The fate of a controversial ballot measure to impose a new tax on California billionaires, proposed as a lifeline for the needy and castigated as a threat to the state’s fragile economy, appeared headed for defeat in early election results Tuesday night.
California voters also rejected another hotly contested measure, Proposition 39, which would have required voters to show identification when they cast ballots and elections officials to verify that all registered voters were U.S. citizens.
The billionaire tax, Proposition 40, would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of billionaires to raise an estimated $100 billion to assist millions of Californians destined to lose healthcare coverage under federal funding cuts. Two separate ballot measures, Propositions 41 and 42, were crafted to nullify the wealth tax and remained too close to call Tuesday evening.
While supporters of the billionaire tax did not concede Tuesday evening, they acknowledged facing tough odds in the race because of the avalanche of spending against them and warned that people will die if the measure fails.
“In the event that we don’t succeed with Prop. 40 tonight, if Sacramento fails to deliver a real solution to the healthcare crisis instigated by the [federal government], one that actually makes billionaires pay their fair share, then California’s healthcare workers intend to be back on the ballot in 2028 to correct the damage, and to overcome all of the lies and deception, and just completely outrageous campaigning that we’ve seen,” said Dave Regan, president of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, which crafted the proposal.
Voters rejected the Republican-led Proposition 39 at a time of growing distrust in the integrity of the electoral process nationwide, a wariness intensified by President Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him and false assertions that droves of undocumented immigrants, notably in California, are swaying elections.
On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected an emergency appeal by Trump’s attorneys to set aside 20,000 ballots in the state that the White House argued could be cast by people who are not citizens.
The proposals were among the 14 state ballot measures that California’s 23.3 million registered voters were asked to decide Tuesday in addition to congressional, statewide and local elections.
The billionaire tax was proposed in response to legislation signed by Trump last year that could result in millions of Californians losing Medi-Cal coverage, rural hospitals shuttering and other healthcare services being slashed unless a new funding source is found. The proposal would retroactively apply to billionaires who lived in California as of Jan. 1, prompting some to preemptively move out of the state. Ninety percent of the revenue would fund healthcare programs, and the remaining funds would be spent on education programs and food assistance.
Proposition 40 divided Democratic leaders because of concerns about its impact on the state’s volatile budget that is highly dependent on the wealthy. Gov. Gavin Newsom opposed the measure, while the state Democratic party endorsed it.
The effort supporting and opposing the tax and two ballot measures designed to nullify it came close to breaking a state campaign finance record. About $425 million had been donated to the three commingled ballot measures as of Tuesday.
The vast majority of that money was provided by California billionaires, including some of the state’s most powerful tech barons, opposing the wealth tax. The campaign was centered on three interwoven ballot initiatives: Proposition 40 and Propositions 41 and 42, both of which would undercut Proposition 40 through a series of strategic changes to state tax laws and new spending restrictions.
Neither explicitly stated that it would nullify the billionaire tax if Proposition 40 passed and either of the counter measures received more votes.
Proposition 41, which trailed slightly Tuesday evening, is framed as an effort to cut wasteful government spending and require audits of new special taxes. But it also would bar new taxes that are exempt from state spending limits. Proposition 42, which was slightly ahead, is presented as protection from state lawmakers taxing everyday Californians’ retirement funds, personal savings and home equity.
In polling leading up to election day, voters appeared to differentiate between the billionaire tax proposal and Proposition 3, which was approved by voters on Tuesday. . It would make permanent a temporary tax increase on wealthy Californians that largely funds education. The tax adds 1% to 3% to the state income tax of single filers who earn more than $360,000, joint filers who make more than $721,000 and heads of household who earn more than $490,000. Voters passed the tax in 2012 and extended it in 2016, but it is set to expire in 2031.
Voters cast ballots on several other proposals about local taxes, public financing of political campaigns, a landmark environmental law, housing, the state’s recall process, state lawmakers’ ability to redirect taxpayer money to the state’s “rainy day” fund, immunology and immunotherapy funding, and restrictions on how community healthcare clinics spend money:
Several ballot measures were decided Tuesday evening:
Among those that remained too close to call:
Paris Jackson, daughter of late pop icon Michael Jackson, seeks more than half a million dollars in a preliminary transfer from her father’s estate to a trust for his three children. Jackson alleged in a recent court filing that the funds are overdue and under the “iron grip” of the estate’s executor.
The actor-singer on Thursday accused the executors of her father’s estate of failing to fulfill the singer’s wishes for Prince, Paris and Bigi to begin receiving income from their family trust.
“Michael Jackson’s family trust remains unfunded,” she said in the petition, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court and reviewed by The Times.
According to Paris, executors said in 2011 they would file a petition to begin funding the trust. Allegedly, no such petition has been filed: “Fifteen years later, Michael’s beneficiaries are still waiting.”
Attorneys for the estate’s executors did not immediately respond on Tuesday to The Times’ request for comment.
Jackson said her father, who died in June 2009, wanted his children to begin receiving money from the estate on each of their 21st birthdays and that each child would also receive “outright principal distributions” from the trust when they each turned 30. Prince and Paris (born to the singer and former wife Debbie Rowe) are 29 and 28, respectively. Bigi is 24 and was born via surrogate.
“They instead receive lesser amounts dictated by the remaining Executor, who uses this power to deter them from checking his abuses,” Paris’ petition alleges.
The executors for Michael Jackson’s estate began generating liquidity in 2011, including the sale of the singer’s Neverland Ranch in 2020 and the $750-million deal with Sony for intellectual property assets. “Executors have claimed the overall value of the Estate is now between $2 billion and $3 billion,” Paris said in her filing.
“Executor continues to keep each beneficiary beholden to him with an iron grip over when and if monies are distributed to them,” the petition added.
The “sirens” and “evermore” singer also accused the executors of meeting her previous legal challenges with “scorched earth litigation, public attacks, and a multimillion reduction” in money to herself and her siblings.
Paris also noted in her petition that the estate was subject to litigation by the Internal Revenue Service and said that litigation “also appears to be at or nearing its end,” potentially freeing up funds to be transferred to the family trust. The estate said in a statement that it cannot “fully” fund the trust until “several legal matters are resolved” including that case with the IRS, People reported.
“The Estate was able to secure a ruling to significantly reduce that amount, but the matter has not been settled and could still change,” the estate added in its statement to People. It also denied allegations of holding back or reducing payments to the three children.
Jackson asks the court to order the executor of her father’s estate to make a preliminary transfer of $600 million, or another amount it deemed fit, to the Michael Jackson Family Trust. The next hearing for this case is scheduled for Wednesday.
The Trump administration has frozen, terminated or delayed billions in congressionally approved research grants since last year. Proposition 38 aims to backfill some of that loss by creating a stable source of money to fund immunology and immunotherapy research.
Proposition 38 would authorize the state to issue $8.4 billion in bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research to uncover treatments that help the immune system fight diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer’s disease more efficiently.
The measure would require at least $4.2 billion of the funds to be used for immunology research on cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s. It also would authorize the state to enter a partnership with an immunology and immunotherapy research institute selected by the California Department of Public Health and allocate half of the bond revenue to it. The remaining funds would be used for competitive grants that focus solely on immunology and immunotherapy research.
Californians would take on an increased cost of $500 million to $600 million annually to repay the bond for about 20 years, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.
The Yes on 38 campaign says the proposition pays for itself: 10% of all proceeds from the licensing of immunotherapies must be returned to the state to offset the total cost of the bond measure, including interest.
However, it’s difficult to predict whether any research projects will lead to marketable treatments.
Proposition 38 is backed by organizations including the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research and the ALS Assn., as well as a majority of local chapters of Democratic organizations across the state. Supporters say the proposed funding could give those afflicted with chronic illness hope and potentially more options for treatment.
Its opponents have said the proposed criteria for awarding the grant funding would appear to create an extremely small pool of qualified recipients. Only the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, co-founded by billionaire Gary K. Michelson, would qualify under the proposed criteria, according to No on 38, the campaign against the proposition.
Robin Swanson, spokesperson for the Yes on 38 campaign, said “lots of institutions would qualify for funds under this measure.”
But she said at a virtual news conference in mid-September that it was “very likely” that the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy “will qualify for half of the funds under the current criteria.”
Ultimately, Swanson said, the decision lies with the California Department of Public Health.
Your guide to Proposition 38: Immunology and immunotherapy research funding (L.A. Times)
An analysis of Prop. 38 (California Legislative Analyst’s Office)
This CA proposition will send $4 billion to a single nonprofit. Who’s behind it? (Cal Matters)
This institute could get $4 billion from a ballot measure. With just three workers, is it ready? (Cal Matters)
The dueling campaigns over a Pasadena ballot measure that would levy a special tax on property owners for fire department funding are heating up in the run-up to the Nov. 3 election.
In a press release, the city of Pasadena last month encouraged neighborhood associations, homeowner groups and other organizations to host informational sessions on Measure PFD, featuring presentations from Fire Chief Chad Augustin and other city staff.
But if you ask opponents of the measure, these events are actually campaign stops.
The presentations focus on “everything that supposedly won’t happen” if the measure fails, according to a press release from the No on Measure PFD Campaign.
“The city has turned the fire department into the grassroots campaign arm for Yes on PFD,” said Matt Klink, a consultant for the No campaign.
Augustin disputed that characterization of the presentations and said he’s provided only factual information about the measure so residents can understand the choices before them. “That, in my mind, is education, not advocacy,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Yes on Measure PFD Campaign has accused the No campaign of running a digital ad and using website language suggesting that local firefighters don’t support the measure.
“None of the Pasadena firefighters support a no on Measure PFD,” said Raffy Bitchakdjian, president of the Pasadena Firefighters Assn. 809. “So for them to use our name, our likeness, and actually go say that is very deceptive.”
Here’s what to know about Measure PFD:
Kenneth Cheung/iStock Unreleased via Getty Images
Anthropic (ANTHRO) plans to allocate 5% of its equity to a new fund designed to address the societal consequences of artificial intelligence, including potential job losses as businesses increasingly deploy AI-powered automation. The initiative, announced Sunday, comes as the developer of the Claude AI
designer491
Quantitative hedge fund Two Sigma Investments has halted efforts to raise $2B for its real estate investment unit and cut senior staff, as rising interest rates hobbled its fundraising efforts, according to a media report on Friday.
The unit’s partner
Review prompted by Gaza action calls for Norway’s sovereign wealth fund to lift ethical risk limitations on its investments.
A government-appointed committee has called for Norway’s sovereign wealth fund to lift limitations on its investments based on ethical risks, including those regarding nuclear weapons and Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.
In a report released on Thursday, the committee said the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, which controls assets totalling nearly $2.3 trillion, should be allowed to invest in companies that produce nuclear weapons. With reference to Gaza, it also called for the fund to refrain from involvement in diplomatic issues.
list of 3 itemsend of list
Led by former Central Bank Governor Svein Gjedrem, the committee recommended easing the fund’s investment conditions as part of a broader overhaul that would give its manager, the central bank, greater discretion over how it addresses ethical risks.
The review was prompted in part by controversy over the fund’s disinvestment last year from United States construction giant Caterpillar. The fund said the move was prompted by Caterpillar’s purported involvement in rights violations perpetrated by Israel amid its genocidal war on Gaza and in the occupied West Bank. Washington has since pressured Oslo over the move.
“Parts of the rationale for the appointment of the Committee was the Fund’s management related to the war in Gaza,” the committee commissioned by the government said. In the report, it argued that decisions regarding “another state’s conduct” should not be made by the fund but “reserved for the ordinary diplomatic channels of the Norwegian authorities”.
The unanimous recommendations of the committee in the report, which was submitted to the Ministry of Finance, also called for a review of the fund’s exclusion of investment in companies involved in the production of nuclear weapons.
Citing Norway’s reliance on NATO’s nuclear deterrent and a worsening security environment, the report suggested that investments in companies based in the US, United Kingdom and France that are involved in the production of nuclear weapons should be allowed.
The proposals also extended to reshaping the role of the fund’s independent ethics watchdog, allowing some assessments of potential investments to remain confidential.
The report has already provoked a backlash in Norway, with opposition politicians slamming the potential changes. Meanwhile, analysts suggested that weakening ethics considerations could have a wide impact.
“If the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund – often considered a global gold standard – changes its posture towards nuclear weapons, it will open Pandora’s box for many global investors to follow suit,” Lawrence Loh, director of the Centre for Governance and Sustainability at the National University of Singapore Business School, told Al Jazeera.
The committee framed the proposed change as an obligation to protect Norway’s national security, citing the country’s dependence on its allies’ nuclear umbrella.
“The global security situation has changed. Norway is building up its defence capabilities, and the protection provided by NATO’s nuclear umbrella has become increasingly important. The companies that would be reincluded produce weapons that Norway needs for its own defence”, the report argued.
Gareth Evans, former Australian foreign minister, told Al Jazeera the report was “an encouraging initiative in a world that has become alarmingly complacent about the risks of nuclear war, with every major nuclear arms control agreement dead, dying or on life support, and the longstanding taboo against threat or use eroding”.
Amid US President Donald Trump’s shake-up of NATO, European countries are increasingly looking to join France’s nuclear deterrent umbrella.
Trump said on Thursday that Washington is holding talks with Russia and China aimed at denuclearising the countries with the biggest stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
However, Loh warned that shifting the Norwegian fund’s investment conditions could encourage investment by others in nuclear companies “in scenarios different from the Norwegian’s condition of the invested companies being based in allied, nuclear-armed NATO countries”.
President Trump must cancel any remaining television commercials paid for with millions of dollars in taxpayer money to promote his political message, a federal judge ordered Sunday night, even as the administration said the ad campaign was coming to an end.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon in New York sided with a coalition, including the nonpartisan watchdog Common Cause, that challenged the ads and called them an illegal misuse of funds. She told the administration to cancel any remaining ads, including any set to air Sunday night, in granting a temporary restraining order.
“Defendants shall not enter into, renew, or expand any agreement authorizing the development, creation, dissemination, placement, or airing of the challenged advertisements” during the two-week duration of her order, the judge said.
The White House did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment Sunday night. In a court filing late Saturday, the Justice Department argued that the temporary restraining order was unnecessary because “the alleged offending conduct will end tomorrow.”
The Department of Homeland Security tapped $20 million in taxpayer money for the ads. Legal experts have suggested that violated a federal statute against congressionally appropriated money being used for “publicity or propaganda” and potentially other laws.
“We are pleased the court acted swiftly to prevent more taxpayer dollars from being used for such blatantly unlawful political propaganda,” the plaintiffs said in a statement issued by Democracy Forward, the nonprofit legal organization that represents them. “There is no legal justification — and no precedent — for the president to use the machinery of the government and funds set aside by Congress for other uses to influence electoral outcomes that further his own agenda.”
In a court declaration Saturday, senior Homeland Security official Holly Mehringer wrote that the money came from funds appropriated by Congress that are “available for, among other things, ‘commemorating efforts and events related to border security.’”
The White House has defended the ads as public service announcements akin to what past administrations have done to promote various policies. But the recent ads differ from many past public service announcements in that they aren’t aimed at helping members of the public benefit from specific government programs.
The ads, which began airing in late September, glorify Trump and echo his political messaging going into the midterms. One features a clip of the president talking about the threat of communism and another is a replay of an ad from his last presidential campaign. The fifth ad in the campaign began airing Tuesday, focusing on his administration’s capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.
The use of public funds to pay for the ads drew heavy criticism — including from some in the GOP.
“It shouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer dollars,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters.
The Democratic National Committee has separately sued the Republican administration over the ads.
Amid the backlash, Trump said he would start paying for the ads with a campaign account. A White House official said there were no immediate plans to reimburse the government for money already spent.
Johnson writes for the Associated Press. Johnson reported from Seattle. AP reporters Collin Binkley in Washington and Ali Swenson contributed to this report.
Under an existing state appropriations restraint, also known as the Gann Limit, lawmakers cannot spend more in the state budget 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. More recent carve-outs in the law also allow leaders to direct excess funds to infrastructure and local government.
The limit applies to most other appropriations of tax revenue, including money that lawmakers tuck away into the “rainy day” fund and other reserves.
California voters also have capped the amount of money lawmakers can set aside in the rainy day fund at 10% of general fund proceeds in a given year.
The proposed changes would exempt deposits into the rainy day fund and a short-term reserve, called the Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account, from the state appropriations limit. The cap on the rainy day fund would grow from 10% of general fund tax revenue to 20%.
In effect, the measure would allow the governor and the Legislature to put more money into budget reserves, creating another option to avoid triggering rebates.
For example, if the spending limit is $400 billion for the year, and revenue hits $410 billion, the measure would give lawmakers the option to deposit the $10 billion above the spending limit into the rainy day fund, direct the money to infrastructure or give it to local governments, instead of returning the funding to taxpayers and increasing funding for schools.
WASHINGTON — President Trump says his administration will make one-time payments of $90 per person to help more than 20 million Medicare enrollees pay for their Part B premiums. It will cost about $2 billion.
Less than one-third of all Medicare recipients are eligible for the payments, which are expected to be sent out this week. Not eligible are roughly 35 million Medicare Advantage enrollees, millions of people with disabilities who get premium assistance and low-income Medicare recipients.
The election-year promise that the Republican president made over the weekend comes as the Nov. 3 midterms are fast approaching, with the cost of living and healthcare expenses among the top issues for voters.
Some questions and answers about the payouts:
Some 20.8 million people in the original Medicare Part B who are living in the United States, not receiving premium assistance from Medicaid or not paying an income-related monthly adjusted amount.
Medicare Advantage enrollees, who make up more than half of the eligible 64.2 million Medicare beneficiaries, will not receive a payment, according to KFF, a healthcare research nonprofit. Nor will 12 million low-income older adults and people with disabilities who get premium assistance.
The Part B program covers expenses such as doctor’s visits, ambulance services and lab tests. Total monthly costs generally start at about $200 and vary with income.
Allison Schuster, a White House spokeswoman, said in a statement that the administration “is enabling Americans to take control of their health by putting money directly back in the hands of Medicare patients.”
According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website, eligible beneficiaries will receive one $90 rebate this month, with most getting a direct deposit on or around Friday. Others will receive a paper check from the Treasury Department later in October.
Juliette Cubanski, director of KFF’s program on Medicare policy, said the payment will be automatic.
“As far as a benefit goes, people don’t have to call or sign up — it’s just money they receive directly, but not everybody on Medicare will receive this money.”
A White House fact sheet says people can call (800) MEDICARE ([800] 633-4227) to check their eligibility for the premium rebate. To check on payment status, people should call the Social Security Administration at (800) 772-1213.
Payments will come out of the Medicare Improvement Fund created by Congress in 2008 and intended to make improvements to the Medicare fee-for-service program.
The fund was created to improve program management and conduct oversight of contracts and contractors, according to the Congressional Budget Office, but its purpose has expanded after various legislative changes.
This is not the first time the fund has been used.
President Obama’s administration, along with Congress, redirected $20 billion to expand healthcare coverage through the Affordable Care Act.
But under Trump, it is the first time that the fund has been used to directly pay recipients.
Critics of Trump’s promise characterize the $90 payments as a preelection stunt designed to sway voters rather than address structural problems in healthcare costs and administration.
The top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, said in a statement that “this is another desperate attempt by a failed president to escape Americans’ revulsion with his failed agenda, amounting to one tank of Trump-inflated gas.”
Trump recently promised $500 rebate checks to an estimated 1 million Obamacare enrollees across 30 states whom the White House alleged were overcharged by the Biden administration for some fees.
Cubanski said the Medicare rebate payments were being doled out when Americans were feeling the bite of higher food, energy and gas prices. Surging healthcare costs are only compounding those pressure, she said.
“This might be helpful for people but it might not go very far.”
Hussein writes for the Associated Press.
Acting President Rodríguez has prioritized the reengagement with Western multilateral institutions. (Presidential Press)
Mérida, October 6, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan acting government is resorting to a Qatar-led financing agreement in order to regain access to multilateral loans from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB).
According to specialized outlet Bitácora Económica, Qatar is preparing to establish a specialized rescue fund to settle Venezuela’s estimated US $2.5 billion debt with the IDB.
Under the proposed mechanism, the Qatari fund would immediately clear Venezuela’s overdue principal and interest payments, while issuing a new, long-term loan with favorable interest rates for the South American nation.
Venezuelan economist José Guerra claimed that Qatar will be joined by the United Arab Emirates and that the Gulf countries will back the financing initiative with their sovereign wealth funds.
The Qatari-backed initiative would reportedly allow Venezuela to address short-term liquidity constraints and access a new IDB credit line worth as much as $8 billion. The financing would be used for public infrastructure projects, including the national road network, water distribution systems, and stabilizing the national electric grid, as well as providing additional funding for state budgets.
The proposed Gulf-backed debt arrangement comes amid a broader, deliberate push by Caracas to re-establish formal relations with major US-led multilateral financial institutions.
Over recent months, high-level Venezuelan delegations have held technical and institutional meetings with representatives from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the Development Bank of Latin America and the Caribbean (CAF).
In September, Acting President Delcy Rodríguez met in New York with IMF Director Kristalina Georgieva, as well as senior World Bank and IDB officials.
Caracas’ rapprochement with Western multilateral institutions has coincided with a geopolitical shift in its foreign policy since the January 3 US military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. The Venezuelan government, headed by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez, reestablished ties with Washington while also strengthening relations with US allies such as Qatar and the UAE.
Doha initially provided intermediation for US control over Venezuelan oil export revenues, with funds deposited in Qatari bank accounts. The scheme was later transferred directly to the US Treasury Department. Energy firms from Qatar and the UAE were recently announced as stakeholders in a Venezuelan offshore natural gas project as well.
Venezuela’s reengagement with Washington-based financial institutions saw the IDB officially reopen its country office in Caracas on October 2, seven years after halting operations in the Caribbean nation.
The IDB had suspended all active credit lines and disbursements to Venezuela in May 2018 following payment arrears. The relaunched local office follows the formal reinstatement of Venezuela’s voting rights in June, when the IDB Board accepted Calixto Ortega as the country’s governor at the IDB.
During an expanded session of the National Economic Council in Caracas on October 2 with IDB officials, Acting President Rodríguez emphasized the importance of access to international multilateral credit for both the public and private sectors.
“This agenda that we have been developing with the multilateral financial system is for development, for investment and financing in infrastructure and services,” she stated during the televised session. “In Venezuela, there is a very important installed industrial capacity to develop, and a boost in financing will bring us to full capacity.”
Rodríguez added that the renewed engagement aims to ensure that private companies, communal production units, and small businesses can access international loan programs to expand local production.
While direct sovereign lending to the Venezuelan government remains contingent on fully clearing arrears, the multilateral’s private-sector arm, IDB Invest, has already initiated direct financial assistance to key Venezuelan corporations and commercial banks.
Under recently approved financing structures, IDB Invest is reportedly delivering commercial-rate loans and capital support to food processing conglomerate Empresas Polar, as well as private commercial banks Banco Mercantil and Banesco.
The allocations for Banco Mercantil and Banesco are designed to strengthen liquidity and capitalization within the national banking system, while also boosting local credit lines for businesses.
Meanwhile, the funds directed to Empresas Polar are earmarked for agricultural development projects and supply-chain expansion, particularly targeting grain production in Portuguesa state, according to reports.
Unlike traditional development loans, the IDB Invest credits are extended at market interest rates, focusing directly on private-sector growth and sustainability.
The Venezuelan government’s current strategy marks a departure from the former President Hugo Chávez’s stance toward multilateral lending institutions.
In November 2008, at a Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) summit, Chávez criticized the IDB, labeling it an “instrument of political pressure” used by Washington to impose orthodox economic policies on sovereign nations.
At the time, Chávez called on Latin American governments to withdraw from both the IDB and the IMF, which he labeled as a “weapon of US imperialism,” advocating instead for regional alternatives such as the Bank of the South to replace traditional multilateral lenders.