanche, a former federal prosecutor and key member of Trump’s defense team as the Republican battled four indictments, arrived at the Justice Department last year as deputy attorney general. He was elevated to acting attorney general following Attorney General Pam Bondi’s failure to meet Trump’s demands to successfully prosecute his perceived political opponents.

While Blanche insisted he wasn’t auditioning for the permanent post, he moved swiftly to accelerate investigations into Trump foes and advance other White House priorities, drawing condemnation from critics who say he has not shed his title as Trump’s personal lawyer.

Shortly after Blanche took the top post, the Justice Department moved to indict longtime Trump adversary James Comey, the former FBI director, on charges of threatening the 47th president by posting a social media photograph of seashells in the numerical arrangement of “86 47.”

Comey’s lawyers have accused the Justice Department of misleading judges, submitting documents containing false statements and withholding key facts to bring what the defense described as a politically motivated prosecution.

Blanche separately appointed Joseph diGenova, an 81-year-old former Justice Department prosecutor from the Reagan administration, to oversee a Florida-based investigation into whether former law enforcement and intelligence officials conspired over the last decade to undermine Trump.

Richer and Jalonick write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Two Republican senators who threatened to block acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche’s bid to lead the Justice Department said Monday that they will vote to advance his nomination, ending an impasse over plans to create a fund to compensate allies of President Trump.

The statement from Republican Sens. John Cornyn and Thom Tillis came after Blanche issued an order late Sunday formally rescinding the $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to compensate people who believe they were unfairly prosecuted by the Justice Department.

Cornyn and Tillis, whose votes Blanche needs to advance through the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, had said they would not endorse his nomination without written confirmation that the fund is dead.

“We want to express our gratitude to Mr. Blanche and his staff for working with us on this, and we look forward to voting to advance his nomination out of the Senate Judiciary Committee soon,” Cornyn and Tillis, who are not returning to the Senate next year, said in a statement.

DOJ order says ‘beyond any doubt’ that fund is dead

In a statement accompanying the order, the Justice Department said that “although the Acting Attorney General has repeatedly advised Congress through testimony, including under oath, as well as in written responses, that the Fund is not moving forward, and the Department has repeatedly represented to district courts that the Fund is not moving forward, today’s Order officially rescinds the May 18, 2026 Order.”

Since the settlement of the president’s lawsuit against the IRS was announced, “No Members were appointed; no funds were transferred; no process for receiving claims was established; no claims were paid,” the order says. “This order establishes, beyond any doubt, that there is no Fund.”

The document released by Blanche on Sunday night also limits the scope of another provision of the settlement that provided broad immunity for Trump and members of his family from tax audits.

The deal clarifies that the tax audit immunity agreement “applies by its terms only retroactively” to claims open at the time of the settlement and does not protect the president from examination of future tax filings.

Cornyn, who lost reelection this year after Trump endorsed his primary opponent, and Tillis, who is retiring when his term ends in January, have blocked Blanche’s nomination as many of their GOP colleagues have criticized the fund.

The Judiciary Committee postponed a vote on Blanche’s nomination that had been scheduled for Thursday morning after Tillis and Cornyn said they needed more from the administration before they could provide the necessary votes.

The two senators have repeatedly said the Justice Department seemed interested in reaching an agreement, but the White House wouldn’t budge even to aid the confirmation of Trump’s loyal former personal attorney, who has aggressively pursued the administration’s priorities as acting attorney general.

“I think as far as Blanche and the Department of Justice, we were pretty much on the same page,” Cornyn said Thursday. “But then when the president got wind of it, he wasn’t willing to go along with it.”

Trump continues to express support for his settlement

The two sides have been negotiating for weeks, but Trump has said repeatedly during the talks that he thinks the fund should go forward and threatened to move forward with it if Blanche was not confirmed.

After the Thursday vote was delayed, Trump said in a social media post that he might pull Blanche’s nomination and resubmit it after Cornyn and Tillis leave office next year.

On Sunday evening, Trump said that people who had faced charges from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and could have benefitted from the fund had “their lives destroyed.”

“This would be a reimbursement for the pain that they suffered,” Trump said. “A lot of people like it.”

Jalonick and Richer write for the Associated Press.

Aug. 1 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Saturday said he would push to codify into law his controversial $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund if two senators continue to block the confirmation of his nominee for attorney general.

Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., have opposed the confirmation of Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche for a permanent role in opposition to the fund.

Speaking to reporters at Camp David on Friday, Trump had admitted the fund was “dead” — but flip flopped in a statement the following day.

“If Senators Cornyn and Tillis, both upset because I wouldn’t Endorse them (they lost, and quit, respectively!), aren’t going to approve Todd Blanche, one of the most respected professionals, according to everybody, in the Country, to be the United States Attorney General, then I will keep Todd as Acting A.G., and push hard to get the Anti-Weaponization Bill, which takes care of those who have been so badly treated by the Crooked Joe Biden (and Obuma!) Administration (I get nothing, although I was treated horribly!), PASSED,” Trump said in a statement on Truth Social.

“Todd Blanche was a voice of reason!” he added. “It will immediately be back on the table, and I will get it done.”

The fund comes from a settlement, negotiated between Trump’s private attorneys and his Department of Justice, that would compensate people who feel they were unfairly targeted by the government, including Jan. 6 rioters.

The settlement would also include a provision that would shield Trump and businesses from IRS audits.

Blanche has said, at times, the anti-weaponization fund would not be moving forward.

But Cornyn and Tillis have asked Blanche for written assurances from the DOJ that the fund was gone for good, which he has failed to produce.

“Despite comments as late as yesterday that the fund is dead, President Trump clearly intends to resurrect the payout pot for punks either by inappropriately establishing another bogus fund or pushing Congress to vote for a bill that the majority of Republicans in the Senate would be against,” Tillis said in a statement on X.

“It’s unfortunate that Todd Blanche, who I consider qualified for the job, will not be confirmed because of this reversal,” the senator added. “Hopefully, we can resolve this by Tuesday.”

July 31 (Asia Today) — South Korea will launch a strategic investment fund worth more than 20 trillion won, or about $13.6 billion, next year to provide long-term capital to artificial intelligence, semiconductor and other industries considered vital to national security and economic growth.

The government said Friday that it would establish a separate strategic investment account within the Korea Investment Corporation rather than create an independent sovereign wealth fund.

Deputy Prime Minister and Finance and Economy Minister Koo Yun-cheol announced the plan during an emergency economic meeting and a meeting of economic ministers at the Government Complex Seoul.

The new account will use KIC’s international investment network and asset-management expertise while expanding the corporation’s mandate beyond its traditional role of investing public foreign-exchange assets overseas.

The government plans to submit a revision to the Korea Investment Corporation Act to the National Assembly in August and complete the legislation before the end of the year.

The fund is expected to begin operating in 2027.

Government shares to provide initial capital

The fund will begin with more than 20 trillion won in assets.

The government plans to contribute more than 16 trillion won, or about $10.9 billion, in shares it holds in public financial institutions, including the Korea Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of Korea.

It will also contribute about 4 trillion won, or $2.7 billion, in private-company shares received as payment for inheritance and gift taxes.

The government is considering accepting private donations intended to increase national wealth as another source of capital.

The fund will target artificial intelligence, semiconductors and other advanced strategic industries as well as data centers, critical infrastructure and overseas companies important to South Korea’s supply chains.

Unlike conventional policy financing, which often relies on loans, guarantees or subsidized credit, the fund will primarily make direct equity investments.

The government said the approach would allow it to remain invested in promising companies for longer periods and share in their growth.

The fund will also be able to exercise shareholder voting rights to promote corporate value, protect critical technologies and help companies defend themselves against hostile takeovers.

Fund to serve as an anchor investor

The government wants the strategic account to serve as an anchor investor capable of attracting global institutional investors to South Korean projects.

By committing public capital first, the fund could reduce perceived risk and encourage foreign sovereign funds, pension funds and private investors to participate.

The government also plans to connect the new account with existing policy funds.

Venture and growth funds usually must sell their holdings and return capital to investors within four to eight years.

Under a proposed relay-investment system, the strategic fund could purchase stakes in promising companies when those shorter-term policy funds reach maturity or begin liquidation.

The arrangement is intended to prevent companies with long development cycles from losing financial support before they become commercially established.

The model could be particularly important for semiconductor fabrication, artificial intelligence infrastructure, biotechnology and other sectors requiring large investments over many years.

Separate governance structure planned

The government said it would create governance safeguards intended to protect the fund’s investment independence.

KIC’s board structure would be divided between its existing foreign-reserve investment account and the new strategic account.

A dedicated investment committee and advisory committee would be established for strategic investments.

An operating committee would set broad policy and investment priorities but would not intervene in individual investment decisions, the government said.

The separation is intended to prevent short-term political considerations from determining which companies receive investments.

The plan also represents a change from an earlier proposal to establish a completely separate sovereign wealth fund.

The government instead decided to expand KIC’s mandate and use its existing personnel, investment systems and global relationships.

Long-term capital for industrial strategy

South Korea has introduced several public financing programs to support advanced industries, including funds targeting chips, artificial intelligence, batteries and biotechnology.

The new strategic account differs because it is designed to hold equity investments for extended periods rather than provide loans or exit investments according to fixed fund schedules.

The government expects the fund to support major national projects involving semiconductors, physical artificial intelligence and data centers while helping South Korean companies secure critical overseas supply chains.

It also hopes investment returns will gradually expand the fund’s assets and reduce its dependence on additional government contributions.

The success of the plan will depend on whether the government can maintain commercial investment discipline while pursuing broader industrial and national-security objectives.

It will also require clear rules governing voting rights, corporate intervention, investment losses and potential conflicts between financial returns and government policy.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260731010011712

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Friday that his $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund is “dead” while also continuing to defend it, further complicating his administration’s negotiations with two Republican senators who are blocking his attorney general nominee in protest.

Trump told reporters at Camp David on Friday morning that administration officials had “agreed not to have a fund” that compensates his political allies, yet made clear that he disagrees with that decision.

The comments came hours after an early morning social media post in which Trump said people who had been prosecuted by the Justice Department — many of them for their involvement in the violent Jan. 6, 2001, attack on the Capitol — “are suffering still, many ruined, and I felt that they should be given compensation for what has been done to them.”

Trump’s reluctant declaration that the fund won’t be created came as Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, both members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, say they won’t support Todd Blanche’s nomination for attorney general until they see that promise in writing. They have been working for weeks with the White House and Blanche, who is now the acting attorney general, to produce a document to that effect, but both senators have said they aren’t satisfied so far.

“The President made it clear today that the so-called Anti Weaponization Fund is still alive, which is exactly why we are attempting to formally end it,” Tillis said after Trump’s initial social media post.

Trump said in his post that Blanche should be immediately confirmed and is a “pawn in this whole thing.”

Cornyn, Tillis want promises in writing

Blanche said at a hearing two months ago that the anti-weaponization fund would not move forward after Republican senators revolted and held up an immigration funding bill.

But Tillis, who is retiring when his term ends in January, and Cornyn, who lost reelection this year after Trump endorsed his primary opponent, said they want to ensure that the White House doesn’t reverse course, especially as Trump continues to argue that a fund is needed.

The Justice Department has provided the senators with language that says Blanche’s May 18 order establishing the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” is “rescinded and shall have no force or effect,” according to a document reviewed by The Associated Press.

Cornyn and Tillis have said they also want some clarifications on a separate piece of the settlement that would grant Trump and members of his family immunity from tax audits. Cornyn said this week that it was his understanding that the audits could extend to more than 100 different Trump organization subsidiaries into the future.

“Todd Blanche said it was limited to the parties to the litigation — and it was retrospective, not prospective,” Cornyn said. “And all we’re doing is asking them to put that in writing.”

Blanche nomination is delayed in the Senate

The Judiciary Committee postponed a vote on Blanche’s nomination that had been scheduled for Thursday morning after Tillis and Cornyn said they needed more from the administration before they could provide the necessary votes.

After the meeting was delayed, Trump said in a social media post that he might pull Blanche’s nomination and resubmit it after Cornyn and Tillis leave office next year. But the two sides continued to negotiate through Thursday afternoon, when Blanche, Cornyn and Tillis met on Capitol Hill.

On Friday, a person familiar with the negotiations said talks had been positive, but the senators were still awaiting a new offer from the Justice Department. The person requested anonymity to discuss the private negotiations.

The two senators have repeatedly said the Justice Department seemed interested in reaching an agreement, but the White House wouldn’t budge even to aid the confirmation of Trump’s loyal former personal attorney, who has aggressively pursued the administration’s priorities as acting attorney general.

“I think as far as Blanche and the Department of Justice, we were pretty much on the same page,” Cornyn said Thursday. “But then when the president got wind of it, he wasn’t willing to go along with it.”

Tillis said Blanche “has been forthright, thoughtful and patient” but attributed the holdup to an “incompetent personal advisor” to the president, even as Trump himself continued to advocate for the fund.

Behind the scenes, Trump legal adviser Boris Epshteyn is being blamed as an obstacle to an agreement that would let Blanche move forward, according to three people who have direct knowledge of the discussions and requested anonymity to discuss them.

Saying the AP’s “sources are wrong,” White House communications director Steven Cheung said “anyone trying to assign blame to the President or his team has no earthly idea of what is going on and clearly is trying to deflect from the issue at hand — Todd Blanche will be an exceptional Attorney General and he should be confirmed immediately.”

Also on Friday, Trump’s attorneys notified a court it would appeal a judge’s scathing ruling that characterized the settlement of the president’s lawsuit against the IRS as an improper exercise in self-dealing. The judge in her order earlier this month referred one of Trump’s attorneys for potential disciplinary action and criticized Blanche’s involvement in the settlement, given his prior representation of Trump.

Blanche has said he disagrees “with the judge’s insinuations” about him.

Settlement fund could have benefited Jan. 6 rioters

Even as they are usually deferential to Trump, a number of Republican senators have expressed strong objections to the settlement.

“The criminals who assaulted police officers and defiled our nation’s Capitol are not ‘great American patriots’ who are ‘victims of government abuse,’” Tillis said, echoing Trump’s comments about the rioters who could potentially have received payouts. On his first day back in office, Trump pardoned more than 1,500 people who had been charged in the attack.

Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana said Thursday that the majority of Senate Republicans aren’t comfortable with the settlement fund.

“Blanche said it’s dead, and he testified that it’s not coming back,” Kennedy said. “But for whatever reason, somebody didn’t want to put it in writing.”

Jalonick, Kim and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writers Eric Tucker and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

While the United States enjoys sufficient energy resources, thanks to shale oil, the European Union does not. To assure itself of the energy supplies in the Gulf that the European Union needs, the EU should consider assisting the Gulf States in the construction and operations of the pipeline. 

Building a large-scale, completely underground oil pipeline system from the Persian/Arabian Gulf oil fields to the Mediterranean Sea is estimated to cost between $40 billion and $60 billion and would take 5 to 7 years to complete. The exact metrics depend heavily on the chosen route, political alignment across transit countries, and the required total throughput capacity. 

Breakdown of Total Costs 

Modern mega-pipeline engineering over long desert and mountain distances faces massive cost drivers: 

· Construction & Trenching ($18B – $25B): Burying multiple large-diameter (e.g., 42 to 48-inch) pipelines entirely underground requires extensive trenching, rock blasting, and specialized anti-corrosion coatings. Global benchmarks show that large-scale overland pipelines average $8 million to $12 million per mile, but full underground burial heavily drives up labor and machinery costs.

· Pumping Stations & Terminals ($8B – $12B): Moving millions of barrels of crude daily across hundreds of miles requires heavily fortified pumping stations every 60–100 miles, alongside massive new storage and loading terminals on the Mediterranean coast. 

· Geopolitical & Geotechnical Risk Premium ($7B – $10B): Multi-billion dollar  contingencies are standard to absorb project snags, material inflation, and  complex international legal/right-of-way frameworks. 

· Security Infrastructure ($5B – $10B): Given the vulnerability of cross-border energy corridors, modern estimates for Gulf bypass networks integrate specialized defensive technologies (like automated drone surveillance or surface-to-air missile defenses) to protect critical facilities. 

Construction Timeline and Stages 

· Megaprojects of this length are restricted by a sequential project lifecycle that cannot easily be accelerated simultaneously: 

· Diplomacy & Right-of-Way (Years 1–2): Securing cross-border transit legal treaties (e.g., routing through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, or Syria/Turkey) and finalizing environmental impact assessments. 

· Material Procurement & Logistics (Years 2–3): Manufacturing and transporting millions of tons of high-grade steel line pipe and heavy industrial pumps. 

· Civil Trenching & Laying (Years 3–6): Heavy execution phase. Crews can typically lay roughly 1 to 2 miles of pipe per day per construction spread.

Multiple spreads working simultaneously across different geographic zones are required to finish within a 3-to-4-year active construction window.  · Testing & Commissioning (Year 7): Hydrostatic pressure testing of the lines to ensure underground integrity, followed by line fill and gradual commercial scale-up 

Proposed Alternative Routes 

Producers in the region actively advance or evaluate different variants of this corridor to bypass maritime chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz: 

· The Mesopotamian Corridor (Iraq/Syria route): A ~1,500 km route linking the southern oil fields of Basra to Mediterranean ports like Baniyas, Syria.  While geographically direct, it remains vulnerable to high regional instability. 

· The Trans-Arabian Upgrades: Adapting or running parallel lines to existing corridors (like the Saudi East-West Petroline, which travels 1,200 km to the Red Sea) and extending them northward to Mediterranean Sea terminals. 

How Standard Micro-Tunneling Works for Utilities: When pipeline engineers hit a mountain or an environmental zone where they cannot dig an open trench, they use Micro-Tunnel Boring Machines (MTBMs) or Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD). These systems are highly specialized to avoid the exact problems of passenger-sized tunnels: 

· Sized to the Pipe: Unlike a 12-foot-wide transit tunnel, an MTBM is built to the exact outer diameter of the oil pipe (typically 4 to 5 feet for a 48-inch line).  This means crews excavate 90% less rock and dirt.

· Pipe-Jacking Method: Instead of laying concrete tunnel walls and then trying to slide a heavy steel pipe inside later, MTBMs use a process called “pipe jacking.” Powerful hydraulic rams at the surface push the actual steel oil pipe directly behind the drilling head as it advances into the rock. 

· No Open Voids: Because the pipeline fits perfectly into the drilled hole, there is no empty space left around it. The pipe is completely surrounded by solid rock or stabilizing grout, eliminating the risk of dangerous, explosive gas pockets building up in an open tunnel. 

The Mountain Ranges the Route Must Clear 

· To get from the Gulf fields (like Ghawar in Saudi Arabia or Basra in Iraq) to the Mediterranean, a pipeline must breach the Syrian Desert and cross a series of rugged, geologically active mountain walls running parallel to the Mediterranean coast: 

· The Jordan Rift Valley & Dead Sea Fault: Before hitting the mountains, the pipeline must drop down into one of the lowest, most seismically active valleys on Earth (falling hundreds of feet below sea level) and then immediately climb back out. 

· The Judean Hills & Golan Heights: Depending on the exact coastal terminal, the line must climb over rugged limestone ridges ranging from 3,000 to 4,000 feet high.

· The Anti-Lebanon & Mount Lebanon Ranges: If the route takes a more northern path toward Syria or Lebanon, it faces severe alpine conditions with peaks soaring between 9,000 and 10,000 feet. 

The Geopolitical Treaties Required 

Building a multi-billion dollar piece of energy infrastructure across national borders requires an intricate web of international legal frameworks. Historically, cross-border pipelines are governed by Host Government Agreements (HGAs) and Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs). 

To make a Gulf-to-Mediterranean pipeline a reality, several unprecedented breakthroughs would be needed: 

· Transit Fees and Tariffs: The countries hosting the pipeline but not producing the oil (like Jordan or Syria) must negotiate “transit fees.” These are typically paid in cents per barrel of oil that passes through their territory, providing them with billions in long-term revenue. 

To make a Gulf-to-Mediterranean pipeline a reality, several unprecedented breakthroughs would be needed: 

· Transit Fees and Tariffs: The countries hosting the pipeline but not producing the oil (like Jordan or Syria) must negotiate “transit fees.” These are typically paid in cents per barrel of oil that passes through their territory, providing them with billions in long-term revenue. 

· The “Right of Way” Guarantee: Sovereign nations must sign legally binding treaties promising that they will not shut off or seize the pipeline during diplomatic disputes. A famous historical warning is the original Trans-Arabian Pipeline (Tapline), which was repeatedly disrupted, sabotaged, and eventually shut down permanently due to border conflicts and transit fee arguments between Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. 

· The Abraham Accords Framework: If the pipeline takes the most geologically direct southern route to terminals in Israel (like Ashkelon or Haifa), it relies heavily on the long-term stability and expansion of the Abraham Accords. Saudi Arabia and Israel would need formalized economic treaties to protect a joint energy corridor from regional political shifts. 

· Joint Security Commands: Because a pipeline stretching thousands of miles across the Middle East is a prime target for non-state actors and drone strikes, treaties must establish a unified security framework. This allows military and intelligence sharing across borders to patrol the pipeline corridor with automated drone networks and satellite monitoring. 

Environmental Safeguards for Freshwater Aquifers The Jordan Valley and the surrounding mountain ridges contain critical freshwater sources, such as the Mountain Aquifer, which supply drinking water to millions of people in Israel, Palestine, and Jordan. A single major crude oil leak could seep into the porous limestone and permanently poison these non-renewable water reserves.  To mitigate this, engineers deploy an array of specialized defenses: 

· Pipe-in-Pipe Technology (Double Containment): In high-consequence water zones, crews do not use a standard single-wall pipe. They build a “pipe-in-pipe” system where the main 48-inch crude oil line sits inside a larger, secondary outer steel casing. The vacuum gap between the two pipes is monitored 24/7 for pressure changes; if the inner pipe leaks, the outer pipe captures the oil before it touches the soil. 

· Fiber-Optic Acoustic Leak Detection: Continuous fiber-optic cables are buried directly alongside the pipeline. These cables can “hear” the micro-acoustic vibrations and sudden temperature drops caused by a pinhole leak. This allows operators to pinpoint the exact location of a breach within meters in less than a minute. 

· Emergency Remote Isolation Valves: The pipeline is segmented by heavy-duty, automated shut-off valves. In flat areas, these are placed every 20 miles. In critical aquifer zones or steep mountain drops, they are placed every 1 to 2 miles. If the control center detects a pressure drop, these valves slam shut automatically via satellite command to trap the oil inside a small, isolated section, preventing millions of gallons from draining into the environment. 

Daily Revenue for Transit Countries 

· Transit countries like Jordan or Syria do not own the oil, but they make massive profits simply by letting it cross their land. These fees are negotiated as a tariff—a fixed dollar amount charged per barrel of oil moved. 

· Assuming a modern mega-pipeline with a capacity of 2 million barrels per day (bpd) and a standard international transit tariff of $0.60 to $1.20 per barrel, we can calculate the massive financial impact on a host country’s budget:

DAILY TRANSIT REVENUE ESTIMATE │ 

Pipeline Throughput Capacity │ 2,000,000 Barrels / Day 

Average transit tariff rate: $0.90 USD per barrel 

Daily Revenue Generated │ $1,800,000 USD / Day 

Annual Revenue Generated │ $657,000,000 USD / Year 

The Broader Economic Impact 

· Direct Budget Injection: For a developing economy like Jordan, an extra $650M+ per year in pure cash represents a massive boost to their national budget, easily funding large-scale public infrastructure or health programs. 

· In-Kind Energy Off-Takes: Rather than taking 100% of the payment in cash, transit treaties often allow host countries to take a portion of the payment in free crude oil. This allows them to supply their local refineries and secure cheap domestic gasoline without relying on volatile global energy imports. 

· Long-Term Economic Leverage: Hosting the pipeline transforms these non-producing nations into critical gatekeepers for global energy markets, giving them significant diplomatic leverage when negotiating trade and security deals with major global superpowers. 

Maritime Shipping Insurance & The Strait of Hormuz Bypass  The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s most sensitive maritime energy chokepoint. During periods of regional conflict, Lloyd’s of London and global marine underwriters designate

the Persian Gulf as a listed area (high-risk zone), triggering drastic shifts in shipping economics. 

· War Risk Premiums: When regional tensions spike, war risk insurance premiums for oil tankers navigating the Strait can surge from a baseline of 0.025% of the ship’s value to over 0.25% to 0.5% per voyage. For a modern $100 million Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC), this adds an extra $250,000 to $500,000 in insurance costs for a single transit. 

· Bypassing the Chokepoint: Moving oil via the underground pipeline directly to the Mediterranean entirely eliminates the need for tankers to enter the Persian Gulf. Tankers load at secure Mediterranean ports (like Ashkelon, Haifa, or Baniyas) within standard, lower-risk European maritime zones. 

· Shipping Time Savings: Loading in the Mediterranean slashes the sailing distance to European and North American refineries by roughly 3,500 to 4,500 miles compared to sailing all the way around Africa or paying steep transit fees to use the Suez Canal. This reduces freight operating costs and completely erases the risk of a regional conflict stranding a fleet inside the Gulf. 

Naval Defense Infrastructure at the Mediterranean Terminal 

Because the new Mediterranean pipeline terminal would handle up to 2 million barrels of oil per day, it becomes a high-value strategic asset. Protecting it requires a multi-layered naval defense perimeter extending miles out to sea:

· Anti-Drone & Anti-Torpedo Netting: Heavy, underwater physical barriers and sensor nets are deployed around the loading buoys and piers to catch or detonate incoming unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) or loitering aquatic explosive drones. 

· Phalanx CIWS & Missile Batteries: The onshore terminal facility integrates close-in weapon systems (CIWS) and surface-to-air missile batteries (like Iron Dome or Barak MX systems) to intercept incoming rocket, drone, or anti-ship missile strikes launched from sea or land. 

· Active Naval Patrols: Host nations deploy continuous maritime security cordons using fast attack craft, sonar-equipped corvettes, and aerial reconnaissance drones to enforce a strict 5-to-10 mile exclusion zone around the offshore loading terminals, vetting every incoming commercial vessel. 

Conclusions 

With political tensions between the United States and the European Union increasing and confidence in the United States’ foreign policy falling, Europe needs to find and secure an energy source that is not dependent on either the United States or Russia.  An agreement, both economic and political, would in the long run make Europe independent from energy sources from either country. The idea of an overland pipeline to the Mediterranean is both economically and engineeringly possible. What is needed is the political will to make it happen.

The greatest geopolitical and economic challenge facing the United States today is the proliferation of international Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs.) While the United States has the “sweet geopolitical spot in the world’s geography and topographic landmass,” its economic dominance is being challenged by the proliferation of international SWFs. It is true, at present, that the United States has the largest reserve of oil and mineral wealth in the world, yet with SWFs gaining traction in the world economy, the oil reserves and mineral wealth may not matter.

Those countries that have initiated SWFs as part of their economic and geopolitical life are on an upward trajectory. The United States, on the other hand, is on a downward path by not marshalling its vast mineral wealth in a comprehensive and dynamic SWF. If things continue on their present course, those countries utilizing their mineral wealth and excess cash surplus will eventually catch up and overtake the size of the US economy. This is an evolving threat to the national security of the United States and to its very polity.

The most immediate threat to the United States is the race to develop mining facilities on the Moon to harvest and transport the critical element of Helium-3 (He-3.)    He-3 is a critical element for the increasing economic demands of a modern world economy. Whoever can establish mining dominance for this critical element will become the world’s leading economic power in the world, regardless of that nation’s mineral wealth on Earth.

However, with its present economic and political strength, the United States has the means to reverse that trend if its two major political organizations can compromise on the very nature of the framework that establishes a United States SWF; this challenge is not easily dealt with.

This article discusses the legislative gridlock surrounding the creation of a United States SWF and the accelerating international competition that challenges the current United States dominance in space technology.

Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS) is currently constructing the SPARC at Devens, Massachusetts. CFS is constructing the SPARC to demonstrate to the world that it has solved the fusion problem. Despite some technological setbacks, CFS is on schedule to make the SPARC operational by the end of 2026, or early 2027. At the same time, CFS is currently constructing a fusion reactor (called a tokamak) in Virginia, which is scheduled to go online in the early 2030s. Critical to the ARC’s development is a shortage of the element He-3. He-3 is ignited by radio frequency and is the sparkplug that begins the plasma process, which is fusion energy, in the ARC tokamak.

The Commercial Landscape: U.S. Private Frontrunners

Terrestrial Helium-3 supply—derived primarily from nuclear stockpile maintenance—is severely capped at 22,000 to 30,000 liters annually. With surging demand for ultra-low-term quantum computer cooling, private aerospace firms are leading the transition to lunar harvesting:

• Interlune: Founded by former Blue Origin executives, the company unveiled a full-scale prototype harvester developed with Vermeer to process one hundred metric tons of regolith per hour. Backed by a $6.9 million NASA contract for its Prospect Moon payload, Interlune secured a historic $300M+ supply agreement with Finnish quantum firm Bluefors. Its first mapping payload is scheduled for an upcoming commercial lunar launch.
• Lunar Helium-3 Mining (LH3M): This firm holds five U.S. patents on a non-invasive, gas-separation architecture designed to extract solar wind volatile gases while bypassing traditional, high-wear mechanical regolith excavation.

The U.S. Sovereign Wealth Fund Gridlock

While Helium-3 is valued at roughly $20 million per kilogram, the asset cannot currently be utilized to seed an American Sovereign Wealth Fund due to severe political domestic gridlock:

• The Legislative Catch-22: The U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act explicitly protects private enterprise, granting corporations exclusive ownership over extracted space resources. To capture this value, Congress would need to enact “space-severance taxes” or equity-for-infrastructure deals—both of which face massive ideological pushbacks in a deeply divided legislature.  It should be noted that American taxpayers have invested some $1.9 trillion (adjusted for inflation) in technology developed by NASA. Since the American people invested this money, they should be entitled to a return on investment.
• The Deficit vs. Surplus Dilemma: Traditional SWFs rely on state-managed resource surpluses (e.g., Norway’s oil). The U.S. operates at a massive structural deficit. Republicans propose seeding a fund via tariffs or fossil-fuel extraction, while Democrats demand funding via corporate wealth taxes or clean-energy equity. These disputes, combined with immediate 2026 midterm election priorities, have stalled the SWF framework completely.

Global Geopolitical Competitors: State-Driven Alternatives

While the U.S. model depends heavily on the private market, international adversaries are leveraging unified state power to establish dominance over lunar resources:

• China (CNSA): China’s Chang’e lunar exploration program is systematically mapping Helium-3 concentrations. Unlike the U.S. focus on near-term quantum cooling, Beijing explicitly views lunar He-3 as a long-term strategic energy priority to fuel Earth-based Deuterium-Helium-3 nuclear fusion reactors.
• The China-Russia Coalition: Beijing and Moscow have formalized a binding industrial partnership to construct an automated nuclear reactor on the Moon’s South Pole by 2035–2036. This autonomous reactor is designed to resolve the “Lunar Night” problem, providing continuous power to massive, automated mining rovers and scientific labs under the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) framework.
• Japan (ispace): In the allied sector, Japanese lunar robotics firm ispace has partnered with European mining tech developers to pioneer its own automated, energy-efficient recovery models for lunar Helium-3.

·        Conclusion

·        The race for Helium-3 represents a critical shift from symbolic space exploration to deep-space industrial supply chains. While U.S. commercial tech is moving quickly, domestic policy gridlock risks ceding permanent, state-backed infrastructure dominance to the China-Russia ILRS coalition.

·        While the concept of using outer space resources to build national wealth is actively discussed by think tanks, Congress has separate, targeted pieces of legislation addressing artificial intelligence revenue, foreign transparency, and space resource exploration rules.

·         

·        The primary draft bills and legislative vehicles currently stalled in committee reveal how Congress is attempting to navigate these frameworks:

The American A.I. Sovereign Wealth Fund Act (S. 4825)

Introduced in June 2026 by Senate Finance Committee member Bernie Sanders (I-VT), this is the most direct legislative attempt to create a federal wealth fund.

• The Mechanism: The bill proposes imposing a specialized excise tax on systemically critical artificial intelligence models and automation infrastructure. The revenue would seed a citizen-owned national wealth fund.
• Why It’s Stalled: It is currently deadlocked in the Senate Finance Committee. The bill faces severe pushback from lawmakers who argue that taxing emerging domestic tech sectors will cause the U.S. to lose the AI race to China, preferring instead to seed a potential fund via tariffs or natural resources.

2. The Sovereign Wealth Fund Transparency Act (S. 1488)

Introduced by Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), this bill tackles the national security and foreign policy side of state-owned investment vehicles.

• The Mechanism: Rather than creating a U.S. fund, this bill forces heavy disclosure requirements, financial auditing, and security screening on foreign sovereign wealth funds operating within U.S. critical infrastructure, high-tech, and aerospace sectors.

Why It’s Stalled: Referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, it has remained stagnant due to concerns that over-regulating allied sovereign wealth funds (such as those from Gulf state allies or Singapore) could chill necessary foreign direct investment into U.S. tech startups.

3. Space Resource Extraction & Regulatory Frameworks (CRS / Commerce Committee Review)

There is currently no singular active bill trying to place federal royalties on lunar Helium-3 mining. Instead, the debate is gridlocked during budget reconciliation and agency authorizations within the House and Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committees.

• The Conflict: Congressional research reports on space resource extraction outline a widening gap in regulatory authority. NASA’s Artemis framework pushes heavily for in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) via public-private partnerships. However, some factions in Congress are pushing for strict government-owned procurement models to prevent private monopolies over lunar sites, effectively freezing long-term policy development
• Midterm Postponements: Broad commercial space bills have been repeatedly delayed because committee attention is entirely consumed by urgent federal budget reconciliation battles and defense appropriations.development.

Summary of Bill Statuses

Conclusion

Until the two major political organizations can begin to compromise for the good of the American people, the United States will eventually revert to a second-class power.

The $1bn scheme falls critically short of the $71bn reportedly needed for Gaza’s recovery over the next 10 years.

The European Commission has announced a billion-dollar aid and reconstruction fund aimed at helping the recovery of Gaza from more than two years of devastating war.

The “Team Gaza Initiative” launched on Monday at a meeting of donors in Brussels. The scheme will support projects such as restoring water and sanitation infrastructure, removing debris and re-establishing health infrastructure, an EU Commission statement said.

However, the size of the fund falls critically short of the tens of billions estimated to be needed to rebuild the Palestinian enclave amid Israel’s genocidal war, which continues to kill Palestinians and create dire humanitarian conditions.

Spain, France, Denmark, the UK, Germany, Norway, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden and Belgium, the World Bank and the European Investment Bank are taking part in the initiative, along with the ⁠Commission itself, the statement said. Australia and Canada ⁠are also expected to join.

“We will present the initial package today of almost 900 million euros or one billion dollars,” Dubravka Suica, EU commissioner for the Mediterranean, said ahead of the donor meeting. “Our objective is clear: to help build hope, resilience and a better future for the Palestinian people.”

The funding is intended to assist in providing the population with basic water and sanitation facilities, clearing and disposing of rubble and rubbish, as well as restoring health, energy, agricultural and food systems.

No breakdown of how much each partner would contribute was provided. Suica said donors “want to start with so-called early recovery, and it is very important to show that we are willing to do it.”

“We now need the conditions on the ground that will allow the support to reach the people in Gaza,” she added.

While Israel and Hamas agreed to a US-brokered “ceasefire” last October, Israel has consistently breached it.

The intensity of the fighting has reduced, but at least 1,100 Palestinians have been killed and more than 3,500 wounded since the “ceasefire” began. In total, the war has killed at least 73,000 Palestinians.

The EU Commissioner for Equality, Preparedness and Crisis Management described the situation in Gaza as “unbearable”. Hadja Lahbib called for humanitarian access to the enclave and greater political engagement from Israeli authorities.

“Nine months after the so-called ceasefire, shelling continues, disease is spreading, people are dying,” Lahbib told reporters ahead of the billion dollar fund announcement.

European Union and United Nations said in April that more than $71bn will be needed over the next 10 years for Gaza’s recovery and reconstruction.

The Gaza Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA) report found that $26.3bn will be required in the first 18 months to restore essential services, rebuild critical infrastructure and support Gaza’s economic recovery.

Gustavo Dudamel’s farewell to Los Angeles will also function as a benefit for his homeland of Venezuela, which suffered catastrophic losses from twin earthquakes in late June.

Dudamel and the Los Angeles Philharmonic announced Monday that the beloved composer’s final Hollywood Bowl performance as the orchestra’s music and artistic director, originally programmed as “Celebrating Gustavo at the Bowl: A Musical Legacy,” will instead be called “A Concert for Venezuela.” Still scheduled for Aug. 23, the show will raise funds for communities affected by the earthquakes.

“Venezuela will always be my home, and every moment, my thoughts are with the families whose lives have been forever changed by this tragedy,” Dudamel said in a statement. “The suffering is immense, but so is the strength and resilience of our people. This concert at the Hollywood Bowl is an invitation to stand together and transform our compassion into action.”

A full program and special guests will be announced later. Dudamel and the musicians will contribute their time and services free of charge.

Donations will benefit Dudamel’s Earthquake Recovery to Support Venezuelan Communities fund, in partnership with the United Nations Development Programme and the Development Bank of Latin America and the Caribbean fund. The L.A. Phil will contribute $50,000 to the fund, announced President and Chief Executive Kim Noltemy.

“In moments of profound need, our responsibility as an institution extends beyond the stage,” she said. “We are grateful for the opportunity to provide direct financial support to relief efforts for communities in Venezuela with a $50,000 charitable donation and to stand alongside Gustavo in bringing this concert to life at the Bowl.”

Twin earthquakes on June 24 devastated Venezuela, with more than 3,300 deaths and more than 30,000 people reported missing. As international rescue teams depart and locals are left to search through rubble, Venezuelans abroad, including L.A. restaurants, have looked for ways to send support.

Dudamel, who was born and raised in Barquisimeto, Venezuela, wrote in a 2015 op-ed for The Times that he is a “product” of El Sistema, the country’s government-funded youth music program. He has been the music director of the Simón Bolívar Symphony Orchestra since 1999.

California voters will decide 14 statewide propositions in the Nov. 3 election, measures placed on the ballot mostly by either powerful interest groups or lawmakers that will affect the lives of millions of Californians.

While a proposed tax on state billionaires has dominated headlines, voters will also have a chance to weigh in on a number of consequential issues, from healthcare to voter identification requirements and more.

Californians are accustomed to legislating by the ballot and often face a list of propositions. But even by the standards of the state’s direct democracy process, the 2026 election stands out. The campaigns supporting and opposing the ballot measures have already collected more than $100 million in contributions, and are expected to use their money to inundate the television airwaves, livestreams and social media feeds and to flood mailboxes with glossy campaign mailers over the coming months.

Here are the measures on the Nov. 3 ballot:

Proposition 1: The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026

Spurred by the state’s affordable housing shortage, state lawmakers are asking voters to approve an $11.25-billion bond to boost affordable housing construction around the state.

Advocates say the funds would help build more than 40,000 shovel-ready affordable homes that are unable to move forward because of a financing gap and help preserve thousands of other existing units.

Proposition 1 includes specific funding for high-need groups, including $1.25 billion for a veterans’ home loan program, $1.15 billion for supportive housing for homeless people, $350 million for student housing at state universities, $450 million for farmworker housing and $200 million for Native American tribes.

“In California, we don’t turn away from the needs of our people — we meet them head-on,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom in a statement about the measure. “We are giving voters the power to help shape the future of housing in our state. This bond is about building communities, expanding access and affordability in California, where every family has a fair shot at a place to call home.”

Some Republicans took issue with the measure’s title — “The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026” — arguing that it included veterans to have broader appeal while doing little to actually help homeless veterans.

“It’s a sad thing to say that you have to use the veterans as bait to get the people of the state of California to approve an $11-billion bond, and I just think that’s shameful,” said Sen. Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield), an Army veteran. “Call it what it is. It’s a homeless bond, and it does include some veterans’ benefits, but it is not a veterans bond.”

Proposition 2: Save for California’s Future Act

This measure would give California lawmakers more flexibility over state spending and allow them to save money that could otherwise go back to taxpayers.

The measure, supported by Newsom, seeks to exempt deposits into state savings accounts from a spending limit that voters adopted through a series of ballot measures dating back to the late 1970s, and to increase the share of tax revenue that can be put into the rainy day fund.

Under an existing state appropriations restraint, also known as the Gann Limit, lawmakers cannot spend more than an amount determined by a formula that takes annual tax proceeds, changes to the population and cost of living into consideration. Tax revenue above the limit must be divided between schools and refunds to taxpayers.

The measure could incentivize lawmakers to save more money because funds tucked away in the rainy day fund would no longer be considered expenditures counted toward the spending limit. By allowing lawmakers to set aside more money that is not subjected to state spending limits, it could also allow them to hold onto money that otherwise would be returned to taxpayers under current law.

This proposed constitutional amendment was placed on the ballot by state lawmakers.

Proposition 3: Fund schools and healthcare

If passed, this proposition would make permanent an existing tax on high-income Californians.

The existing tax, passed by voters in 2012 and extended in 2016, is set to expire in 2031. It applies to people who earn more than $360,000 for single filers, $721,000 for joint filers, and $490,000 for heads of household. It adds between 1% to 3% to these high earners’ personal income tax rates.

According to the initiative text, the funds are largely earmarked for local school districts and community colleges, with some portion of the money going to California’s rainy day reserves — which the state uses to prevent cuts to healthcare and other services when revenues decline. The measure says revenues cannot be spent on state bureaucracy or administrative costs.

The state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office expects the measure to bring in between $5 billion and $15 billion annually, depending on how the stock market is performing, with the amount expected to grow over time.

Proposition 4: Public financing of campaigns

This measure would allow the state and local governments to offer public campaign financing to candidates running for elected office. Candidates receiving the funding must abide by expenditure limits and adhere to the criteria set by statute, ordinance or charter to demonstrate broad support, such as demonstrate a large number of small dollar contributions.

None of the public campaign financing can come from funds designated for education, transportation or public safety. The financing cannot discriminate based on party or whether a candidate is a challenger or an incumbent. The public funds cannot be used for legal costs, fines or to pay back personal loans to a campaign.

This measure was placed on the ballot by the California Legislature and governor.

Proposition 5: Recall elections

This measure would change the way recall elections are conducted in California. Under this proposed constitutional amendment, during a recall election, voters would decide solely whether a politician should be removed from their elected position. If the recall is successful, that office would remain vacant until it is filled in accordance with existing law — either by a separate election or by appointment.

Under current law, voters make two separate decisions during a recall election: Whether to remove the subject of the recall from office and, if they are booted, which candidate running to replace them should fill the position. The candidate who receives the most votes wins, even if they receive far less than 50% of the vote.

The proposed constitutional amendment would also allow the recalled politician to run in the next election to fill the vacancy, though they cannot be appointed to their former post. Under the current system, office holders targeted in a recall are barred from being a candidate to replace themselves in that same election.

The proposal comes in the wake of the unsuccessful, Republican-led recall campaign against Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021, which in part tested voter sentiment about his response to the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the sponsors of the recall-reform measure was Sen. Josh Newman (D-Fullerton), who was recalled from office in 2018 after he voted to increase gas taxes for road repairs, legislation pushed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown. Newman won back his seat in 2020.

This proposed constitutional amendment was placed on the ballot by the California Legislature.

Proposition 37: Homeownership loan program

Proposition 37 would create a down payment assistance program to help middle-class Californians buy a new home.

The measure, spearheaded by former state Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg, would allow middle-class California residents — defined as anyone who makes less than 200% of an area’s median income — borrow most of their down payment for a new home that they plan to live in. It is designed to boost construction of single-family homes.

A down payment is traditionally about 20% of the purchase price of a home. If passed, the measure would create a state-administered loan program that offers qualified homebuyers a second mortgage of up to 17% of a home’s sale price.

The proposition would allow the California Housing Finance Agency to issue up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to administer the program.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office does not anticipate the measure to result in direct state or local costs because the costs are meant to be covered by homeowners’ mortgage payments.

Proposition 38: Immunology research bond

Proposition 38 asks voters to approve an $8.4-billion bond to support research in the burgeoning fields of immunology and immunotherapy, which study the human immune system and how it can be used to prevent, treat and cure diseases.

If approved, half of the funding would go toward the creation of a new immunology and immunotherapy research institute affiliated with the University of California. The other half would fund research grants for other California-based universities and nonprofit medical research institutions to study potential treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and heart disease.

The measure has a built-in discount program for Californians — it requires that any technology or drugs developed from bond-funded research be sold to California patients for a price at least 20% below the national average.

Backers of the proposal include the Alzheimer’s Assn., National Multiple Sclerosis Society and other healthcare groups. Supporters argue the funding would facilitate research that could save lives and save patients “billions of dollars in health care costs by preventing and curing a range of debilitating diseases and illnesses,” according to the initiative text.

Proposition 39: Voter identification

Proposition 39 would require Californians to show government-issued identification every time they vote at the polls.

Currently, Californians must affirm under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens and provide information to verify their identity, such as their birth date, driver’s license or Social Security number, when registering to vote, but they don’t have to present identification when they cast their ballot.

Under this measure, voters would also need to present government-issued ID each time they vote in-person at the polls or, if voting by mail, provide the last four digits of a “unique identifying number from government-issued identification” that matches the one they provided when they registered to vote. California would be required to provide free voter ID cards on request, and state and county election officials would be required to verify registered voters are U.S. citizens by using government data.

The voter ID measure has support from Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), who has framed it as necessary to prevent voter fraud and restore trust. It comes as President Trump is pushing for stricter voter identification requirements and severe limits on voting by mail.

Democrats and voting rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, oppose the measure, saying California’s elections are already secure — voter impersonation and noncitizen voting cases are rare — and that it would make voting harder for many eligible voters, including people who have changed names, move frequently or face housing instability.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the measure would make election administration more expensive, costing state and local governments anywhere from tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars annually, plus tens of millions in upfront implementation costs.

Proposition 40: Billionaire tax

This proposition, supported by a healthcare worker union, would impose a one-time tax of 5% on taxpayers and trusts with assets valued at more than $1 billion.

According to a state-prepared summary of the measure, 90% of the tax revenues would be spent on healthcare and 10% would fund food assistance or education-related programs. California’s richest residents would be able to spread the payments over five years.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates it would generate “tens of billions of dollars” spread over several years, but would lead to an annual decrease in state income tax revenues of “hundreds of millions of dollars or more.”

Newsom has publicly opposed the tax, arguing it would lead wealthy residents to leave the state and lead to future budget problems. Other opponents include Planned Parenthood, the California School Boards Assn. and a nonprofit called Building a Better California that is backed by tech execs and venture capitalists.

Some billionaires have already proactively moved themselves or their businesses out of the state because of the proposal, which as written would retroactively apply to residents of the state as of Jan. 1.

Proposition 41: Requires limits and audits on new state special taxes

This is one of two ballot measures crafted by opponents of the proposed initiative to impose a new tax on California billionaires, and it would in effect undercut or curtail that wealth tax.

This proposed ballot measure would also prohibit any new state taxes from being excluded from the state’s current voter-approved spending limit. The proposed billionaire tax would have such an exclusion. If the billionaire tax proposal is approved by voters but this proposal receives more votes, the billionaire tax measure would be voided.

The measure would require the state auditor to conduct a financial and performance audit of proposed ballot initiatives and of the programs they fund. The measure would require audits of any program that would receive funding from the special tax in the proposed initiative to assess the efficiency of the program and recommend who ought to reduce its annual costs by 10%. If the measure passes, the costs of the audits would be paid via the revenues generated by the special tax.

This ballot initiative is one of two so-called poison pills to sink the billionaire tax that is being bankrolled by Building a Better California, which has raised well over $100 million from the state’s most affluent. The largest donor is Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, who has reportedly moved out of California because of the tax proposal. He donated at least $82 million to the group as of late June.

Proposition 42: Ban on new state personal property taxes

This is one of two ballot measures created by opponents of the proposed initiative to impose a tax on California billionaires, and it would in effect void that wealth tax.

This proposed ballot measure would prohibit new taxes on personal property, intellectual property, retirement accounts and other assets and would limit situations in which a ballot measure or state lawmakers can impose or raise taxes retroactively — both of which are essential parts of the billionaire tax initiative.

If the billionaire tax proposal is approved by voters but this proposal receives more votes, the billionaire tax ballot measure would be voided.

This ballot initiative is one of two so-called poison pills to sink the billionaire tax that is being bankrolled by Building a Better California, which has raised well over $100 million from the state’s most affluent. The largest donor is Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, who has reportedly moved out of California because of the tax proposal. He donated at least $82 million to the group as of late June.

Proposition 43: Voting thresholds for special taxes

The measure would prohibit local governments from imposing new special taxes unless the proposed tax receives approval from two-thirds of voters. The restriction also applies to citizen initiatives, which currently only need a simple majority vote to be approved.

It would also limit cities’ ability to impose taxes on property sales. In charter cities, the measure would prevent voters from approving any real estate transfer taxes beyond the state’s existing rate of 0.11% of a property’s sale price. It would also cancel some existing property-related taxes.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. supports Proposition 43. The advocacy group has characterized the measure as an effort to “save” 1978’s Proposition 13, the landmark initiative that capped California property tax increases and required a super-majority of votes to approve most future tax increases.

Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), who authored the legislation that became Proposition 43 — ACA 22 — opposes the measure and has urged Californians to vote against it. She said the only reason she crafted the bill was because it was a necessary bargaining chip to torpedo another ballot measure backed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. that would have devastated revenues for local governments and retroactively rescinded some local tax increases.

“I authored ACA 22 not because I wanted it to become law — but because it was the only path left to get the more dangerous initiative off the ballot before time ran out,” Wicks posted on social media.

Proposition 44: Regulate health clinic spending

If passed, Proposition 44 would require federally qualified health centers to spend 90% of their revenue on “program services advancing their charitable purpose” rather than management and overhead. Community clinics that fail to comply would be penalized, with fines placed in a state-managed fund to be spent on clinic workforce programs.

Advocates say clinics spend too much on executive pay and other administrative costs and not enough on patient care. The measure, which would dictate how clinics spend money, is designed to fix that. The measure is backed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, an influential healthcare workers union, which argues it will help hold clinics accountable.

In May, the California Primary Care Assn., which represents more than 2,300 community health clinics, sued to block the ballot measure. The state’s powerful doctors’ lobby, the California Medical Assn., also opposes the measure, arguing it would ban clinics from keeping funding in reserves and hamper their ability to upgrade equipment or expand to new locations.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that enforcing the measure would cost the government up to the low tens of millions annually, and that much of the cost would be paid for through penalties and fees charged to affected clinics. The office says the measure has “uncertain” impacts and could lead to clinic closures.

Proposition 45: CEQA reform

This proposition would amend the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, and speed up the process for projects deemed “essential,” including certain housing, water, health, public safety, energy and transportation projects.

Jails, detention facilities and oil or natural gas production facilities would not be considered “essential” projects, according to the measure text.

If passed, the measure would set deadlines for public agencies to complete environmental review, allow expedited review of a project’s environmental impacts — currently, public agencies are required to consider a range of feasible alternatives to reduce environmental impacts — and establish deadlines for filing and resolving lawsuits.

CEQA lawsuits have often been used to block construction of housing in the state. For instance, in Berkeley, neighbors used CEQA — citing potential noise impact from partying students — to delay, for years, UC Berkeley’s construction of student dorms on People’s Park.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the state and local government implementation will cost in the tens of millions of dollars for the first several years. It notes the legislation would probably result in net savings in the long term due to reduced administrative and legal workload.

Times staff writers Seema Mehta and Phil Willon contributed to this report.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed off on a 100% state tax on money any Californians receive from Trump’s $1.8-billion “anti-weaponization” fund for his political allies.

Newsom unveiled his proposal in May, after Trump’s Justice Department said it would create a fund to compensate Trump’s allies who claim they have “suffered weaponization and lawfare” under Biden’s Justice Department.

The settlement fund was criticized by politicians on both sides of the aisle, including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who described it as a “slush fund to pay people who assault cops.”

The fund remains in legal limbo. Earlier this month, a federal judge in Virginia extended a court-ordered block on the plan, which critics warned could be used to pay pardoned Jan. 6 rioters.

Fast-tracked into law as part of Senate Bill 122, Newsom’s plan imposes “a tax on any settlement fund payment from the federal Anti-Weaponization Fund, or any subsequent fund, settlement, or agreement, as provided, at a rate of 100%,” according to the bill text. The tax applies to all tax years between 2026 and 2030.

Newsom signed the bill Tuesday. In a statement, his office said the tax is meant to ensure that, should Trump’s fund proceed, California recipients won’t “receive favorable state treatment on those payments.”

“We believe democracy is worth defending, the rule of law matters, and public dollars should support victims—not those who attacked the very institutions that protect our freedoms,” Newsom said in the statement.

University of Southern California law professor Ariel Jurow Kleiman, an expert on tax law and policy, said that while Newsom’s tax is a “novel legal strategy,” she believes there is “no categorical legal restriction” preventing California from implementing it.

States have a “wide degree of discretion” to design their tax systems — including how they define income — so long as they do not violate their constitutions, Jurow Kleiman said.

If a California resident wanted to challenge the tax in court, they would need to show they were harmed by it to have standing to sue, according to Jurow Kleiman. That would mean receiving a payment from Trump’s settlement fund and then paying the 100% California tax. Unless the settlement fund is established and distributes payments, that scenario is unlikely.

While there have been proposals to levy a 100% tax on income above certain thresholds — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in 2023 said he supports a 100% tax on income exceeding $1 billion — Jurow Kleiman said she is not aware of any governments that have adopted such a policy.

June 26 (Asia Today) — South Korea plans to create an investment and procurement system aimed at producing homegrown security technology companies comparable to U.S. data analytics company Palantir Technologies, the government said Friday.

The Ministry of SMEs and Startups announced the strategy with the Defense Ministry and Korea AeroSpace Administration during a meeting on future security innovation companies at the Blue House.

The plan seeks to accelerate the transfer of advanced civilian technology into national defense and security.

The government aims to develop five security technology companies valued at more than 1 trillion won ($651 million) and 50 companies with annual sales exceeding 100 billion won ($65.1 million) by 2030.

It will designate five strategic sectors covering drones and robotics, defense artificial intelligence and semiconductors, advanced sensors and materials, aerospace technology and cybersecurity and quantum communications.

Officials described the initiative as an effort to cultivate a “Korean Palantir,” referring to the U.S. company known for software that integrates and analyzes large volumes of defense and intelligence data.

The phrase is a policy description rather than the name of a company the government plans to establish.

Investment vehicle modeled on In-Q-Tel

The ministry plans to establish a government-backed investment organization modeled on In-Q-Tel, the nonprofit strategic investor created to support technologies relevant to U.S. intelligence agencies.

The proposed organization would make direct investments in early-stage security technology companies to address funding shortages.

The government also plans to support the establishment of a technology-focused asset management company tentatively called Korea Strategic Technology Partners.

Through government and private investment vehicles, officials aim to create as much as 10 trillion won ($6.5 billion) in strategic technology financing over the next five years.

The money would provide growth capital to startups and smaller companies developing technologies with potential defense, intelligence, aerospace or cybersecurity applications.

Faster research and procurement

South Korea also plans to introduce a special research and development program modeled on the U.S. Other Transaction Authority system.

The system would connect research, testing and government purchasing under a faster contracting process intended for rapidly changing technologies.

Selected companies could receive as much as 10 billion won ($6.5 million) each over five years.

The Defense Ministry and Korea AeroSpace Administration plan to create procurement systems capable of placing some advanced weapons or technologies into initial service within one year.

The government also plans to expand access to defense data through a catalog showing what information may be available to approved companies.

Aerospace authorities will support the development of core technology for a national space data center and platforms that allow businesses to use satellite information.

The strategy reflects the government’s view that traditional defense procurement moves too slowly for technologies such as artificial intelligence, drones, robotics and cybersecurity software.

Support for smaller technology companies

Minister of SMEs and Startups Han Seongsook said the global security industry is shifting rapidly from traditional hardware toward software, data and artificial intelligence.

“The government will provide bold and rapid support so startups and small venture companies with flexible and creative technologies can become leaders in security innovation,” Han said.

The government also plans to protect companies’ intellectual property rights and allow technologies developed through public programs to be adapted for civilian markets.

Officials said the strategy would help smaller companies enter a defense industry that has traditionally been dominated by large manufacturers and hardware-centered weapons programs.

The ministries plan to form an interagency committee, pursue special legislation and revise contracting rules to support the initiative.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260626010009467

WASHINGTON — California’s two Democratic senators on Thursday criticized the Trump administration after it requested $87.6 billion from Congress to address some of the nation’s most “urgent needs” but omitted funding for victims of last year’s Los Angeles wildfires.

“Donald Trump’s desire to punish Los Angeles and the state of California for not voting for him, means once again that thousands of Angelinos are left watching this administration fight for anything but them, their businesses, and their communities,” Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff said in a joint statement.

“These fires did not discriminate based on party or political preference. Neither should this administration,” they added.

The omission is the latest strain in a yearlong standoff between California leaders and the Trump administration over federal disaster aid, and it comes after Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger met with President Trump at the Oval Office in April to request the funding.

At the meeting, Trump signaled his commitment to working with local officials to help with disaster recovery efforts. The officials asked for $16 billion that would be split between the city and county. The money would consist primarily of disbursements from the Federal Emergency Management Agency flagged for communities hit by the fires, part of a $33.9-billion wildfire relief funding request made by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Two months later, those talks have yet to yield results sought by local leaders.

The budget request, submitted by the Office of Management and Budget on Wednesday, mostly seeks funding for the Pentagon to address costs related to the Iran war. It also includes $11.1 billion in economic assistance for American farmers, $1.4 billion to address the Ebola virus outbreak in Central Africa, $500 million to support “ongoing efforts to complete restorations and construction projects” across the nation’s capital and $1 billion to boost the pensions of workers at General Motors that were cut as a result of the automaker’s bankruptcy.

“I urge the Congress to take action on these important and urgent requests as soon as possible,” White House budget director Russell Vought wrote in a letter addressed to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).

Vought said the administration was open to discussing “additional relief for other urgent matters.” The White House did not immediately respond when asked why the budget request did not mention the Eaton and Palisades disaster relief funds.

State leaders, including Newsom, have repeatedly accused the Trump administration of stonewalling billions in wildfire aid. The governor visited Washington in December to meet with lawmakers, including three who serve on the Senate and House appropriations committees, to push for the funding.

The governor also attempted to meet with FEMA about the matter, but said his request was denied. Newsom, a political foe of Trump’s, would not say whether he had attempted to meet with Trump to talk about the recovery efforts.

WASHINGTON — More than $350 million from President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” has been quietly directed to White House security, an allotment that Democrats warn appears to be helping fund his new ballroom project — despite the president’s insistence that no taxpayer dollars would be used.

The apportionment of funds, which the White House’s Office of Management and Budget made late Friday, comes from two accounts that were intended to provide the U.S. Secret Service with extra money for hiring and training in the aftermath of last year’s assassination attempts on the president, according to Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee. The shift was made days after Congress rejected a $1-billion request for the White House in a Homeland Security bill that Trump signed into law and as the ballroom project is tangled in legal challenges.

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley, whose panel initially drafted the security funding, said Thursday he was unaware of the allocations.

“The president said that it was all going to be paid for with private money,” said Grassley (R-Iowa). “And that’s what the country expects.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, charged that Trump’s actions are potentially illegal.

“After repeatedly telling the American people that zero taxpayer dollars would be spent on his gold-plated ballroom boondoggle, now Trump appears to be using a smoke and mirrors tactic,” Merkley said in a statement.

“Trump has proven that he can’t be trusted to follow the law,” Merkley said. “He only cares about wasting taxpayer money on his vanity projects.”

Ballroom project hits setbacks

Trump has faced setbacks in his attempts to build the ballroom on the White House grounds, where he ordered the demolition of the storied East Wing to make way for it.

Touring the construction site last month, Trump called the development a “gift” to the American people. He has repeatedly said that it is being paid for by donations — which has also run into ethics questions from watchdogs concerned about potential corruption and conflicts of interest.

Congress refused the Trump administration’s request for $1 billion for the ballroom last month. The administration wanted the money as part of a Homeland Security bill, but Republican and Democratic lawmakers rejected efforts to tack it on. It became politically toxic at a time when Americans are reeling from inflationary high costs of living.

The Washington Post reported earlier this week that the price tag for the project has ballooned to $600 million, according to a project summary prepared by the contractor, with more than half of that funding coming from taxpayers. Roll Call first reported on the apportionment of new funds for White House security.

At its core, arguments are swirling over how much of the White House project is to bolster security underground, with bomb shelters and a medical facility, and how much of the costs are related to the president’s promised 999-seat ballroom on top.

White House says Trump and donors are paying for the ballroom

A spokesman for the White House said that Trump and donors are funding some $400 million for the ballroom development, and that the coordination with the Secret Service had been noted in the initial announcement of the project.

“The East Wing Modernization Project is inextricably tied to the security of the President, the White House grounds and the certain security infrastructure assets,” said White House spokesman Davis R. Ingle in a statement.

He said the events over the past weekend, including an alleged attack plan targeting the UFC Freedom 250 event at the White House, proves why the project is needed.

“President Trump and generous American patriots are funding the ballroom to the tune of approximately $400 million, which will be a secure and appropriate venue for Presidents for generations to come,” he said.

Government lawyers have argued that the project includes critical security features to guard against a range of threats, such as drones and missiles.

The White House has said in court documents that the East Wing project would be “heavily fortified,” including bomb shelters, military installations and a medical facility underneath the ballroom. The Secret Service told senators last month that $220 million of the White House’s $1-billion request would go to harden the ballroom addition, with bulletproof glass, drone detection technologies, chemical and other systems.

The rest of the money would go for other security improvements, according to a document provided to Senate Republicans, including $180 million for a new, “long overdue” White House visitors screening facility.

Congress holds power of the purse

The shifting funds are certain to ignite growing concerns in Congress over the separation of powers, and the president’s use of federal funds allocated by lawmakers.

The money comes from Trump’s big tax breaks and spending cuts bill that the president signed into law last summer. It provided more than $1 billion for Secret Service resources, including “personnel, training facilities, programming, and technology; and performance, retention, and signing bonuses.”

The provision was uncontested at the time, even as Democrats voted against the broader bill. Democrats said they did not challenge this section or try to strip it out from the package.

Under the Constitution, only Congress has the specific authority to allocate funds across the federal government, including the executive and judicial branch operations.

While the president holds the power to sign — or veto — those appropriation bills, once the funding becomes law, it largely must stand.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

A former top officer of the Los Angeles Fire Department’s labor union was arrested Wednesday and charged with grand theft and forgery for allegedly stealing more than $82,000 from a charity for injured firefighters.

Prosecutors from the state attorney general’s office announced the charges against Adam Walker, former secretary of the United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, at a news conference.

Walker “abused a position of trust for personal gain,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said alongside Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman.

Walker opened a foundation bank account and transferred funds to his personal accounts, Bonta said, attempting to conceal those transfers with fake reimbursement records and forging receipts to mislead auditors. He used the funds for personal expenses, including online gambling, Bonta said.

Walker has been under scrutiny since 2024, when the local union’s parent organization, the International Assn. of Fire Fighters, suspended him from his union position and accused him of improperly depositing more than $75,000 of the charity’s funds into his personal accounts from December 2022 to January 2024. The IAFF accused him of using $5,000 for personal expenses.

Walker, who continued to work as a firefighter, told The Times last year that those allegations were false. He said the account he drew from was not for the charity, the UFLAC Fire Foundation, but was set up for two golf tournaments to raise money for a disabled former firefighter. He said all of the deposits were reimbursements for his legitimate out-of-pocket expenses for the tournaments.

“Not one penny of the money was foundation money,” he said. He said he understood that the deposits “look bad” but were a reflection of his “poor bookkeeping” and not any wrongdoing.

The Washington D.C.-based IAFF also suspended Walker from his positions as chairman and director of the foundation, which aids injured firefighters and their families, provides scholarships and is helping firefighters who lost their homes in the January fires.

The US-Iran memorandum of understanding expected to be formally signed in Switzerland on Friday could allow for the establishment of a $300bn investment fund for Iran, as part of a broader settlement to end the war that triggered a global energy crisis and upended markets worldwide.

US Vice President JD Vance told CBS News on Monday that the incentives would be connected to Iran’s “performance” in adhering to the deal, which was digitally signed by both sides on Sunday.

The scale of the financial incentives grabbed the headlines due to US President Donald Trump’s longstanding criticism of a 2015 nuclear accord that he claimed delivered economic benefits to Tehran.

In a bid to manage perceptions around this politically sensitive issue, Trump took to his Truth Social platform to claim that “the story that the US is paying Iran 300 million Dollars is Fake News,” while Vance told CBS News that the money would not be a US payout in exchange for Iran’s enriched uranium.

“When people say that billions of dollars of assets will be released, that’s not true,” the vice president told the CBS Morning programme. “What is true is that Iran will have a much better and much more prosperous future if they meet the obligations they make in this agreement.”

What do we know about the $300bn investment fund?

Vance said the deal “fundamentally extends a hand to Iran and says, ‘Look, if you guys are willing to honour your obligations, if you’re willing to allow real inspections of your nuclear programme, then we will welcome you back into the world economy.’

“That’s the sort of thing they could have access to, funded by the Gulf Coast coalition, so long as they honour their end of the obligation,” Vance told CBS. He also claimed that while US money would not be injected, economic opportunities could arise once Iran repositions itself in the global economy.

The New York Times quoted sources saying the fund would not come from governments but be created for companies eager to invest in Iran.

Muhanad Seloom, a non-resident senior fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, said the setup was a no-lose solution for Washington. “If Iran reforms, the administration owns the peace; if it doesn’t, the US loses nothing and the Gulf carries the risk,” he told Al Jazeera.

What about the Iranian frozen assets?

Seloom said the idea of an investment fund was built precisely to escape the optics of releasing Iran’s frozen funds. While the exact amount of Iran’s frozen assets is unclear, official Iranian reports and experts have set the total amount at more than $100bn.

Iran’s economy has been crippled due to years of sanctions imposed on the country by the United States and other nations following the Islamic revolution in 1979, and then amplified over Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missiles programmes. These measures have restricted Tehran’s ability to access its own assets, such as revenues from oil sales, which have been frozen in foreign banks.

Tehran was granted sanctions relief in the wake of the landmark 2015 nuclear deal signed under President Barack Obama, but Trump tore it up in 2018 during his first term. The 2015 deal had put limits on Iran’s nuclear enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief.

Iran’s state-affiliated Mehr News agency reported on Sunday that the 14-point draft memorandum of understanding provided for the release of $24bn in frozen Iranian assets.

Pressed by CBS News on the possibility of releasing frozen funds, Vance said the $24bn figure “just doesn’t appear anywhere in any of the texts that we’ve talked about with the Iranians”.

“What we have said is that we’re willing to talk about unfreezing assets, but a much, much bigger deal is unsanctioning their economy – so long as they make the long-term commitments on the nuclear programme,” the vice president added.

For Iran, where the war inflicted an estimated $29bn damage and the population is struggling with the highest inflation rate since 1942, the investment fund may constitute a much-needed lifeline.

But the optics will not be as favourable, raising a “dignity problem”, Seloom said. “Tehran reads this as supervised, conditional money rather than sovereign relief,” the analyst told Al Jazeera.

Which other contentious issues will be discussed after signing the deal on Friday?

One of the US’s main declared objectives has been to assuage concerns surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme, including a stockpile of more than 440kg (970lbs) of enriched uranium.

The memorandum extends an existing ceasefire arrangement for another 60 days, during which the two sides are expected to hold further negotiations on issues including the disposal of the enriched uranium.

Vance said Tehran had agreed to surrender its stockpile, undergo regular inspections and refrain from producing or buying nuclear weapons, but the full text of the memorandum of understanding has yet to be disclosed.

The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, which has been subject to competing blockades by the US and Iran, has also been a point of contention. Trump suggested an agreement to reopen the waterway had been reached when he announced a deal on Sunday with the words: “Let the oil flow!”

Speaking to CNBC, however, Vance acknowledged that not all sticking points surrounding the passageway had been resolved. “Well, our expectation is that the strait is gonna be opened in a toll-free way for the long term, and that’s the sort of thing that we’re gonna figure out in these technical negotiations,” he said.

Israel’s ongoing aggression on Lebanon is also expected to create friction, as Iran has insisted any ceasefire deal must include the allied nation. Israel has so far rejected any arrangement that would limit its ability to strike what it says are Hezbollah targets. Defence Minister Israel Katz on Friday said the military would continue operating in Lebanon regardless of any agreement with Tehran.

Mixed reactions to the agreement

Iranian ⁠⁠Foreign ⁠⁠Minister Abbas Araghchi said the memorandum of understanding would reap economic benefits for Iran but stressed that Tehran would not rely on those benefits for all of its needs.

“We have a history of broken promises, non-compliance, and the tearing up of agreements,” Araghchi said on Monday, according to Press TV. He said discussions about the lifting of US sanctions and Iran’s nuclear programme would be held during a 60-day period of negotiations following the official signature on Friday.

Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has yet to comment. Some Iranian observers objected to the timing of the announcement, which coincided with Trump’s birthday. Referring to the assassination of former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at the beginning of the US-Iran war, conservative journalist Parisa Nasr wrote on X: “Was giving a birthday gift to the killer of the martyred Leader also one of the unwritten conditions of the deal?”

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Iran’s Supreme National Security Council had approved the deal so that “America’s genuine commitment to respecting the rights of the Iranian nation could be tested in practice.”

Speaking at the G7 summit in France on Tuesday, Trump described the deal with Iran as “fair”, “good”, and under which Iran “can’t have a nuclear weapon” or “they get blown up.”

Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, who is also attending the summit, said the Iran-US agreement will result in positive outcomes for the region.

“This is a very important deal, there’s still a lot of work to be done, but with this momentum – if we continue like that, Mr President – I think we can achieve and do great things in the region,” Sheikh Tamim said.

US Democratic lawmakers welcomed a deal to halt the war with Iran but stressed that its terms must be made public. Senator Gregory Meeks said “any final agreement must be durable, enforceable, transparent” and more than “vague announcements or political spin”.

US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham on Sunday said he was “pleased” about the deal but also “somewhat concerned that Iran’s view of the agreement seems different than what the American negotiating team is claiming”.

Seloom, at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, said the different narratives underlined that the two sides were “not really talking to each other”. “They’re talking past each other, to domestic audiences,” he said. “Each side has to sell this as a victory it cannot sell honestly.”

June 12 (UPI) — A federal judge on Friday extended an order to indefinitely block President Donald Trump‘s $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund because she does not trust the administration’s word that it will not attempt to enact it.

The fund was announced last month and meant to compensate people the Trump administration alleged were targeted by the Biden administration, including people who were convicted for their actions during the Jan. 6, 2021, riots at the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.

Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia in her ruling blocked Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, Jr., and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent from taking “any action to create or operate” the fund and that they not proceed with the concept “in any manner, or under any name.”

Brinkema’s ruling builds atop one from Washington, D.C., Judge Richard Leon that they do not believe the administration will not attempt to distribute money in the scheme.

Both judges indicated that they do not believe that the Department of Justice will back off from the plan because no officials from the agency have said they would do so while sworn in and under penalty of perjury.

“When the President of the United States says” that he wants something, referring to Trump, Brinkema said “that’s a pretty good indicator there will be an incentive and motive to make it happen,” CNN reported.

Even with the fund having been on hold for the last week, at least one person already has attempted to file a claim, to which the federal court responded that it is “not accepting applications”

Justice Department had walked back controversial plan after meeting backlash from lawmakers and lawsuits.

A federal judge in the United States has indefinitely blocked the Trump administration from moving forward with plans for a $1.8bn “anti-weaponisation” fund, meant to offer payments to those who experienced alleged “lawfare” and “weaponisation” of the government.

The ruling on Friday represents another setback for the scheme, which has faced heavy resistance from lawmakers and has been walked back by the Department of Justice previously.

Judge Leonie Brinkema of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia had issued a temporary halt to the fund last week and issued a preliminary injunction as it was set to expire on Friday.

The fund was the product of a settlement between Trump and the Justice Department of a $10bn lawsuit the president had brought against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

The Justice Department set up a $1.776bn fund that would have been helmed by a five-member commission to distribute funds to those they deemed victims of “weaponisation”, a term that Trump has used to describe investigations and criminal cases into himself and his allies.

Attorney General Todd Blanche walked back the plans earlier this month amid growing criticism, and government attorneys have argued that lawsuits challenging the scheme are now irrelevant.

Even before the administration announced it was dropping the fund, the Justice Department did not form the five-member commission to decide on payout criteria, so no money was paid out or claims accepted.

Many of the Republican president’s allies are opposed to compensating rioters who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. In May, however, Blanche would not rule out the possibility that Capitol rioters who engaged in violence could be eligible to apply for payments from the fund.

Trump issued mass pardons to Capitol rioters on his first day back in the White House last year. More than 1,500 people were charged in the January 6 attack before Trump erased every case with his sweeping act of clemency.

Plaintiffs who sued to block the plan argued that the scheme diverted taxpayer funds into what was essentially a slush fund and have expressed doubt about Blanche’s assurances that the fund will not move forward.

While the administration has moved away from the scheme, Trump himself has not endorsed its cancellation and has continued to discuss it positively in comments to the press.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A federal judge agreed on Friday to extend a court-ordered block on the Trump administration’s creation and operation of a $1.8 billion settlement fund for compensating people who claim to be victims of a weaponized government.

Earlier this month, acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche told Congress that the government is scrapping its plans for the fund in the face of a fierce bipartisan backlash. Government attorneys have argued that lawsuits challenging the fund are now moot, but plaintiffs’ attorneys aren’t satisfied by Blanche’s assurances that the fund won’t move forward.

Neither was U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who ruled that the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” will remain blocked until further notice from the court.

“The (government’s) mootness argument, in my view, doesn’t go anywhere,” the judge said.

President Trump, meanwhile, has not publicly and unequivocally endorsed its cancellation. He has continued to express support for the fund in remarks to reporters.

Brinkema gave the parties a week to negotiate an agreement for Blanche to submit a sworn declaration that the administration won’t revive the fund.

Brinkema previously agreed to temporarily block the administration from proceeding with the fund for at least two weeks. Her May 29 order was due to expire on Friday.

Trump’s Republican administration created the fund to resolve his lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns.

Plaintiffs who sued to block fund payouts argue that the government can’t legally divert taxpayer money into what they argue is a slush fund for compensating Trump’s allies.

In a separate case on Wednesday, a different judge in Washington, D.C., rejected a government watchdog’s parallel request for a court order temporarily blocking the Trump administration from forging ahead with the fund. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon said he accepts Blanche’s representation that the fund is now moot.

Leon had asked Justice Department attorney Andrew Block why Blanche doesn’t formally rescind his May 18 order establishing the fund. Block said he didn’t know. He still didn’t have an answer to that question when Brinkema posed it two days later.

“It’s a huge gap in the record that we don’t have an answer to that question,” the judge said.

In the Virginia case, attorneys from the legal advocacy group Democracy Forward asked for an order to temporarily suspend the fund’s implementation and stop the Trump administration from disbursing any payouts from it.

The plaintiffs include a fired prosecutor and a college professor acquitted of assaulting federal agents at a protest.

Even before the administration said it was dropping the fund, the Justice Department did not form the five-member commission that would decide on payout criteria, so no money was paid out nor claims accepted.

Many of the Republican president’s allies are opposed to compensating rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. In May, however, Blanche wouldn’t rule out the possibility that Capitol rioters who engaged could be eligible to apply for payments from the fund.

Trump issued mass pardons to Capitol rioters on his first day back in the White House last year. More than 1,500 people were charged in the Jan. 6 attack before Trump erased every case with his sweeping act of clemency.

Brinkema was nominated to the bench by President Clinton, a Democrat.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

June 10 (UPI) — President Donald Trump signed a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration enforcement agencies through 2028 after months of battles to prevent it from happening.

“This morning I’m thrilled to sign the Secure America Act to immediately and fully fund the Department of Homeland Security through the end of my term, so we won’t have to be talking about it anymore,” the president said in the Oval Office.

The Senate passed the $70 billion funding package on Friday, and the House approved it on Tuesday.

Democrats fought the funding for months, refusing to agree to the bill unless there were reforms to the organization after two American citizens — Renee Good and Alex Pretti — were killed by federal agents in Minneapolis earlier this year. But the measure was passed via reconciliation, which only requires a majority vote instead of 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

“We’ll give the heroes of ICE and Border Patrol — and that’s what they are, they’re heroes, what they have to go through to keep us safe — the support and resources they need to defend our borders, protect our homeland and to keep America safe,” the president added He also gave House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., credit for passing the bill with a slim majority in the House.

“Despite Democrat efforts to shut down ICE and Border Patrol, Republicans have now fully funded these agencies through President Trump’s entire second term to the tune of nearly $70 billion,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., in a statement. “Thanks to President Trump, our border has gone from its weakest point to its most secure point in less than two years.”