future

MAYA Jama has signed up for another series of Love Island — putting an end to speculation.

The host, 31, last night wrapped on the All Stars’ spin-off and will officially be back this summer.

A source said: “Love Island wouldn’t be the same without Maya so bosses are thrilled to confirm she’ll be in Majorca this summer.

“She remains one of the most-loved things about the show.”

Maya has been hosting Love Island UK since January 2023, beginning with the show’s ninth series.

She replaced former host Laura Whitmore and has since continued to host All Stars and Love Island games.

FURIOUS FANS

Love Island fans left ‘raging’ as ITV show ends on nail-biting cliffhanger

BUCKLE UP, MAYA!

Maya Jama shows off sensational curves in plunging dress for Love Island

Last month Maya cleared up confusion with fans over where she currently lives.

Penned over a screenshotted DM of a fan saying, “Have I missed a chapter?? You’ve moved from London?” in response to one of her past Instagram stories, Maya explained how she’s bought multiple houses.

“To answer my dms right now lol I also bought a house in the Cotswolds last year so I’ll be there sometimes, maybe I need to do a lil catch up life update vid or something soon.”

Maya followed up the post with a quick video where she’s utterly beaming about the news.

Switching out her usual glam for a maroon hoodie with a yellow graphic, she addressed the camera candidly saying: “Writing it like that just makes you sound like a braggy f**k but I’m very proud of myself.

“Council house Queen to multiple property owner.

“Honey, thank you!!!” 

Maya was born and raised in Brisol and has Somali descent as well as Swedish.

She moved to London at the age of 16 to pursue a career as an actress, even auditioning for Skins.

Milan-Cortina Olympics hero Jack Hughes is likely looking at a dental implant to replace teeth knocked from his mouth in the third period of the men’s hockey final between the United States and Canada on Sunday.

Once the euphoria of scoring the winning goal in overtime subsides and celebrations cease, Hughes will undergo a surgical procedure that most dentists agree is far superior to alternatives such as dental bridges or partial dentures.

Titanium posts will be inserted into his jawbone, serving as new roots for the teeth. Once the posts are secure and his mouth has healed, custom crowns matched to his natural teeth in shape, color, and size will be placed on top of each post.

Hughes, who is in year four of an eight-year, $64 million contract with the New Jersey Devils of the NHL, has no worries about affording the best care possible. Sure, health care is free in Italy and he could have remained there for the procedure, but he told reporters he wants it done on home turf.

The United States’ Jack Hughes reacts after receiving his gold medal after Team USA defeated Canada in the men’s ice hockey gold medal game.

(Luca Bruno / AP)

“I’m lucky I’m from the best country in the world, and we’ve got great dentists there, too,” Hughes said while caressing the gold medal hanging from his neck. “I’m lucky I’m American, and they’re gonna fix me right up.”

When Canadian forward Sam Bennett’s high stick slammed into his mouth in the third period, Hughes looked down and rolled his eyes.

“I looked on the ice and saw my teeth,” said Hughes, who had a tooth knocked out in an NHL game a few years ago. “I was like, ‘Here we go again.’ The last time that happened, it wasn’t very fun.”

Losing teeth is an occupational hazard for hockey players. They know implants can be as good as the real thing. Hughes played on even while resembling a Jack-o-lantern.

“Who cares at this point, to be honest?” U.S. teammate Matt Boldy said. “I think more people are looking at his medal than his teeth. I’m sure he’ll be OK.”

Attention certainly focused on Hughes’ heroics in overtime. He re-entered the game a minute into the 3-on-3 overtime and quickly found himself the only U.S. player between Canadian superstar Connor McDavid and the goal.

Oh, and McDavid had the puck on his stick.

Hughes retreated slightly, bracing for another painful collision by using his body as a barrier. McDavid couldn’t get off a clean shot and goaltender Connor Hellebuyck — whose game-long heroics will forever be remembered — slapped the puck away.

Less than a minute later, Hughes fielded a cross-ice pass from Zach Werenski and fired it past Canadian goaltender Jordan Binnington. Game over.

“I got it to the right guy,” Werenski said. “He’s been hot all tournament.”

That hasn’t been true for long. Hughes underperformed in last year’s 4 Nations Face-Off — which Canada won — before shoulder surgery ended his NHL season. This season, he missed five weeks with the Devils after slicing his right thumb open on broken glass at a team dinner.

His older brother and teammate Quinn Hughes, who led the U.S. team with eight points during the Olympics, knows the emotional roller-coaster that Jack has endured. The thrill ride couldn’t have ended any better.

“[Jack] is an animal,” Quinn said. “He’s gone through a lot with his shoulders. He takes a lot of [crap]. No one loves the game more than him. He’s got so much passion. He’s a gamer. He made it happen.”

Their parents, Jim and Ellen, were in attendance. Ellen Weinberg-Hughes is a Player Development Consultant for the U.S. women’s hockey team, which also won gold. No doubt mom will be scheduling that dentist appointment for Jack sooner than later.

The Winter Olympics ended as the twin flames in host cities Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo were extinguished during a closing ceremony at the ancient Verona Arena, roughly mid-distance between the far-flung mountain, valley and city venues that made these the most spread-out Winter Games ever.

In declaring the 2026 Games over on Sunday, International Olympic Committee President Kirsty Coventry told local organisers that they “delivered a new kind of Winter Games and you set a new, very high standard for the future”.

The next Winter Games will be held in neighbouring France, which received the Olympic flag in the official handover earlier in the ceremony. Following the same spread-out model, the 2030 Winter Games will stage events in the Alps and Nice, on the Mediterranean Sea, while speed skating will be held either in Italy or the Netherlands.

A total of 116 medal events were held in eight Olympic sports across 16 disciplines, including the debut of ski mountaineering this year, over the course of 17 days of competition. With the final events wrapping up just hours before the ceremony, the 50km mass start men’s and women’s cross-country medals were awarded by Coventry inside the arena.

Hosts Italy won their highest Winter Olympic tally of 30 medals, including 10 gold and six silver, surpassing the previous record of 20 medals, set at the Lillehammer Olympics in 1994.

The closing ceremony paid tribute to Italian dance and music, from lyric opera to Italian pop of the 20th century to the DJ beat of Gabry Ponte, who got the 1,500 athletes on their feet and dancing while colourful confetti exploded on stage. Italian artist Achille Lauro delivered the last word with the song “Incoscienti Giovani”, or “reckless young people”, just before athletes who had so aptly harnessed their youthful energy for these games filed out.

The Milano Cortina Winter Olympics spanned an area of 22,000sq km (8,500sq miles), from ice sports in Milan to biathlon in Anterselva on the Austrian border, snowboarding and men’s downhill in Valtellina on the Swiss border, cross-country skiing in the Val di Fiemme north of Verona, and women’s downhill, curling and sliding sports in Cortina d’Ampezzo.

The closing ceremony concluded with the Olympic flames extinguished at the unprecedented two cauldrons in Milan and Cortina, viewed in Verona via videolink. A light show substituted for fireworks, which are not allowed in Verona to protect animals from being disturbed.

The Milan Cortina Paralympics’ opening ceremony will also take place in the Verona Arena, on March 6, and the games will run until March 15.

SAN FRANCISCO — While united against a common political enemy in the White House, the California Democratic Party remains deeply divided over how to address the state’s affordability crisis and who is best suited to lead the state in this turbulent era of President Trump.

Those fractures revealed themselves during the party’s annual convention in California’s liberal epicenter, San Francisco, where a slate of Democrats running to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom pitched very different visions for the state.

Former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter and wealthy financier Tom Steyer were among the top candidates who swung left, with Porter vowing to enact free childcare and tuition-free college and Steyer backing a proposed new tax on billionaires. Both candidates also support universal healthcare.

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, the newest major candidate to enter the race, hewed toward partisan middle ground, chastising leaders in Sacramento for allowing the state budget to balloon without tangible improvements to housing affordability, homelessness and public schools.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin), a vociferous critic and constant target of the Trump administration, emerged from the convention with the greatest momentum after receiving the most votes for the California Democratic Party’s endorsement, with 24% of delegates backing him.

“The next governor has two jobs: one, to keep Donald Trump and ICE out of our streets and out of our lives, and two, to lower your costs on healthcare, on housing, on utilities,” Swalwell said. “Californians need a fighter and protector, and for the last 10 years, I’ve gone on offense against the worst president ever.”

Still, none of the top Democrats running for governor received the 60% vote needed to capture the endorsement, indicating just how uncertain the race remains just months away from the June primary.

Betty Yee, a former state controller and party vice chair, placed second in the endorsement vote with 17%; former U.S. Health and Human Services Sec. Xavier Becerra had 14%; and Steyer had 13%. The remaining candidates had single-digit levels of support from among the more than 2,300 delegates who cast endorsement votes.

Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) takes a selfie with supporters during the California Democratic Party’s annual convention at the Moscone Center in San Francisco on Saturday.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Despite anxiety and infighting over the governor’s race, many in the party agreed that the most effective way to fight Trump is to win back control of the House in November’s midterm elections.

“We’re going to win the House. There’s absolutely no question we will win the House,” said former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at a Young Dems event on Friday evening. “We’re going to protect the election, we’re going to win the election, and we’re going to tell people the difference that we will make.”

Thousands of delegates, party allies and guests attended the weekend California Democratic Party convention at Moscone Center in the South of Market neighborhood. The gathering included a tribute to Pelosi as she serves her final term.

Party leaders did coalesce behind one of the Democrats running to replace Pelosi, Scott Wiener, a liberal state senator who is vying be the first openly gay person to represent San Francisco in Congress.

The convention comes as party members and leaders continue to soul search after Trump’s second election. California remains a stronghold of opposition to the president, but its next governor will also have to face a growing cost-of-living crisis in a state where utility costs keep climbing and the median single-family home price is more than double what it is nationally.

Under growing pressure, the candidates for governor went on the offensive at the party gathering. Candidates sniped at each other — though rarely by name — for being too rich, too beholden to special interests or for voting in the past in support of ICE and border wall funding.

While largely panned by delegates who tend to lean further left than the typical California Democratic voter, Mahan has jolted the race by quickly raising millions from tech industry leaders and targeting moderate voters with a message of getting the state “back to basics.”

“We are at risk of losing the trust of the people of California if we don’t hold ourselves accountable for delivering better results on public education, home building, public safety,” Mahan said. “We’re not getting the outcomes we need for the dollars we’re spending.”

Mahan has raised more than $7.3 million since entering the contest in late January, according to campaign finance disclosures of large contributions. Many of the donors are tied to the tech industry, such as Y Combinator, Doordash, Amazon and Thumbtack. Billionaire Los Angeles developer Rick Caruso has also contributed the maximum allowed to Mahan’s campaign.

Technology businessman Dennis Bress, from Newport Beach, wears a pin supporting Planned Parenthood and a Yes on Proposition 50 shirt at the California Democratic Party convention at the Moscone Center on Friday in San Francisco.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Other candidates have raised concerns about the cash infusion, particularly Steyer, who has already dropped more than $37 million into his self-funded campaign and is pitching himself as a “billionaire who will take on the billionaires.”

“Here’s the thing about big donors: If you take their money, you have to take their calls,” Steyer said during his floor speech.

Delegates and party leaders said California’s next governor will have to continue leading the state’s aggressive opposition to Trump while dealing with the issues at home.

“I think people want a fighter,” said Rep. Dave Min (D-Irvine), who represents Porter’s former congressional district and has endorsed her in the governor’s race. “They want someone who’s going to stand up to Donald Trump but also fight to help average people who feel like they’re getting a raw deal in today’s America.”

Several of the candidates made the case that they could do both.

During her speech, Porter held up a whiteboard — her signature prop when grilling CEOs and Trump administration officials while she served in Congress — with “F— Trump” written on it.

“I’ll stand up to Trump and his cronies just like I did in Congress,” she said. “But this election for governor is about far more than defeating Trump.”

Porter, a law professor at UC Irvine, called on Democrats to “send a message about democracy by rejecting billionaires and corporate-backed candidates.” She also rolled out a long list of “true affordability measures” including free child care, free tuition at public universities, and single-payer healthcare, though she did not specify how she would pay for them.

Fighting back against Trump is “the floor,” said 29-year-old Gregory Hutchins, an academic labor researcher from Riverside. “We need to go higher than the floor — what can you do for the people of California? We all recognize that this is a beautiful and wonderful state, but it is very difficult to afford living here.”

Even some delegates — often the most politically active members of a party — have yet to make up their minds in the governor’s race. Nearly 9% opted not to endorse a particular candidate at the convention.

“You want that perfect candidate. You want that like, yes, this is the person,” said Sean Frame, a school labor organizer from Sacramento who is running for state Senate. “And I don’t feel like there is one candidate for me that fits all that.”

For all the focus on affordability, there were undertones of growing frustration from even reliable Democratic allies over a lack of tangible results in a state where the median home price is more than $823,000. SEIU California president David Huerta said workers have “been deferring our power to elected leadership” for too long.

“I think we need to be the ones who set the agenda and hold them accountable to that agenda,” Huerta said. “And they need to be leading from the direction of working people.”

It’s a constant battle with Democrats at state and local levels to get fair pay, said Mary Grace Barrios, who left a career in insurance to take care of her disabled adult daughter.

Barrios makes $19 an hour as an in-home caregiver to other clients in Los Angeles County. When Newsom signed a law to raise wages for most healthcare workers to $25 an hour by 2030, in-home support staff like Barrios were not included.

“It’s so important that we be given the respect and pay we need to live because we can’t live on that amount,” she said, adding that it feels like a “constant attack by people in our own party that we supported, that forgot us.”

“As citizens, you get what you vote for, right? So we have to do it. We have to make the change.”

Maryna Bondarenko, a 51-year-old journalist, has three packed suitcases in her apartment in Poland, hopeful for the return of peace in Ukraine. She fled Kyiv with her son and mother when Russia invaded on February 24, 2022, expecting to be away for just a month or two. Now, four years later, she continues to work in a Ukrainian language newsroom serving over 1.5 million Ukrainians in Poland. Bondarenko recounts many moments of anticipation for returning home, having even packed her belongings multiple times, convinced the war would soon end.

The ongoing war has resulted in Europe’s largest refugee crisis since World War Two, with over 5 million Ukrainians dispersed across Europe, particularly in Central and Eastern regions. Most refugees are women and children due to martial law in Ukraine that prevents military-age men from leaving. Bondarenko expresses a strong desire to reunite with her husband, Andrij Dudko, who works as a drone operator on the front line. However, the harsh conditions in Kyiv, including devastating air strikes and bitter winter, keep her from returning with her child.

In Poland, large Ukrainian communities have formed in cities like Warsaw and Krakow, but this has sometimes led to tensions with local residents over jobs and welfare benefits. Bondarenko wishes to return home but acknowledges that Ukraine will be significantly changed. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy hopes that 70% of Ukrainians abroad will go back after the war, but surveys indicate that many want to stay away, particularly among younger generations. Her 11-year-old son, Danylo, finds it hard to remember life in Ukraine and finds Poland more familiar, though he has faced some hostility at school.

Additionally, Iryna Kushnir and Olga Yermolenko, who were high school friends in Kharkiv, found each other again in Istanbul, where they moved at the start of the war. Kushnir had hoped for a quick return home but remains in Turkey, now married and employed as a teacher at Istanbul University, while she left her 19-year-old daughter Sofia to study in Ukraine. Yermolenko works remotely for Ukrainian clients and stays in touch with her mother who still lives in Kharkiv. Despite her efforts to adapt to life in Turkey, she feels caught between her past and an uncertain future. Both women follow the war closely, with Yermolenko expressing fear when seeing news of missile strikes in Kharkiv and making sure to check on her mother’s safety.

With information from Reuters

Published on 18/02/2026 – 18:59 GMT+1•Updated
19:20

EU lawmakers have drafted a procedure to select the future host of the European Custom Authority, a new decentralised agency tasked with supporting and coordinating national customs administrations across the bloc.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The agency is expected to be set up in 2026 and operational in 2028. Many EU countries have put themselves forward as potential hosts for the new body, including Belgium, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Romania.

In a committee meeting in January, all the nine countries presented their candidacy, with Spain, France, Poland and The Netherlands receiving the majority of questions from EU lawmakers.

The need to establish a dedicated selection procedure arises from the fact that no predefined method exists for choosing the host country. As the location of an EU agency often becomes a politically sensitive contest among member states, the institutions have sought to design a detailed procedure aimed at ensuring the decision is as impartial and balanced as possible.

And with the business of customs management and trade surging in importance since US President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on countries worldwide, the debate over which country will host the future European Customs Authority has become particularly tense.

According to a draft procedure seen by Euronews, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union will each independently select two preferred candidates. The two institutions will then meet in a joint session to reveal their selections. If at least one candidate appears on both shortlists, that overlapping candidate will be automatically declared the winner.

If there is no overlap, two or four candidates will move to three rounds of votes, all with different rules.

In the first round, a candidate who obtains a majority in both institutions will be elected immediately. But if no candidate achieves a majority in either body, additional scenarios will apply to determine who advances to the second round.

Specifically, if two candidates are tied with neither securing a majority, both will move forward to the second round. In a scenario with four candidates, the two receiving the fewest votes will be eliminated. However, if there is a very close result between the second- and third-placed candidates, three candidates may advance to the second round instead.

In the second round, a joint vote of the two institutions will take place. A candidate must obtain a three-quarters majority to be elected; if no candidate reaches this threshold, the process will move to the third round.

If three candidates remain, the one receiving the fewest votes will be eliminated. However, in the event of a very close result between the second- and third-placed candidates, all three may proceed to the third round.

In the third and final round, the same joint voting procedure will apply, but the required threshold is lowered to a two-thirds majority. This vote may be repeated up to three times. And if no candidate secures the required majority after these attempts, the threshold will be reduced to a simple majority.

Lakers star LeBron James eased his way to the interview podium Sunday with a giant water jug in his hand and a do-rag covering his hair, the last of the NBA All-Stars to speak with the media.

James was selected as a reserve, breaking his NBA record of 21 consecutive starts but extending his record for most appearances to 22.

At 41 and playing in his record 23rd season, James was asked about his future, because his eventual retirement always seems to be a source of curiosity.

So, James was asked before he played in the “U.S. vs. “World” All-Star Game tournament at Intuit Dome whether he had any inkling about what he wants to do next season.

“I want to live,” James said. “When I know, you guys will know. I don’t know. I have no idea. I just want to live. That’s all.”

James played on Team Stripes, joining fellow veterans Kevin Durant and Stephen Curry, who didn’t play because of a right knee injury.

They are long-time combatants, friends and U.S. Olympic teammates. And they are All-Stars again, all older than 37 and still playing at a high level.

“It’s always an honor to see those guys,” James said. “We have had such an unbelievable journey throughout our individual careers and then intersecting at certain points in our careers, matchups in the regular season, Finals appearances, postseason appearances, then Olympics two summers ago. When it comes to me, Steph and KD, we’ll be interlocked for the rest of our careers, for sure. It’s been great to be able to have some moments with those guys, versus those guys, teaming up with those guys.”

The All-Star format has changed from East versus West to U.S. versus the World.

Team Stars forward Scottie Barnes, left, celebrates with Cade Cunningham after hitting a three to beat Team World in the first matchup of the All-Star Game tournament Sunday at Intuit Dome.

(Jae C. Hong / Associated Press)

There were three teams — Team Stars, Team Stripes and Team World, and they played 12-minute games in a round-robin tournament.

Game 1 was Team World vs. Team Stars, a game that went into overtime after Anthony Edwards tied the score 32-32 at the end of the first 12 minutes.

Team Stars, the first team to score five points in overtime, won 37-35 on a Scottie Barnes three-pointer,.

Victor Wembanyama led Team World with 14 points, six rebounds and three blocks.

Anthony Edwards had 13 points for Team Stars, which will play Team Stripes next.

James and Clippers star Kawhi Leonard are on the USA Stripes and Lakers superstar Luka Doncic, the leading all-star vote getter, is on Team World because he is from Slovenia.

James was asked whether he could have ever imagined a USA versus the World all-star format.

“No,” James said, laughing. “No. I mean, East-West is definitely, it’s a tradition. It’s been really good. Obviously, I like the East and West format. But they are trying something. But we’ll see what happens. I mean, it’s the US versus the World. The World is gigantic over the U.S. So, I’m just trying to figure out how that makes sense. But, I don’t want to dive too much into that. Yeah, East-West is great. We’ll see what happens with this.”

Just before the tipoff of the first game, former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama were introduced to a standing ovation.

Whether you’re already on the inside or new to the party, the Canadian meta-comedy “Nirvanna the Band the Show the Movie,” about a music duo’s epic undiscoveredness, shows little audience favoritism as it ping-pongs between timelines, formats, realities, cultural shout-outs and its two indefatigable lead characters. Make that four leads, since director and co-writer Matt Johnson and his composer-best friend Jay McCarrol each play themselves twice, thanks to archival footage presented in this zippy mockumentary as evidence of time travel.

Don’t be confused. Or rather, be confused but adventurously so! Especially if you aren’t familiar with the cult web series from which this film derives. Indie-savvy viewers might know Johnson’s work from the moon-landing conspiracy lark “Operation Avalanche” or the cheeky docu-dramedy “BlackBerry,” both of which he directed and acted in. But there’s no getting around the fact that if you haven’t encountered them before, then for a good while they’ll come across as Motormouth Clown in a Fedora (Johnson) and Understated Guy at the Piano (McCarrol).

With three Ns to their band name (no relation to a slightly better-known group), a dream of booking Toronto’s longstanding live venue and only a cluttered suburban home to show for it, the duo’s act seems primarily to be coming up with boneheaded ideas for exposure. Johnson’s latest bolt of inspiration is for them to parachute from the top of downtown Toronto’s 2,000-foot CN Tower into the open Rogers Centre stadium below, a plan which meets with amusingly alarmed concern from a very real employee at the hardware store. It’s the first of many encounters with unsuspecting citizens, à la the oeuvre of Sacha Baron Cohen.

Though their stunt fails — yet succeeds for us as a piece of guerrilla filmmaking wizardry — it spurs Johnson toward an even crazier notion: time traveling in an RV to 2008 to change their fates and secure their inevitable fame. Think “Back to the Future” and think about it a lot, since from here on out, that 1985 classic becomes this movie’s lodestar of structural, comedic and musical reference. (McCarrol’s enjoyably overwrought orchestral score shouts out to composer Alan Silvestri.)

That the filmmakers could play against themselves using video of the 2008 versions of their characters (when they had the web series) is undeniably clever, if not always the laugh riot it promises to be. But it also helps foster the jealousy-driven farce that takes over the current-day narrative and is genuinely funny: a rejiggered timeline in which McCarrol becomes a massive pop star and Johnson gets left behind.

Invariably these wacky scenarios will be more amusing to longtime fans, for whom a frantic climax akin to the lightning-meets-DeLorean ending of “Back to the Future” will play like nostalgia for nostalgia. To the uninitiated, though, even amid steady laughter and a sneaking concern for this silly friendship to right itself, it may come off as much ado about who knows what.

But Johnson is nothing if not a punchy ringmaster of deadpan humor and his grab-bag mindset generates enough goodwill to appreciate the DIY brashness of it all. I’m one of those who had no clue of this act’s history and I’m fairly certain I’d look forward to “Nirvanna the Band the Show the Movie the Sequel.”

Some of the biggest names behind the artificial intelligence boom are looking to stack Congress with allies who support lighter regulation of the emerging technology by drawing on the crypto industry’s 2024 election success.

Marc Andreessen, Ben Horowitz and OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman are among tech leaders who’ve poured $50 million into a new super political action committee to help AI-friendly candidates prevail in November’s congressional races. Known as Leading the Future, the super PAC has taken center stage as voters grow increasingly concerned that AI risks driving up energy costs and taking away jobs.

As it launches operations, Leading the Future is deploying a strategy that worked two years ago for crypto advocates: talk about what’s likely to resonate with voters, not the industry or its interests and controversies. For AI, that means its ads won’t tout the technology but instead discuss core issues including economic opportunity and immigration — even if that means not mentioning AI at all.

“They’re trying to be helpful in a campaign rather than talking about their own issue all the time,” said Craig Murphy, a Republican political consultant in Texas, where Leading the Future has backed Chris Gober, an ally of President Trump, in the state’s hotly contested 10th congressional district.

This year, the group plans to spend up to $125 million on candidates who favor a single, national approach to AI regulation, regardless of party affiliation. The election comes at a crucial moment for the industry as it invests hundreds of billions of dollars in AI infrastructure that will put fresh strains on resources, with new data centers already blamed for driving up utility bills.

Leading the Future faces a growing challenge from AI safety advocates, who’ve started their own super PAC called Public First with a goal of raising $50 million for candidates who favor stricter oversight. On Thursday, Public First landed a $20-million pledge from Anthropic PBC, a rival to OpenAI that has set itself apart from other AI companies by supporting tougher rules.

Polls show deepening public concern over AI’s impact on everything from jobs to education to the environment. Sixty-two percent of US adults say they interact with AI at least several times a week, and 58% are concerned the government will not go far enough in regulating it, according to the Pew Research Center.

Jesse Hunt, a Leading the Future spokesman, said the group is “committed to supporting policymakers who want a smart national regulatory framework for AI,” one that boosts US employment while winning the race against China. Hunt said the super PAC backs ways to protect consumers “without ceding America’s technological future to extreme ideological gatekeepers.”

The political and economic stakes are enormous for OpenAI and others behind Leading the Future, including venture capitalists Andreessen and Horowitz. Their firm, a16z, is the richest in Silicon Valley with billions of dollars invested in AI upstarts including coding startup Cursor and AI leaderboard platform LM Arena.

For now, their super PAC is doing most of the talking for the AI industry in the midterm races. Meta Platforms Inc. has announced plans for AI-related political spending on state-level contests, with $20 million for its California-based super PAC and $45 million for its American Technology Excellence Project, according to Politico.

Other companies with massive AI investment plans — Amazon.com Inc., Alphabet Inc. and Microsoft Corp. — have their own corporate PACs to dole out bipartisan federal campaign donations. Nvidia Corp., the chip giant driving AI policy in Washington, doesn’t have its own PAC.

Bipartisan push

To ensure consistent messaging across party lines, Leading the Future has created two affiliated super PACs — one spending on Republicans and another on Democrats. The aim is to build a bipartisan coalition that can be effective in Washington regardless of which party is in power.

Texas, home of OpenAI’s massive Stargate project, is one of the states where Leading the Future has already jumped in. Its Republican arm, American Mission, has spent nearly $750,000 on ads touting Gober, a political lawyer who’s previously worked for Elon Musk’s super PAC and is in a crowded GOP primary field for an open House seat.

The ads hail Gober as a “MAGA warrior” who “will fight for Texas families, lowering everyday costs.” Gober’s campaign website lists “ensuring America’s AI dominance” as one of his top campaign priorities. Gober’s campaign didn’t respond to requests for comment.

In New York, Leading the Future’s Democratic arm, Think Big, has spent $1.1 million on television ads and messages attacking Alex Bores, a New York state assemblyman who has called for tougher AI safety protocols and is now running for an open congressional seat encompassing much of central Manhattan.

The ads seize on Democrats’ revulsion over Trump’s immigration crackdown and target Bores for his work at Palantir Technologies Inc., which contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Think Big has circulated mailings and text messages citing Bores’ work with Palantir, urging voters to “Reject Bores’ hypocrisy on ICE.”

In an interview, Bores called the claims in the ads false, explaining that he left Palantir because of its work with ICE. He pointed out the irony that Joe Lonsdale, a Palantir co-founder who’s backed the administration’s border crackdown, is a donor to Leading the Future.

“They’re not being ideologically consistent,” Bores said. “The fact that they have been so transparent and said, ‘Hey, we’re the AI industry and Alex Bores will regulate AI and that scares us,’ has been nothing but a benefit so far.”

Leading the Future’s Democratic arm also plans to spend seven figures to support Democrats in two Illinois congressional races: former Illinois Representatives Jesse Jackson Jr. and Melissa Bean.

Following crypto’s path

Leading the Future is following the path carved by Fairshake, a pro-cryptocurrency super PAC that joined affiliates in putting $133 million into congressional races in 2024. Fairshake made an early mark by spending $10 million to attack progressive Katie Porter in the California Democratic Senate primary, helping knock her out of the race in favor of Adam Schiff, the eventual winner who’s seen as more friendly to digital currency.

The group also backed successful primary challengers against House incumbents, including Democrats Cori Bush in Missouri and Jamaal Bowman in New York. Both were rated among the harshest critics of digital assets by the Stand With Crypto Alliance, an industry group.

In its highest-profile 2024 win, Fairshake spent $40 million to help Republican Bernie Moreno defeat incumbent Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown, a crypto skeptic who led the Senate Banking Committee. Overall, it backed winners in 52 of the 61 races where it spent at least $100,000, including victories in three Senate and nine House battlegrounds.

Fairshake and Leading the Future share more than a strategy. Josh Vlasto, one of Leading the Future’s political strategists, does communications work for Fairshake. Andreessen and Horowitz are also among Fairshake’s biggest donors, combining to give $23.8 million last year.

But Leading the Future occasionally conflicts with Fairshake’s past spending. The AI group said Wednesday it plans to spend half a million dollars on an ad campaign for Laurie Buckhout, a former Pentagon official who’s seeking a congressional seat in North Carolina with calls to slash rules “strangling American innovation.” In 2024, during Buckhout’s unsuccessful run for the post, Fairshake spent $2.3 million supporting her opponent and eventual winner, Democratic Rep. Donald Davis.

Regulation proponents

“The fact that they tried to replay the crypto battle means that we have to engage,” said Brad Carson, a former Democratic congressman from Texas who helped launch Public First. “I’d say Leading the Future was the forcing function.”

Unlike crypto, proponents of stricter AI regulations have backers within the industry. Even before its contribution to Public First, Anthropic had pressed for “responsible AI” with sturdier regulations for the fast-moving technology and opposed efforts to preempt state laws.

Anthropic employees have also contributed to candidates targeted by Leading the Future, including a total of $168,500 for Bores, Federal Election Commission records show. A super PAC Dream NYC, whose only donor in 2025 was an Anthropic machine learning researcher who gave $50,000, is backing Bores as well.

Carson, who’s co-leading the super PAC with former Republican Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, cites public polling that more than 80% of US adults believe the government should maintain rules for AI safety and data security, and says voter sentiment is on Public First’s side.

Public First didn’t disclose receiving any donations last year, according to FEC filings. But one of the group’s affiliated super PACs, Defend our Values PAC, reported receiving $50,000 from Public First Action Inc., the group’s advocacy arm. The PAC hasn’t yet spent any of that money on candidates.

Crypto’s clout looms large in lawmakers’ memory, casting a shadow over any effort to regulate the big tech companies, said Doug Calidas, head of government affairs for AI safety group Americans for Responsible Innovation.

“Fairshake was just so effective,” said Calidas, whose group has called for tougher AI regulations. “Democrats and Republicans are scared they’re going to replicate that model.”

Allison and Birnbaum write for Bloomberg.

At Web Summit Qatar, we hear from Jamal Elshayyal, Al Jazeera’s new Director of Digital News Content, on forging his own path at the network – and how those lessons will guide Al Jazeera through the AI age.

In this episode: 

• Jamal Elshayyal (@jamalelshayyal), Director, Al Jazeera Digital News Content Global

Episode credits:

This episode was produced by Chloe K. Li with Noor Wazwaz, Tuleen Barakat, Maya Hamadeh, Melanie Marich, Tamara Khandaker, Sarí el-Khalili, and our host, Malika Bilal. It was edited by Alexandra Locke. Special thanks to Kawthar Abu Sadeh.

The Take production team is Marcos Bartolomé, Sonia Bhagat, Spencer Cline, Sarí el-Khalili, Tamara Khandaker, Kylene Kiang, Phillip Lanos, Chloe K. Li, Melanie Marich, Maya Hamadeh, Tuleen Barakat, and Noor Wazwaz. Our host is Malika Bilal. 

Our engagement producers are Adam Abou-Gad and Vienna Maglio. Andrew Greiner is lead of audience engagement.

Our sound designer is Alex Roldan. Our video editors are Hisham Abu Salah and Mohannad al-Melhemm. Alexandra Locke is The Take’s executive producer. Ney Alvarez is Al Jazeera’s head of audio. 

Connect with us:

@AJEPodcasts on X, Instagram, and YouTube

Twisted Sister has canceled all of its 50th anniversary performances following the departure of lead singer Dee Snider because of “a series of health challenges.”

In a statement posted Thursday on Instagram, the heavy metal band said all scheduled shows beginning April 25 in São Paulo and through the summer have been canceled “due to the sudden and unexpected resignation” of Snider. The “I Wanna Rock” singer is no longer able to perform in the way that he used to because of multiple heath issues.

“I don’t know of any other way to rock,” Snider said in a statement accompanying the band’s announcement. “The idea of slowing down is unacceptable to me. I’d rather walk away than be a shadow of my former self.”

“The future of Twisted Sister will be determined in the next several weeks,” the band’s statement read.

The separate statement regarding Snider’s health explained that a “lifetime of legendarily aggressive performing has taken its toll on Dee Snider’s body and soul.”

Also posted to the “We’re Not Gonna Take It” singer’s Instagram account, the statement said that Snider “has had several surgeries over the years” to help manage his degenerative arthritis. His condition meant he had only been able to “perform a few songs at a time in pain.”

“Adding insult to injury, Dee has recently found out the level of intensity he has dedicated to his life’s work has taken its toll on his heart as well,” the statement continued. “He can no longer push the boundaries of rock ‘n’ roll fury like he has done for decades.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has faced questions from the United States Senate about President Donald Trump’s ongoing campaign to slash interest rates, despite concerns that such a move could turbo-charge inflation.

Bessent appeared on Thursday before the Senate’s Financial Stability Oversight Council.

There, he received a grilling from Democrats over rising consumer prices and concerns about Trump’s attempts to influence the Federal Reserve, the US central bank.

One of his early clashes came with Senator Elizabeth Warren, who sought answers about a report in The Wall Street Journal that indicated Trump joked about suing his nominee for the Federal Reserve chair, Kevin Warsh, if he failed to comply with presidential demands.

“Mr Secretary, can you commit right here and now that Trump’s Fed nominee Kevin Warsh will not be sued, will not be investigated by the Department of Justice, if he doesn’t cut interest rates exactly the way that Donald Trump wants?” Warren asked.

Bessent evaded making such a commitment. “That is up to the president,” he replied.

Pressure on Federal Reserve members

Last week, Trump announced Warsh would be his pick to replace the current Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, who has faced bitter criticism over his decision to lower interest rates gradually.

By contrast, Trump has repeatedly demanded that interest rates be chopped as low as possible, as soon as possible.

In December, for instance, he told The Wall Street Journal that he would like to see interest rates at “one percent and maybe lower than that”.

“We should have the lowest rate in the world,” he told the newspaper. Currently, the federal interest rate sits around 3.6 percent.

Experts say a sudden drop in that percentage could trigger a short-term market surge, as loans become cheaper and money floods the economy. But that excess cash could drive down the value of the dollar, leading to higher prices in the long term.

Traditionally, the Federal Reserve has served as an independent government agency, on the premise that monetary decisions for the country should be made without political interference or favour.

But Trump, a Republican, has sought to bring the Federal Reserve under his control, and his critics have accused him of using the threat of legal action to pressure Federal Reserve members to comply with his demands.

In August, for instance, he attempted to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook based on allegations of mortgage fraud, which she has denied.

Cook had been appointed to the central bank by Trump’s predecessor and rival, Democrat Joe Biden, and she has accused Trump of seeking her dismissal on political grounds. The Supreme Court is currently hearing the case.

Then, in early January, the Department of Justice opened a criminal investigation into Powell, echoing accusations Trump made, alleging that Powell had mismanaged renovations to the Federal Reserve building.

Powell issued a rare statement in response, accusing Trump of seeking to bully Federal Reserve leaders into compliance with his interest rate policy.

“The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President,” Powell wrote.

Bipartisan scrutiny of Powell probe

Given the string of aggressive actions against Powell and Cook, Trump’s joke about suing Warsh fuelled rumours that the Federal Reserve’s independence could be in peril.

Within hours of making the joke on January 31, Trump himself faced questions about how serious he might have been.

“It’s a roast. It’s a comedy thing,” Trump said of his remarks as he spoke to reporters on Air Force One. “It was all comedy.”

Warren, however, pressed Bessent about Trump’s remarks and chided the Treasury chief for not rejecting them.

“I don’t think the American people are laughing,” Warren told Bessent. “They’re the ones who were struggling with the affordability.”

The prospect of Trump exerting undue influence over the Federal Reserve even earned a measure of bipartisan criticism during Thursday’s council meeting.

Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, opened his remarks to Bessent with a statement denouncing the probe into Powell, even though he acknowledged he was “disappointed” with the current Fed chair.

Still, Tillis emphasised his belief that Powell committed no crime, and that the investigation would discourage transparency at future Senate hearings.

He imagined future government hearings becoming impeded by legal formalities, for fear of undue prosecution.

“They’re going to be flanked with attorneys, and anytime that they think that they’re in the middle of a perjury trap, they’re probably just going to say, ‘I’ll submit it to the record after consultation with my attorneys,’” Tillis said, sketching out the scenario.

“Is that really the way we want oversight to go in the future?”

For his part, Bessent indicated that he backed the Federal Reserve’s long-term goal to keep interest rates at about 2 percent.

“It is undesirable to completely eliminate inflation,” Bessent said. “What is desirable is to get back to the Fed’s 2 percent target, and for the past three months, we’ve been at 2.1 percent.”

Scrutinising the lawsuit against the IRS

As Thursday’s hearing continued, Bessent was forced to defend the Trump administration on several fronts, ranging from its sweeping tariff policy to its struggle to lower consumer prices.

But another element of Trump’s agenda took centre stage when Democrat Ruben Gallego of Arizona had his turn at the microphone.

Gallego sought to shine a light on the revelation in January that Trump had filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) — part of his own executive branch.

Trump is seeking $10bn in damages for the leak of his tax returns during his first term as president. The IRS itself was not the source of the leak, but rather a former government contractor named Charles Littlejohn, who was sentenced to five years in prison.

Bessent was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit, though he currently serves both as the Treasury secretary and the acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.

Critics have argued that Trump’s lawsuit amounts to self-dealing: He holds significant sway over the Justice Department, which would defend the federal government against such lawsuits, and he could therefore green-light his own settlement package.

In Thursday’s exchange with Gallego, Bessent acknowledged that any damages paid to Trump would come from taxpayer funds.

“ Where would that $10bn come from?” Gallego asked.

“ It would come from Treasury,” Bessent replied. He then underscored that Trump has indicated any money would go to charity and that the Treasury itself would not make the decision to award damages.

Still, Gallego pressed Bessent, pointing out that the Treasury would ultimately have to disburse the funds — and that Bessent would be in charge of that decision.

That circumstance, Gallego argued, creates a conflict of interest, since Bessent is Trump’s political appointee and can be fired by the president.

“Have you recused yourself from any decisions about paying the president on these claims?” Gallego asked.

Bessent sidestepped the question, answering instead, “I will follow the law.”

Photograph by unknown author. “Trabajadores petroleros,” Fernando Irazábal Collection. Compiled by Archivo Fotografía Urbana.

On January 29, Venezuela experienced a legislative tectonic shift regarding the future of its hydrocarbon sector. The National Assembly approved a new petroleum law that effectively breaks with the post-1976 tradition of rigid state control, opening participation across the full value chain to private oil companies. 

This is not the first experiment with private participation since nationalization, but it is the clearest attempt since the 1990s Apertura to normalize it as the governing framework of the sector. The legislation, approved with striking speed and opacity, has elicited mixed reactions, ranging from denunciations of lost sovereignty and surrender to foreign interests to support for a first step that still requires major fixes. Despite these divergences, one thing is clear: the return of private companies to Venezuela’s oil sector inevitably revives parallels with the concessionary system under which the industry was born and flourished between 1914 and 1976, a mirror of what Venezuela’s energy sector could become in the twenty-first century.

The 1943 and 2026 hydrocarbons laws

The iconic 1943 bill enacted by President Isaías Medina Angarita (1941–1945) regulated Venezuela’s privately run oil industry until the 1976 nationalization. It became the institutional template of the concessionary era: a rules-and-taxes state overseeing a privately operated industry. Together with related legislation, it established the famous 50/50 profit-sharing arrangement with the state, later tightened by reforms. Yet within the 1943 framework, the rentier state largely confined itself to setting the rules and collecting taxes and rents, while private companies assumed the capital risks. There was no government monopoly over day-to-day operations.

In spirit, the 2026 law reintroduces comparable conditions for private capital. Petroleum companies can now either hold operational control in joint ventures with the state or carry out activities independently through government contracts. The 1943 and 2026 frameworks also embrace flexible royalty schemes that prioritize business viability over rigid tax burdens. Differences, of course, abound. To mention a few, the 2026 version concentrates discretionary power in the executive branch regarding royalties, opens the possibility of international arbitration outside the country, simplifies the tax burden into a 15% integrated hydrocarbons tax, and diminishes the National Assembly’s authority over oil business.

The Venezolanization pioneered by firms like the Creole Petroleum Corporation, Royal Dutch Shell, Mene Grande Oil Company, and many others also became an exercise in social integration.

Divergences aside, both pieces of legislation share the same underlying imperative: attracting capital and technology. The 1976 and 2001 hydrocarbons laws, by contrast, were designed precisely to limit private initiative. But investment alone will not do all the work. Human capital is also desperately needed to lead a reborn hydrocarbon sector, and here the concessions model offers valuable lessons.

The Venezolanization of the industry

An underappreciated dimension of that era was human capital development. Over decades, foreign firms trained Venezuelans across the corporate hierarchy—in technical, managerial, and executive roles—so that by the mid-1970s expatriates were a small fraction of the workforce and Venezuelans increasingly ran the day-to-day business. This created a pipeline of local talent able to inherit operational responsibility and manage the 1976 transition to state control with unusual continuity.

This history is not nostalgia for a bygone era, but a lesson worth highlighting. Venezuela’s oil collapse in this century is inseparable from the degradation of corporate culture and human capital, deepened by the politicization of the industry. It triggered a professional brain drain and the hollowing out of operational efficiency. Multinationals like Chevron, and others that may follow, should explicitly lean on a “Venezolanization 2.0” that engages local talent still in the country and encourages the return of a diaspora of Venezuelan managers and engineers now abroad. Insulating the sector from partisan hiring and purging is essential if these cadres are to operate with full competence.

The Venezolanization pioneered by firms like the Creole Petroleum Corporation, Royal Dutch Shell, Mene Grande Oil Company, and many others also became an exercise in social integration. Many American expatriates, like Creole’s CEO Arthur T. Proudfit, embraced the social milieu of the country that welcomed them, often learning the language and speaking it fluently; his daughter even married a local businessman. In exchange, Venezuelans trained abroad and working for these firms absorbed US professional values and traditions. This cultural exchange helped forge durable bonds between both countries and contributed to the successful presence of foreign capital in Venezuela. And these corporations did not stop at their payrolls. They understood that long-term success in the hydrocarbon sector extended beyond employees to the surrounding communities of the oil fields, and beyond.

Social license

Creole, Shell, and Mene Grande undertook significant investments in the country. In the oilfields, they negotiated lucrative labor contracts with unions. They also financed hospitals, university campuses, and other infrastructure projects. These firms even joined the state in ventures like the Venezuelan Basic Economy Corporation to fund agro-industrial projects aimed at diversifying the economy, while supporting rural communities through initiatives such as the American International Association. They left an indelible imprint on everyday life, from how Venezuelans shopped through market chains like CADA, to culture through documentaries, corporate magazines, and even TV news programs like Observador Creole.

More importantly, they built alliances with domestic capitalists like Eugenio Mendoza to address social problems. Creole and Venezuelan business leaders, for instance, institutionalized private-sector social action through organizations like the Dividendo Voluntario para la Comunidad (DVC), founded in 1964 to mobilize corporate contributions toward community projects. This nonprofit continues to exist today, fulfilling the original goal of social action bequeathed by American and Venezuelan businessmen more than sixty years ago. Creole also created the Creole Development Corporation, a financial arm designed to provide seed capital for local entrepreneurial activity. This was hardly a frictionless era, but it shows how legitimacy was treated as a condition of stability.

Contributions to health, schools, and infrastructure would also ease the state’s burden and allow it to focus on critical nation-building emergencies.

This largesse reached widely, but it was not mere corporate charity. To avoid jeopardizing their operations and invite nationalist backlash, companies engaged with surrounding communities and invested in their future. That is a lesson new capital arriving in Venezuela should pursue. There is even generational memory favorable to the presence of these firms in oil communities. 

Leveraging that legacy could open renewed opportunities for local professional growth while strengthening bonds between communities and multinationals. Contributions to health, schools, and infrastructure would also ease the state’s burden and allow it to focus on critical nation-building emergencies: democratizing institutions, reconstructing the economy, and addressing the public services and humanitarian needs the population faces.

A spiritual return to the concessions system?

The new hydrocarbons law pushes Venezuela’s oil industry in a new direction, and it functions as a first step in the right path. However, there is room for significant improvement. 

Moreover, key questions remain unanswered. For instance, what will be the fate of PDVSA? Any plan that fails to address the resurrection of its operational capabilities undermines the development of an efficient sector. Only the re-democratization of the country can properly confront the deeper failings reflected in the current legislation. Many industry experts have already proposed an alternative framework that would solve several of the bill’s core problems by establishing clear rules, transparency mechanisms, and a dedicated government agency entrusted with regulating the hydrocarbon sector.

The spirit of the concessionary model walks once more around Venezuela’s refineries, port terminals, and petroleum wells. It is too soon to tell whether foreign capital will return with the same excitement it brought more than a century ago, or whether the scale of investments and engagement with surrounding communities will match that of its predecessors. The sector can either become a platform for institutional rebuilding and professionalization, or another discretionary channel for rents and corruption. 

Democracy, check and balances, and clear rules can turn the 2026 hydrocarbons law (and its potential future modifications) into enduring principles for the remainder of the century. If so, the oil industry might unlock a new period of prosperity. Much remains to be done to materialize that future, but what is undeniable is that a new era begins.

DENVER — Donald Trump lost his bid for reelection in 2020. But for more than five years, he’s been trying to convince Americans the opposite is true by falsely saying the election was marred by widespread fraud.

Now that he’s president again, Trump is pushing the federal government to back up those bogus claims.

On Wednesday, the FBI served a search warrant at the election headquarters of Fulton County, Georgia, which includes most of Atlanta, seeking ballots from the 2020 election. That follows Trump’s comments earlier this month when he suggested during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that charges related to the election were imminent.

“The man has obsessions, as do a fair number of people, but he’s the only one who has the full power of the United States behind him,” said Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor.

Hasen and many others noted that Trump’s use of the FBI to pursue his obsession with the 2020 election is part of a pattern of the president transforming the federal government into his personal tool of vengeance.

Sen. Jon Ossoff, a Georgia Democrat, compared the search to the Minnesota immigration crackdown that has killed two U.S. citizen protesters, launched by Trump as his latest blow against the state’s governor, who ran against him as Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate in 2024.

“From Minnesota to Georgia, on display to the whole world, is a President spiraling out of control, wielding federal law enforcement as an unaccountable instrument of personal power and revenge,” Ossoff said in a statement.

It also comes as election officials across the country are starting to rev up for the 2026 midterms, where Trump is struggling to help his party maintain its control of Congress. Noting that, in 2020, Trump contemplated using the military to seize voting machines after his loss, some worry he’s laying the groundwork for a similar maneuver in the fall.

“Georgia’s a blueprint,” said Kristin Nabers of the left-leaning group All Voting Is Local. “If they can get away with taking election materials here, what’s to stop them from taking election materials or machines from some other state after they lose?”

Georgia has been at the heart of Trump’s 2020 obsession. He infamously called Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on Jan. 2, 2021, asking that Raffensperger “find” 11,780 more votes for Trump so he could be declared the winner of the state. Raffensperger refused, noting that repeated reviews confirmed Democrat Joe Biden had narrowly won Georgia.

Those were part of a series of reviews in battleground states, often led by Republicans, that affirmed Biden’s win, including in Michigan, Wisconsin and Nevada. Trump also lost dozens of court cases challenging the election results and his own attorney general at the time said there was no evidence of widespread fraud.

His allies who repeated his lies have been successfully sued for defamation. That includes former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who settled with two Georgia election workers after a court ruled he owed them $148 million for defaming them after the 2020 election.

Voting machine companies also have brought defamation cases against some conservative-leaning news sites that aired unsubstantiated claims about their equipment being linked to fraud in 2020. Fox News settled one such case by agreeing to pay $787 million after the judge ruled it was “CRYSTAL clear” that none of the allegations were true.

Trump’s campaign to move Georgia into his column also sparked an ill-fated attempt to prosecute him and some of his allies by Fulton County District Atty. Fani Willis, a Democrat. The case collapsed after Willis was removed over conflict-of-interest concerns, and Trump has since sought damages from the office.

On his first day in office, Trump rewarded some of those who helped him try to overturn the 2020 election results by pardoning, commuting or vowing to dismiss the cases of about 1,500 people charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. He later signed an executive order trying to set new rules for state election systems and voting procedures, although that has been repeatedly blocked by judges who have ruled that the Constitution gives states, and in some instances Congress, control of elections rather than the president.

As part of his campaign of retribution, Trump also has spoken about wanting to criminally charge lawmakers who sat on the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, suggesting protective pardons of them from Biden are legally invalid. He’s targeted a former cybersecurity appointee who assured the public in 2020 that the election was secure.

During a year of presidential duties, from dealing with wars in Gaza and Ukraine to shepherding sweeping tax and spending legislation through Congress, Trump has reliably found time to turn the subject to 2020. He has falsely called the election rigged, said Democrats cheated and even installed a White House plaque claiming Biden took office after “the most corrupt election ever.”

David Becker, a former Department of Justice voting rights attorney and executive director of The Center for Election Innovation & Research, said he was skeptical the FBI search in Georgia would lead to any successful prosecutions. Trump has demanded charges against several enemies such as former FBI Director James Comey and New York’s Democratic Atty. Gen., Letitia James, that have stalled in court.

“So much this administration has done is to make claims in social media rather than go to court,” Becker said. “I suspect this is more about poisoning the well for 2026.”

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press.

The future USS John F. Kennedy, the second Ford class aircraft carrier for the U.S. Navy, has begun its initial sea trials. The Navy is slated to take delivery of the ship in 2027 after years of delays.

Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) announced that Kennedy, also known by the hull number CVN-79, had left port in Newport News, Virginia, earlier today to start initial sea trials.

“These trials will test important ship systems and components at sea for the first time,” HII wrote in posts on social media. “This huge milestone is the result of the selfless teamwork and unwavering commitment by our incredible shipbuilders, suppliers and ship’s force crew. We wish them a safe and successful time at sea!”

The extent to which Kennedy has been fitted out is unclear, but the carrier is set to be delivered with some notable differences from the first-in-class USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78). This most notably includes an AN/SPY-6(V)3 radar, also known as the fixed-face version of Raytheon’s Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR), in place of Ford‘s Dual Band Radar (DBR). The DBR has proven immensely troublesome over the years, as you can read more about here. Pictures that HII released today show a number of differences between Kennedy‘s island and the one on Ford, due at least in part to the radar change.

Ford has suffered from a laundry list of other issues over the years, and HII and the Navy have working to leverage those lessons learned in work on all of the future ships in the class.

It is worth noting here that this is not the Navy’s first USS John F. Kennedy, an honor held by a unique subvariant of the Kitty Hawk class carrier design, which served from 1968 until 2007. One of America’s last conventionally powered carriers, it was subsequently sold for scrap despite attempts to turn it into a museum ship.

The Navy ordered the new Kennedy in 2013, and it was laid down at HII’s Newport News Shipbuilding division in 2015. The ship was launched four years later, at which time the goal was for it to be delivered in 2022. The Navy had originally pursued a dual-phase delivery schedule for the carrier, in which it would arrive initially still lacking certain capabilities. A Congressional demand for the carrier to be able to support F-35C Joint Strike Fighters at the time of delivery contributed to an initial slip in that schedule to 2024. At the time of writing, Ford has yet to set sail on an operational cruise with F-35Cs aboard.

The Navy subsequently shifted the timetable for Kennedy again from 2024 to 2025, ostensibly to complete work that normally would be done during a Post Shakedown Availability (PSA) after delivery. Last year, the service revealed that it pushed the delivery schedule further to the right, to March 2027. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), a Congressional watchdog, separately reported that the Navy might not have the carrier in hand until July 2027.

“The CVN 79 delivery date shifted from July 2025 to March 2027 (preliminary acceptance TBD) to support completion of Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) certification and continued Advanced Weapons Elevator (AWE) work,” according to the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget request, which it began releasing in June 2025.

“Construction challenges affected CVN 79 and CVN 80 [the future USS Enterprise] delivery schedules. Continuing delays to Advanced Weapons Elevators construction put CVN 79’s July 2025 delivery at risk, according to program officials,” GAO said in its report, which came out that same month. “They said that, while this construction improved since CVN 78, they may postpone noncritical work like painting until after delivery to avoid delay.”

Problems with the AWEs on Ford became a particular cause celebre during President Donald Trump’s first term office, but the Navy said it had effectively mitigated those issues by 2021. The AWEs are critical to the carrier’s operation, being used to move aircraft munitions and other stores between the ship’s magazines and the flight deck.

Watch the Advanced Weapons Elevators on the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford

Ford has also faced persistent issues with its AAG, as well as the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) catapults, though the Navy says it has made progress in addressing those, as well. EMALS and AAG are how Ford class carriers get planes into the air and recover them afterward.

Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS)

USS Gerald R. Ford Launches and Recovery

“Program officials attributed this delay [in work on CVN 79 and CVN 80] to construction material availability and persistent shipyard workforce issues that the program is working to mitigate with revised schedules and worker incentives,” GAO’s June 2025 report also noted. “The program reported it has not assessed the carrier industrial base for potential manufacturing risks but officials said that they plan to leverage other industrial base initiatives. This includes those related to submarines and within the Navy’s new Maritime Industrial Base program office.”

It’s not immediately clear how much all of this has added to Kennedy‘s price tag. Back in 2018, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) pegged Kennedy‘s cost at around $11.3 billion. A new CRS report published in December 2025 said the ship’s estimated acquisition cost had grown to $13.196 billion, citing Navy budget documents, but it is unclear if that accounts in any way for inflation. The Navy continues to estimate that future ships in the Ford class will cost even more, with CVN-81, the future USS Doris Miller, still expected to come in at around $15 billion. The Navy expects to acquire six more Ford class carriers, two of which have already been given names, the future USS William J. Clinton (CVN-82) and USS George W. Bush (CVN-83).

Acquiring more Ford class carriers is a critical priority for the Navy, which has been looking to start retiring its aging Nimitz class carriers for years now. If the Navy decommissions the USS Nimitz this year as planned, the total size of the service’s carrier force will drop to 10 hulls until Kennedy arrives. There is a standing legal requirement for the Navy to have no less than 12 carriers in service, which is reflective of the high demand for these ships, especially in times of crisis.

The Navy has been voicing its own concerns about carrier capacity, and the readiness of the force it does have, for years now. This has only been compounded in the past two years or so by the strain from steady demand for deployments to respond to contingencies in and around the Middle East, and more recently, the Caribbean.

“I think the Ford, from its capability perspective, would be an invaluable option for any military thing the president wants to do,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle told TWZ and other outlets on the sidelines of the Surface Navy Association’s (SNA) annual symposium. “But if it requires an extension, it’s going to get some pushback from the CNO. And I will see if there is something else I can do.”

“To the financial and readiness aspects, we have maintenance agreements and contracts that have been made with yards that are going to repair the ships that are in that strike group, including the carrier itself,” Caudle noted. “And so when those are tied to a specific time, the yard is expecting it to be there. All that is highly disruptive.”

Caudle was responding to a question about whether Ford could be tasked to support a new potential U.S. operation against Iran. The carrier is currently sailing in the Caribbean Sea, where it has been operating for months now. Earlier this month, it took part in the operation to capture Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro. Since the CNO offered his comments at SNA, the Navy has sent the Nimitz class carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and its strike group from the Pacific to the Middle East.

As an aside, CVN-79 is expected to be the first Ford class carrier homeported on the West Coast. Ford‘s homeport is Norfolk, Virginia, on the East Coast.

The Navy is now at least one step closer to taking delivery of the future USS John F. Kennedy.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

For months, Gregory Bovino has been the public face of President Trump’s sweeping immigration raids across U.S. cities.

When the brash Border Patrol commander charged into Los Angeles last summer with the stated mission of arresting thousands of immigrants, he was unapologetic as agents smashed car windows, concealed their identities with masks, seized brown-skinned Angelenos off the streets, and descended on MacArthur Park on horseback.

In Minneapolis, when a federal officer shot and killed U.S. citizen Renee Good on Jan. 7, Bovino’s response to Fox News’ Sean Hannity was, “Hats off to that ICE agent.”

And when a Border Patrol agent shot Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care unit nurse, on Saturday, Bovino again defended the killing. Pretti, he said, looked like someone who “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”

But as public outrage has swelled against the Trump administration’s aggressive tactics, Bovino’s future is in limbo. On Monday, Trump deployed border advisor Tom Homan to Minnesota, with Bovino reportedly set to depart the region.

Now, the question remains: will Bovino’s departure really change the Trump playbook?

Ariel G. Ruiz Soto — a senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank — said Bovino’s exit, if true, could represent a pivotal moment in immigration enforcement in the nation’s interior.

“I think it signals that the tensions have risen so significantly that there’s beginning to be ruptures and fragments within the Trump administration to try to figure out how to do this enforcement more efficiently, but also with more accountability,” Ruiz Soto said.

Other immigration experts, however, question the significance of sidelining Bovino.

“I think it’s a grave mistake to think the change in the personnel on the ground constitutes a change in policy,” said Lucas Guttentag, a professor of law at Stanford University who specializes in immigration. “Because the policy remains the same: to terrorize immigrant communities and intimidate peaceful protesters.”

Even if Bovino is ousted or given a lesser role, Guttentag said, national immigration policy is still shaped by Stephen Miller — the White House deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security advisor who has embraced hardline enforcement tactics.

“They’re still threatening to use military action,” Guttentag said. “They still want to keep the National Guard on call. All of those fundamental policies, as well as deporting people who had legal status, sending people to third world countries without any due process, adopting detention rules that deprive people of hearings to be eligible for release, all of that’s continuing.”

“Simply changing from Bovino to Homan,” he added, “doesn’t signal anything significant in terms of policy.”

::

So far, the Department of Homeland Security has remained publicly tight-lipped about what’s next for Bovino, and did not respond this week to inquiries from The Times.

However, the Associated Press reported Monday that Bovino and some federal agents were expected to leave Minneapolis as early as Tuesday. The Atlantic, citing DHS sources, reported that Bovino had been demoted from his role of Border Patrol commander at large and would return to his former job in El Centro, Calif.

DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin disputed that Monday, saying on X that Bovino “has NOT been relieved of his duties.” White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt described him as a “wonderful person” and “a great professional” who would “continue to lead Customs and Border Patrol throughout and across the country.”

There has been mounting criticism of and public protest against the administration’s activities since the launch of Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota last month. Trump said he sent Homan to Minnesota “to de-escalate a little bit.”

“Bovino is very good, but he’s a pretty out-there kind of a guy,” Trump said Tuesday during an interview on Fox News’ “The Will Cain Show.” “And in some cases that’s good. Maybe it wasn’t good here.”

::

A pugnacious 55-year-old who was born in California but raised in North Carolina, Bovino’s muscle-bound physique, green military greatcoat and gel-spiked hair seemed straight out of MAGA central casting.

Barreling into Los Angeles in June to command the Trump administration’s mass immigration raids, he seemed to relish confrontation as protests erupted and troops were deployed across the city.
“All over … the Los Angeles region, we’re going to turn and burn to that next target and the next and the next and the next, and we’re not going to stop,” Bovino told the Associated Press last summer. “We’re not going to stop until there’s not a problem here.”

When Bovino met legal setbacks, he was defiant.

In August, an appeals court upheld a temporary restraining order blocking his agents from targeting people in Southern and Central California based on race, language or vocation without reasonable suspicion they are in the U.S. illegally.

Bovino responded by posting a video on X that first showed L.A. Mayor Karen Bass telling reporters that “this experiment that was practiced on the city of Los Angeles failed” before cutting to himself grinning. As a frenetic mix of drums and bass kicked in, the video transitioned to footage of federal agents jumping out of a van to chase people down.

“When you’re faced with opposition to law and order, what do you do?” Bovino wrote. “Improvise, adapt, and overcome!”

After Bovino led agents in Los Angeles, he pivoted to Chicago to serve as the commander of Operation Midway Blitz. Then, he went to New Orleans before heading to Minnesota to lead what officials called Homeland Security’s “largest immigration operation ever.”

The fatal shootings of Good and Pretti by federal agents this month sparked outrage and protests, both in Minneapolis and around the nation.

Ruiz Soto said that the controversy over the Trump immigration policy was no longer just about immigrants.

“It’s about constitutional rights and it’s about U.S. citizens,” Ruiz Soto said. “For the broader public, it’s now much more immersive. It’s now much more in their face.”

After Border Patrol agents tackled Pretti to the ground and shot him, many Americans were outraged to hear Bovino and other senior Trump administration officials make false statements regarding the incident.

The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that Pretti approached federal officers on the street with a 9-millimeter semiautomatic handgun and “violently resisted” when officers tried to disarm him.

But according to videos taken on the scene, Pretti was holding a phone, not a handgun, when he stepped in front of a federal agent who had shoved a woman to the ground. The agent shoved and pepper-sprayed him and then multiple agents forced him to the ground. In the middle of the scrum, an agent secured a handgun. Less than a second later, the first shot was fired.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem asserted without evidence that Pretti had committed “an act of domestic terrorism,” and said her agency would lead the investigation into his killing.

Federal officials also denied Minnesota state investigators access to the shooting scene in south Minneapolis, prompting local and state officials to accuse the Homeland Security agency of mishandling evidence.

In the days since the shooting, Democrats in Congress have called for Noem to be removed from office.

“The country is disgusted by what the Department of Homeland Security has done,” Democratic House Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Tuesday in a joint statement. “Kristi Noem should be fired immediately or we will commence impeachment proceedings in the House.”

When asked by reporters Tuesday whether Noem would step down, Trump said: “No.”

By sidelining Bovino, Ruiz Soto said the Trump administration appears to be sending a larger message.

“They’re going to try to restrict or home in the Border Patrol’s authority or at least the way they participate in operations and are going to now go back,” he said. “Or at least try to emulate more of the prior ICE model.”

Guttentag, however, said that while the public is seeing a tactical retreat on the part of the Trump administration, the problems went beyond Bovino’s leadership.

“So it’s not just the leadership, it’s the lack of training,” Guttentag said. “It’s the message that we’re getting from the very top, the statements from the vice president and others, that they have legal immunity. It’s the instructions to be as aggressive as they can be, and it’s also the lack of quality in the hiring and training process. All of that continues regardless of who the person on the ground is.”

The B-21 Raider stealth bomber is one of the Air Force’s most ambitious weapons programs, designed to carry out deep-penetrating nuclear and conventional strikes over heavily defended skies and other missions its predecessor, the B-2, was never envisioned as doing. As the head of the U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC), one of Gen. Stephen L. Davis’s main tasks is guiding the development of the Raider, of which 100 are currently slated for procurement and that number could grow substantially larger in the coming years.

In his first interview since taking command on Nov. 4, 2025, from Gen. Thomas Bussiere, Davis offered The War Zone exclusive insights about the B-21 and what it can bring to the table in a future high-end fight. As the leader of AFGSC, Davis also oversees B-1B Lancer, B-2A Spirit, and B-52 Stratofortress strategic bombers and all U.S. Air Force intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). During his Monday morning conversation with us, Davis talked about a host of other topics beyond just the Raider, including the future of the E-4C “Doomsday Plane,” the way forward for the troubled Sentinel ICBM program, and challenges posed by China and Russia.

You can read the first part of our interview here.

Some of the questions and answers have been lightly edited for clarity.

Q: What capabilities will the B-21 have by the time it achieves initial operating capability (IOC), and what will come later?

A: Right now, I’m focused on delivering the initial capability. And unfortunately, I can’t talk too much about the capabilities of the bomber. They are significant, and they are impressive. From the command’s perspective, we’re concentrating on getting everything in place up at Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota to bed down that capability. Really, it’s the acquisition community that’s still delivering that plane, and I’m certainly interested in that, but I’m probably more focused on the bed down and getting those things right.

Q: Can you provide an update on the Raider’s Initial Operating Capability (IOC)?

A: As for IOC, we are thinking of it in an OPSEC framework. We are not building prototypes, and the infrastructure to support the B-21 is on time. The program remains a benchmark of acquisition and has validated the value of the digital engineering that went into it from the beginning; I can tell you that the penetrating global strike platform we are building and will get with the Raider is amazing.

Q:  Will the B-21 still be optionally manned?

A: That’s a future capability for the aircraft. Right now, we’re planning for the manned implementation of that aircraft and getting the crews ready to be at Ellsworth when the plane arrives.

Q: What roles will the B-21 be capable of executing beyond the standard deep strike mission set of the B-2? Will they be able to defend themselves kinetically from air threats as well as ground threats?

A:  I really don’t want to talk about those specific attributes of the B-21 because some of those are classified. What I can say is that it will continue to build on the capabilities of the B-2. As you know, in the environment and the places where it might operate, those people are improving their defenses, and likewise, we have to improve the capabilities so we can deliver for the president and the nation a penetrating bomber. Clearly, with a nuclear mission, there are places that we’re going to have to go to deliver nuclear weapons, if ever called upon by the president of the United States, and that’s something that I have to provide to the Department of War and to the president.

Q: We have heard so much about the Long-Range Strike family of systems, but so far, we only know of two members of that family, the B-21 and the Long-Range Stand-Off Weapon (LRSO). What other types of systems make up this family and when will we be able to meet them in the future? 

A: Well, once again, you hit me on all the classified aspects of the program. I would say any platform operating today is in a family of systems that’s connected to other things within the Department of the Air Force, and the Department of War, and that’ll continue to be the case of the B-21. And, as a matter of fact, we’re going to extend those, and it will be more connected than the B-2 in order to do its penetrating global strike mission. I think one thing you could add to family systems is the F-47 6th-generation fighter. You know, it’s going to be paired with the F-47 under certain circumstances. So we certainly consider that new 6th-generation stealth fighter as part of the family of systems that might be employed with the B-21.

Q: Any update on that program?

A: Nothing other than I believe it still remains on track. I was recently out of St. Louis, and they got a chance to take a look at the work that they were doing out there. As you know, Air Force Gen. Dale White has just been announced as the Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Critical Major Weapon Systems, leading the F-47 and the B-21 programs, so that will create some integration there as well. I know Dale. He’s a very talented acquirer, so I think that bodes well for both those programs.

Q: How will unmanned systems, specifically aerial drones, be paired with the future bomber force? What capabilities are you looking at in this regard? 

A: In terms of what we might incorporate into both the B-21 and the B-52 in future environments, we’re going to take every bit of information we get on board that aircraft to improve situational awareness. So I’m agnostic on where that comes from, whether that’s overhead capabilities, whether that’s remotely piloted capabilities, or UASs. Our plan is to integrate as much information as we can of that platform.

Q: Will B-21s be able to control collaborative combat aircraft (CCAs) or longer-range drones? What about the B-52J?

A: In terms of CCAs, I think where the Air Force is right now is that they’re building those to be incorporated into the F-47 primarily in fighter aircraft. That’s the first step. It’s certainly possible in the future that they might become part of that family of systems. When you think about long-range strike, when we’re doing [continental U.S.] CONUS-based missions, it really would limit the ability to use some of those platforms as they don’t quite have the extended flight envelopes that the B-21 and the B-52 have.

Q: And with the B-52, as far as working with CCAs, is that still to be determined?

A: I would say yes. I would think that the B-21 would be the more logical partner for that. But once again, we have to deliver that capability that the Air Force does and integrate with fighters. That’s the first step. Assuming that goes well. I think we’ll look at the next steps.

Q: What will it take to pierce China’s A2AD [anti-access/area denial] umbrella? What capabilities do you need to do the job, from a [ground moving GMTI/AMTI target indicator/air moving target indicator] space layer to drones to accompany B-21s? What is your vision?

A: We have a requirement to be able to do that day-to-day for the president. We have to be able to penetrate adversary air defenses and deliver capabilities as directed. And we’ll continue to do that, taking all the information we can get and integrating it into the B-21. Obviously, one of the great things about the B-21 is that it’s going to be much more capable. It will have more sensors. It will have more inputs to it that will make it even stronger and more capable as a penetrating bomber.

Q: What role will your bombers play in taking down the Chinese Navy?

A: That’s an operational plan. I really can’t talk much about it, other than to say that long-range strike contributes to every important mission set that we have in the Department of War. Obviously, one of the attributes of the modern force is the variety of weapons they can carry, and the number and types of targets they can attack. I think in any major confrontation that the U.S. would find itself in, you’re going to find your bomber forces are bringing those skill sets to bear.

Q: What makes the move to put a single pilot onboard the B-21, along with a weapon systems officer (WSO) instead of two pilots, possible, and why is that the right call? 

A: In terms of the crew complement for the B-21, that’s an ongoing discussion within the Department of the Air Force. No final decision has been made. Frankly, we had the same discussion on the B-2 on how it would be manned. And ultimately, they went with two pilots, in part because of the cost of the platform and the number they were producing. Actually, at the time, it was a requirement to have navigator or WSO experience to be a B-2 pilot. We went away from that over time, but that was one of the initial requirements. With B-21 pilots, it’s a different plane, as it has a number of different capabilities. So we think that the right thing to do is look carefully at that crew complement and decide how to best make that the most capable combat platform we can.

Q: Will the B-21 have creature comforts that the B-2 doesn’t have to help the crew out during long missions?

A: I think the B-21 is going to be largely like the B-2 in how it supports the crews. There’s enough room for crew members to go on rest status. There’s a place to go to the bathroom, obviously, and to prepare food. All those things will exist in the B-21.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com