Government

Appointment clinched via a last-minute coalition deal, but government remains without a majority, leaving the risk of instability.

Japan’s parliament has elected ultraconservative Sanae Takaichi as the nation’s first female prime minister.

A protege of assassinated former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Takaichi received  237 votes in the 465-seat lower house of parliament on Tuesday to confirm her in the role.

The victory follows a last-minute coalition deal by her Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) with the right-wing Japan Innovation Party (JIP), also known as Ishin, on Monday. However, her government is still two seats short of a majority, suggesting a risk of instability.

Takaichi replaces Shigeru Ishiba, ending a three-month political vacuum and wrangling since the LDP – which has governed Japan for most of its post-war history – suffered a disastrous election loss in July.

Her victory marks a pivotal moment for a country where men still hold overwhelming sway. But it is also likely to usher in a sharper move to the right on immigration and social issues, with little expectation that it will help to promote gender equality or diversity.

Takaichi has stonewalled measures for women’s advancement. She supports the imperial family’s male-only succession and opposes same-sex marriage and allowing separate surnames for married couples.

The LDP had earlier lost its longtime partner, the Buddhist-backed Komeito, which has a more dovish and centrist stance.

Komeito ended the partnership due to its concerns that the LDP was not prepared to fight corruption.

“Political stability is essential right now,” Takaichi said at the signing ceremony with the JIP leader and Osaka Governor Hirofumi Yoshimura. “Without stability, we cannot push measures for a strong economy or diplomacy.”

JIP will not hold ministerial posts in Takaichi’s Cabinet until his party is confident about its partnership with the LDP, Yoshimura said.

After years of deflation, Japan is now grappling with rising prices, something that has caused public anger and fuelled support for opposition groups, including far-right upstarts.

Like Abe, Takaichi is expected to favour government spending to jumpstart the weakened economy. That has prompted a so-called “Takaichi trade” in the stock market, sending the Nikkei share average to record highs, the most recent on Tuesday.

But it has also caused investor unease about the government’s ability to pay for additional spending in a country where the debt load far outweighs annual output.

Shortly after the lower house vote, Takaichi’s elevation to prime minister was also approved by the less-powerful upper house. She will be sworn in as Japan’s 104th prime minister on Tuesday evening.

Takaichi is also running on a deadline, as she prepares for a major policy speech later this week, talks with United States President Donald Trump and regional summits.

Gov. Gavin Newsom issued a stark warning Monday that food assistance benefits for millions of low-income Californians could be delayed starting Nov. 1 if the ongoing federal shutdown does not end by Thursday.

The benefits, issued under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and formerly called food stamps, include federally funded benefits loaded onto CalFresh cards. They support some 5.5 million Californians.

Newsom blamed the potential SNAP disruption — and the shutdown more broadly — on President Trump and slammed the timing of the potential cutoff just as the Thanksgiving holiday approaches.

“Trump’s failure to open the federal government is now endangering people’s lives and making basic needs like food more expensive — just as the holidays arrive,” Newsom said. “It is long past time for Republicans in Congress to grow a spine, stand up to Trump, and deliver for the American people.”

The White House responded by blaming the shutdown on Democrats, as it has done before.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said the “Democrats’ decision to shut down the government is hurting Americans across the country,” and that Democrats “can choose to reopen the government at any point” by voting for a continuing resolution to fund the government as budget negotiations continue, which she said they repeatedly did during the Biden administration.

“Newscum should urge his Democrat pals to stop hurting the American people,” Jackson said, using a favorite Trump insult for Newsom. “The Trump Administration is working day and night to mitigate the pain Democrats are causing, and even that is upsetting the Left, with many Democrats criticizing the President’s effort to pay the troops and fund food assistance for women and children.”

Congressional Republicans also have blamed the shutdown and resulting interruptions to federal programs on Democrats, who are refusing to vote for a Republican-backed funding measure based in large part on Republican decisions to eliminate subsidies for healthcare plans relied on by millions of Americans.

Newsom’s warning about SNAP benefits followed similar alerts from other states on both sides of the political aisle, after the U.S. Department of Agriculture warned state agencies in an Oct. 10 letter that the shutdown may interrupt funding for the benefits.

States have to take action to issue November benefits before the month ends, so the shutdown would have to end sooner than Nov. 1 for the benefits to be available in time.

Newsom’s office said Californians could see their benefits interrupted or delayed if the shutdown is not ended by Thursday. The Texas Health and Human Services Department warned that SNAP benefits for November “won’t be issued if the federal government shutdown continues past Oct. 27.”

Newsom’s office said a cutoff of funds would affect federally funded CalFresh benefits, but also some other state-funded benefits. More than 63% of SNAP recipients in California are children or elderly people, Newsom’s office said.

In her own statement, First Partner of California Jennifer Siebel Newsom said, “Government should be measured by how we protect people’s lives, their health, and their well-being. Parents and caregivers should not be forced to choose between buying groceries or paying bills.”

States were already gearing up for other changes to SNAP eligibility based on the Republican-passed “Big Beautiful Bill,” which set new limits on SNAP benefits, including for nonworking adults. Republicans have argued that such restrictions will encourage more able-bodied adults to get back into the workforce to support their families themselves.

Many Democrats and advocacy organizations that work to protect low-income families and children have argued that restricting SNAP benefits has a disproportionately large effect on some of the most vulnerable people in the country, including poor children.

According to the USDA, about 41.7 million Americans were served by SNAP benefits per month in fiscal 2024, at an annual cost of nearly $100 billion. The USDA has some contingency funding it can utilize to continue benefits in the short term, but does not have enough to cover all monthly benefits, advocates said.

Andrew Cheyne, managing director of public policy at the advocacy group End Child Poverty California, urged the USDA to utilize its contingency funding and any other funding stream possible to prevent a disruption to SNAP benefits, which he said would be “disastrous.”

“CalFresh is a lifeline for 5.5 million Californians who rely on the program to eat. That includes 2 million children. It is unconscionable that we are only days away from children and families not knowing where their next meal is going to come from,” Cheyne said.

He said the science is clear that “even a brief period of food insecurity has long-term consequences for children’s growth and development.”

Ted Lempert, president of Children Now, said a disruption would be “horrific.”

“We speak out for the needs of kids and families, and kids need food — basic support to live and function and go to school,” he said. “So this could be really devastating.”

Times staff writer Jenny Gold contributed to this report.

LONDON — He won’t call himself a duke anymore, but that is not enough for many of Prince Andrew’s critics.

Buckingham Palace and the British government were under pressure Monday to formally strip Prince Andrew of his princely title and sumptuous home after new revelations about his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

After discussions with his elder brother King Charles III, Andrew agreed on Friday to stop using titles including Duke of York. It was the latest effort to insulate the monarchy from years of tawdry headlines about Andrew’s suspicious business deals, inappropriate behavior and controversial friendships.

But he still technically holds the title of duke, bestowed by his late mother, Queen Elizabeth II. And as the son of a monarch, he remains a prince.

Andrew’s statement relinquishing some of his royal titles came after emails emerged showing he had remained in contact with Epstein longer than he previously admitted, and days before publication of a posthumous memoir by Epstein accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who alleged she had sex with Andrew when she was 17.

Giuffre’s brother, Sky Roberts, urged the king to go further and “remove the title of prince, too.

“He shouldn’t be able to call himself one,” Roberts told The Times of London newspaper.

Civil suit

Andrew, 65, has long denied Giuffre’s claims, but stepped down from royal duties after a disastrous November 2019 BBC interview in which he attempted to rebut her allegations.

Many viewers saw an entitled prince who failed to show empathy for Epstein’s victims and offered unbelievable explanations for his friendship with the late sex offender.

Andrew paid millions in an out-of-court settlement in 2022 after Giuffre filed a civil suit against him in New York.

While he didn’t admit wrongdoing, he acknowledged Giuffre’s suffering as a victim of sex trafficking.

‘Angry and aghast’

Some opposition politicians said Andrew should formally be stripped of his dukedom through an act of Parliament.

Scottish National Party lawmaker Stephen Flynn said the government should use legislation to remove titles from both Andrew and Peter Mandelson, a member of the House of Lords who was fired as British ambassador to Washington in September over his past friendship with Epstein.

“The family of Virginia Giuffre, whose life was destroyed, are angry and aghast,” Flynn said. “The public across these isles are angry and aghast and they both deserve to know that some (members of Parliament) share their outrage.”

The government said it supported the palace’s decision over Andrew’s titles but should not act unilaterally. Under the U.K.’s constitutional monarchy, the crown does not interfere in politics and politicians stay clear of issues related to the royal family.

“Our thoughts have to be with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, those who suffered and continue to suffer because of the abuse that they experienced at his hands, but these are matters for the royal family,” Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson told the BBC.

Some also want Andrew evicted from Royal Lodge, the 30-room mansion near Windsor Castle where he lives alongside his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, who will no longer be known as the Duchess of York.

Questions have been raised about how Andrew pays for the house, which he rents on a long lease from the Crown Estate, a portfolio of properties that is nominally owned, but not controlled, by the monarch.

Royals brace for more revelations

The palace is bracing for more embarrassing revelations, just as the king prepares for a state visit to the Vatican this week where he is due to pray beside Pope Leo XIV.

Giuffre’s book, “Nobody’s Girl,” is published on Tuesday and details three alleged sexual encounters with Andrew. She died by suicide in April at the age of 41.

In an extract published in advance, Giuffre says the prince acted as if he believed “having sex with me was his birthright.”

Giuffre also claims in the book that Andrew’s team tried “to hire internet trolls to hassle me.” She said that Andrew insisted the lawsuit settlement include a one-year gag order to prevent allegations from tarnishing the late queen’s Platinum Jubilee in 2022.

Meanwhile, London’s Metropolitan Police force says it is “actively looking into” media reports that Andrew in 2011 sought information to smear Giuffre by asking one of his police bodyguards to find out whether she had a criminal record.

Lawless writes for the Associated Press.

U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) visited three Black churches in Los Angeles on Sunday morning to campaign for California’s redistricting effort, which could add five or six Democratic representatives to his ranks.

Amid a congressional deadlock over healthcare subsidies that has left the government shut down for more than two weeks, the minority leader returned to the Golden State to campaign for Proposition 50. The ballot measure would give his party more power against Republicans, who Jeffries said have refused to negotiate in the shutdown and otherwise.

“This is trouble all around us,” Jeffries told the congregation at First African Methodist Episcopal Church of Los Angeles in West Adams — after poking fun at President Trump’s 2016 gaffe misspronouncing a book of the Bible. “Folks in the government who would rather shut the government down than give healthcare to everyday Americans. Wickedness in high places. And now they want to gerrymander the congressional maps all across the country to try to rig the midterm elections.”

The packed congregation — most wearing pink to support Breast Cancer Awareness Month — were receptive to his message.

“This is a way of trying to keep things equal,” said Kim Balogun, who was in Sunday’s crowd. “A level playing field.”

For many of its members, First AME is more than just a church. As the city’s oldest African American congregation, it has been at the forefront of the fight for civil rights since its founding in 1872.

“This is family,” said Toni Scott, a retired special-education teacher who has been with First AME for 52 years. “As one of the church’s previous ministers used to say, ‘This is a hospital. People are sick; we come to be healed,’” she said.

When news reached L.A. that Nelson Mandela would be released from prison, South African immigrants and anti-apartheid activists flocked to the church, anxiously awaiting the first sights of Mandela walking free. During the 1992 riots, First AME was a bastion of hope amid a sea of chaos.

“We thank you, God, for bringing us through dark times and chaotic times,” the Rev. Charolyn Jones said to the congregation on Sunday, “knowing that our church, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, was born out of protest.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, left, greets parishioners at First African Methodist Episcopal Church of Los Angeles. “It’s an honor and a privilege to spend time worshiping at Black churches here with Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove to reinforce the message of the importance of voting yes on Proposition 50,” Jeffries said.

(Ethan Swope / For The Times)

For Jeffries, the first Black person to lead a major political party in Congress, the West Coast trip amid a congressional impasse was important.

“The African American churchgoing community has always been the foundation of the Black experience in the United States of America,” Jeffries said, who also visited the congregations of Mt. Sinai Missionary Baptist Church in South L.A. and Resurrection Church of Los Angeles in Carson. “It’s an honor and a privilege to spend time worshiping at Black churches here with Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove to reinforce the message of the importance of voting yes on Proposition 50.”

The state’s redistricting effort, Proposition 50, is part of a national fight over control of the U.S. House of Representatives, instigated by President Trump. Republicans hold a slim majority in the House, but in June, Trump began pushing Texas Republicans to redraw the state’s congressional maps to yield five more likely GOP seats.

In response, Newsom proposed California temporarily depose of its independent redistricting commission, led by 14 citizens, to redraw the state’s maps and add five Democratic seats, effectively canceling out Texas’s move.

The Democratic-controlled state Legislature quickly produced redrawn maps and scheduled a Nov. 4 special election to put them up for a vote. Mail-in ballots are already in the hands of voters.

California Republicans, including former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, have slammed the initiative as a “big scam.” Schwarzenegger called Democrats hypocritical, arguing that while they call Trump a “threat to democracy,” they want to “tear up the Constitution of California” and “take the power away from the people and give it back to the politicians.”

Jeffries noted that California was letting its citizens ultimately decide — unlike some Republican-led states.

“We said from the very beginning that we want to find bipartisan common ground whenever possible, but unfortunately, Republicans, from the beginning of this presidency, have adopted a take-it-or-leave-it, go-at-it-alone strategy,” he said, which is part of why, he added, Proposition 50 is so important.

In the current shutdown, Democrats said they will not vote for a funding bill unless it extends tax credits in the Affordable Care Act that are set to expire for many Americans at the end of the year and reverses cuts to Medicaid that Republicans passed in July’s so-called Big Beautiful Bill.

If the ACA credits expire, premiums would on average more than double for Americans on the enhanced tax credit, one health policy research firm found. But Republicans point out they come with a price: The Congressional Budget Office estimates they would cost the government $350 billion over the next decade.

The bill, which is now law, will cut Medicaid spending by $793 billion, the CBO estimated, and lead to 7.8 million Americans losing their insurance.

On the government shutdown, Richard Balogun, a member of Sunday’s First AME congregation, thinks fighting for healthcare is a worthwhile cause.

“Isn’t it amazing that in England, Australia … you can have national healthcare? Maybe you don’t get treated within the first hour, but you get treated,” he said. In America, “you have to ask yourself sometimes, if I’m going to the emergency room, can I afford that thousands of dollars I’m going to have to pay? That should not be the case in this country.”

A government shutdown has consequences: 2.3 million civilian federal employees are going without pay — roughly 750,000 of whom are furloughed. When the employees are back-paid after the government reopens, that’ll correspond to roughly $400 million of taxpayer money spent every day of the shutdown to pay employees who were not working, the CBO estimates.

Beyond National Park closures and air travel delays, food programs for low-income families could run dry without a funding bill. The Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC) can see effects as soon as one week after a shutdown, the CEO of the National WIC Assn. said. Meanwhile, SNAP (formerly known as food stamps) could also run out of funding further down the line.

Republicans blame Democrats for shutting down the government over their healthcare concerns, but Jeffries pinned it on Republicans, who’ve refused to negotiate.

To Scott, the pink her congregation was wearing to support breast cancer survivors only emphasized the importance of access to healthcare. (Jeffries sported a pink tie.)

“More people need to know what’s going on, so just having him go from church to church, mostly in the Black neighborhoods — that’s where we have the most people: in our churches,” Scott said. “Some may hear the word, see something on fake news, but we know in the church you’re going to hear truth.”

Mnangagwa allies push for a term extension to 2030 as ZANU-PF factions split and opposition promises a legal fight.

Zimbabwe’s governing ZANU-PF has said it will begin a process to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term by two years, potentially keeping him in power until 2030.

The plan was endorsed on Saturday at the movement’s annual conference in the eastern city of Mutare, where delegates instructed the government to begin drafting legislation to amend the Constitution, Justice Minister and ZANU-PF legal secretary Ziyambi Ziyambi said.

Mnangagwa, 83, is constitutionally required to leave office in 2028 after serving two elected terms. Any change would require a constitutional amendment – and potentially referendums – legal experts say.

Delegates erupted in applause after the motion passed, reinforcing ZANU-PF’s pattern of securitised rule since independence in 1980. The party controls parliament, giving it significant leverage, though some insiders warn that a legal challenge would be likely.

Mnangagwa has previously insisted he is a “constitutionalist” with no interest in clinging to power. But loyalists have quietly pushed for a prolonged stay since last year’s disputed election, while rivals inside the party – aligned with Vice President Constantino Chiwenga – are openly resisting an extension.

Blessed Geza, a veteran fighter from the liberation war and a Chiwenga ally, has been using YouTube livestreams to condemn the push, drawing thousands of viewers. Calls for mass protests have gained little traction amid a heavy police deployment in Harare and other cities.

The president made no mention of the extension during his closing remarks at the conference. Chiwenga has not commented on Mnangagwa’s term extension bid or the protests.

Dire economic situation

Mnangagwa came to power in 2017 amid promises of democratic and economic reforms following the toppling of the longtime President Robert Mugabe.

Mnangagwa has presided over a dire economic collapse marked by hyperinflation, mass unemployment, and allegations of corruption. Critics accuse ZANU-PF of crushing dissent, weakening the judiciary, and turning elections into a managed ritual rather than a democratic contest.

Legal opposition figures have warned that any attempt to rewrite the Constitution will face resistance in court.

“We will defend the Constitution against its capture and manipulation to advance a dangerous unconstitutional anti-people agenda,” opposition lawyer Tendai Biti said in a statement on X.

Ten elderly activists – most in their 60s and 70s – were arrested in Harare on Friday for allegedly planning a protest demanding Mnangagwa’s resignation.

They were charged with attempting to incite “public violence” and remain in custody pending a bail hearing on Monday. Earlier this year, authorities detained nearly 100 young people in similar circumstances.

The renewed manoeuvring has exposed an accelerating power struggle inside ZANU-PF. One faction wants Mnangagwa to remain until 2030; another is preparing the ground for Chiwenga, the former army general who helped topple Robert Mugabe in the 2017 coup.

Thousands converged on New York’s Times Square Saturday for a ‘No Kings’ protest against President Donald Trump. It was part of a nationwide event that comes amid military crackdowns in US cities, deportations and revenge indictments of political foes and in the wake of the Gaza peace deal.

Bosnia’s Serb entity names an interim president after separatist Milorad Dodik is barred from politics by a state court.

Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Serb-majority entity has appointed Ana Trisic Babic as interim president, marking the first formal acknowledgement that Milorad Dodik is stepping aside after being barred from politics by a state court.

The Republika Srpska parliament confirmed Babic’s appointment on Saturday, saying she would serve until the early presidential elections scheduled for November 23.

Lawmakers also annulled several separatist laws passed under Dodik that had challenged the authority of an international envoy and Bosnia’s constitutional court.

Dodik, a pro-Russian nationalist who has pushed for Republika Srpska to break away and join Serbia, had refused to vacate office despite receiving a political ban. He has continued to travel abroad and claim presidential powers while appealing the court’s ruling.

The US Department of the Treasury announced on Friday that it had removed four Dodik allies from its sanctions list, a move he publicly welcomed as he campaigns to have sanctions against himself lifted.

Dodik is currently sanctioned by the United States, United Kingdom and several European governments for actions that undermine the Dayton peace agreement that ended Bosnia’s 1992–95 war.

Separatist moves

Bosnia’s electoral authorities stripped Dodik of his presidential mandate in August following an appeals court verdict that sentenced him to one year in prison and barred him from political office for six years.

The Central Electoral Commission acted under a rule that forces the removal of any elected official sentenced to more than six months in jail.

A Sarajevo court had convicted Dodik in February for refusing to comply with decisions issued by the international envoy, Christian Schmidt, who oversees implementation of the Dayton accords.

Dodik dismissed the ruling at the time, saying he would remain in power as long as he retained the backing of the Bosnian Serb parliament, which his allies control. The Republika Srpska government called the verdict “unconstitutional and politically motivated”.

Dodik maintains strong support from regional allies, including Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. He has repeatedly threatened to separate Republika Srpska from Bosnia, raising fears among Bosniak communities and prompting previous US administrations to impose sanctions.

Bosnia remains governed by the US-brokered Dayton Accords, which ended a devastating war that killed about 100,000 people. The agreement created two largely autonomous entities – Republika Srpska and the Bosniak-Croat Federation – with shared national institutions, including the presidency, military, judiciary and taxation system.

Tensions have surged in recent years as Dodik openly rejects the authority of the international envoy, declaring Schmidt’s decisions invalid inside Republika Srpska.

Oct. 18 (UPI) — Senate Democrats and Republicans are not budging on their demands to temporarily fund the federal government and end the shutdown as key dates approach.

The shutdown is the federal government’s third-longest and entered its 18th day on Saturday after the Senate failed to approve a temporary funding measure for the 10th time on Thursday and adjourned for the weekend.

More votes are expected to be held next week, but if the Senate stalemate continues, active federal workers won’t receive their full paychecks on Friday for the first time during the current shutdown, according to The Hill.

Those federal workers who are still on the job also received only partial pay on Oct. 10, which affected an estimated 2 million employees and their families.

Federal workers are guaranteed back pay when the shutdown eventually ends and the government is funded, in accordance with a 2019 federal law.

While active federal workers could miss their first full paychecks on Friday, military personnel are slated to be paid a week later on Oct. 31.

President Donald Trump earlier announced his administration has located $8 billion in unused research-and-development allocations from the 2025 fiscal year that ended on Sept 30.

He used that money to pay 1.2 million military personnel on Wednesday, but several congressional lawmakers question the legality of doing so.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., intends to hold a vote to pay military personnel and other “excepted” federal workers.

“We’re going to give [senators] a chance to pay the military next week,” Thune told media.

Senate staffers also are slated to be paid on Monday and House staffers on Oct. 31, but the funds are not available.

Another pressing issue is the Affordable Care Act’s annual open enrollment period starting on Nov. 1.

A House-approved continuing resolution that would fund the federal government through Nov. 21 does not include an extension of ACA tax credits, which expire at the end of the year.

The 18-day shutdown will last at least into Monday and only has been surpassed by a 21-day shutdown from Dec. 16, 1995, to Jan. 6, 1996, and a 35-day shutdown that started on Dec. 22, 2018, and lasted until Jan. 25, 2019.

Senate Democrats mostly have refused to approve the continuing resolution and instead offered an alternative funding measure that would fund the federal government through Oct. 31 and would include an extension of the ACA tax credits and Medicaid eligibility.

Senate Republicans mostly prefer to negotiate such things in the 2026 fiscal year budget, though.

Another pressing date is Nov. 21, which is the Friday after Thanksgiving and one of the busiest travel weekends in the United States.

If the shutdown extends into the Thanksgiving weekend, a shortage of air traffic controllers and Transportation Security Administration workers would greatly affect air travel.

The president has cited the shutdown when laying off federal workers, but U.S. District of Northern California Judge Susan Illston has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from continuing to lay off federal workers who are represented by two public sector unions.

On Friday, Illston said she might expand the injunction to include members of three more labor unions, Roll Call reported.

Former President Bill Clinton appointed Illston to the federal bench in 1995.

WASHINGTON — Protesting the direction of the country under President Trump, people gathered Saturday in the nation’s capital and hundreds of communities across the U.S. for “ No Kings ” demonstrations.

This is the third mass mobilization since Trump’s return to the White House and comes against the backdrop of a government shutdown that not only has closed federal programs and services, but is testing the core balance of power as an aggressive executive confronts Congress and the courts in ways that organizers warn are a slide toward American authoritarianism.

Trump himself is away from Washington at his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida.

“They say they’re referring to me as a king. I’m not a king,” Trump said in a Fox News interview airing early Friday, before he departed for a $1-million-per-plate MAGA Inc. super PAC fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago. Protests were expected nearby Saturday.

More than 2,600 rallies are planned Saturday in cities large and small, organized by hundreds of coalition partners.

Republicans are countering the nationwide street demonstrations by calling them “hate America” protests.

A growing opposition movement

While the earlier protests this year — against Elon Musk’s DOGE cuts in spring, then to counter Trump’s military parade in June — drew crowds, organizers say this one is building a more unified opposition movement. Top Democrats such as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and progressive leader Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) are joining in what organizers view as an antidote to Trump’s actions, including the administration’s clampdown on free speech and its military-style immigration raids in American cities.

“There is no greater threat to an authoritarian regime than patriotic people-power,” said Ezra Levin, a co-founder of Indivisible, among the key organizers.

As Republicans and the White House try to characterize the mass protests as a rally of radicals, Levin said the sign-up numbers are growing. Organizers said rallies are being planned within a one-hour drive for most Americans.

Rallies were also held in major European cities, where gatherings of a few hundred Americans chanted slogans and held signs and U.S. flags.

‘Crooks and con men’ and fears of police response

Retired family doctor Terence McCormally was heading to Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia to join up with others Saturday morning and walk across the Memorial Bridge that enters Washington directly in front of the Lincoln Memorial. He thought the protests would be peaceful but said the recent deployment of the National Guard makes him more leery about the police than he used to be.

“I really don’t like the crooks and con men and religious zealots who are trying to use the country” for personal gain, McCormally said, “while they are killing and hurting millions of people with bombs.”

Republicans denounce rallies

Republicans have sought to portray participants in Saturday’s rallies as far outside the mainstream of American politics, and a main reason for the prolonged government shutdown, now in its 18th day.

From the White House to Capitol Hill, GOP leaders disparaged the rallygoers as “communists” and “Marxists.”

They say Democratic leaders, including Schumer, are beholden to the far-left flank and willing to keep the government shut down to appease those liberal forces.

“I encourage you to watch — we call it the ‘Hate America’ rally — that will happen Saturday,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).

“Let’s see who shows up for that,” Johnson said, saying he expected attendees to include “antifa types,” people who “hate capitalism” and “Marxists in full display.”

In a Facebook post, Sanders said, “It’s a love America rally.”

“It’s a rally of millions of people all over this country who believe in our Constitution, who believe in American freedom and,” he said, pointing at the GOP leadership, “are not going to let you and Donald Trump turn this country into an authoritarian society.”

Democrats in Congress have refused to vote on legislation that would reopen the government as they demand funding for healthcare, which has been imperiled by the massive GOP spending bill passed this summer. Republicans say they are willing to discuss the issue only after the government reopens.

But for many Democrats, the government closure is also a way to stand up to Trump and try to push the presidency back to its place in the U.S. system as a coequal branch of government.

The situation is a potential turnaround from just six months ago, when Democrats and their allies were divided and despondent, unsure about how best to respond to Trump’s return to the White House. Schumer in particular was sharply criticized by many in his party for allowing an earlier government funding bill to sail through the Senate without using it to challenge Trump.

In April, the national march against Trump and Musk — who was then leading the White House government-slashing group known as the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE — had 1,300 registered locations. In June, for the first “No Kings” day, there were 2,100 registered locations.

“What we are seeing from the Democrats is some spine,” Levin said. “The worst thing the Democrats could do right now is surrender.”

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said he wasn’t sure if he would join the rallygoers Saturday, but he took issue with the Republicans’ characterization of the events.

“What’s hateful is what happened on Jan. 6,” he said, referring to the 2021 Capitol attack, in which a violent mob of Trump supporters stormed the building in an attempt to overturn his election loss to Joe Biden. “What you’ll see this weekend is what patriotism looks like.”

Mascaro, Riddle and Freking write for the Associated Press. Riddle reported from Montgomery, Ala. AP writer Chris Megerian in Washington contributed to this report.

George Santos, serving a prison term on charges of fraud and identity theft, had been held in solitary confinement.

United States President Donald Trump has said that he will commute the sentence of former Republican Representative George Santos, who was serving a prison sentence for fraud and identity theft.

In a social media post on Friday, Trump acknowledged that Santos had made mistakes. But he celebrated Santos as a strong supporter of the Republican Party and noted that family and friends had raised concerns over the former lawmaker’s conditions in prison.

“George Santos was somewhat of a ‘rogue,’ but there are many rogues throughout our Country that aren’t forced to serve seven years in prison,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.

“At least Santos had the Courage, Conviction, and Intelligence to ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN!”

Trump added that Santos has been “horribly mistreated”, citing his isolation behind bars: “George has been in solitary confinement for long stretches of time.”

Santos became a well-known political figure after his election victory in 2022, when he flipped New York’s 3rd Congressional District from Democratic control to Republican.

Election observers noted it was one of the first times an openly gay Republican had won a seat in the House of Representatives.

But news reports quickly revealed that Santos had fabricated key details of his life story, and by December 2022, investigators had started to delve into his business dealings.

After a congressional committee found evidence that Santos had violated federal law, including by deceiving donors and stealing from his own campaign, the House of Representatives voted to expel him. Santos was less than a year into his term.

By 2024, Santos had entered into a plea deal with prosecutors to avoid a trial over the allegations. He was sentenced in April for deceiving donors and misleading 11 people, including members of his own family, into giving money to his campaign.

But Santos, a vocal Trump supporter, quickly began a push for the president to commute his prison time, claiming that his punishment was politically motivated.

Trump has also depicted himself as a victim of unjust persecution at the hands of political enemies. He is known to use the power of presidential pardon on behalf of his supporters.

At the beginning of his current term, for example, Trump controversially pardoned nearly all of those charged with participating in the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. That attack was part of a bid to violently overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, which Trump lost.

Santos and his allies have also drawn attention to his placement in solitary confinement. Though cells meant to maximise isolation are common in US prisons, critics argue they constitute “cruel and unusual punishment”, given their connection to mental health issues and heightened risks of suicide.

Santos entered the Federal Correctional Institution in Fairton, New Jersey, on July 25. He has written several columns about his experience with solitary confinement since then, reiterating his appeal for Trump to show mercy.

“I am not asking for special treatment. I am asking to be treated as a person – with attention, dignity, and the care any human deserves when in distress,” he wrote in an opinion column.

“And yes, I renew my plea to President Trump: intervene. Help me escape this daily torment and let me return to my family.”

The United States Treasury has sanctioned two Haitians, one a former police officer and the other an alleged gang leader, for their affiliation with the Viv Ansanm criminal alliance.

On Friday, a Treasury news release accused Dimitri Herard and Kempes Sanon of colluding with Viv Ansanm, thereby contributing to the violence wracking Haiti.

The sanctions block either person from accessing assets or property in the US. They also prohibit US-based entities from engaging in transactions with the two men.

“Today’s action underscores the critical role of gang leaders and facilitators like Herard and Sanon, whose support enables Viv Ansanm’s campaign of violence, extortion, and terrorism in Haiti,” Bradley T Smith, the director of the US Office of Foreign Assets Control, said in a statement.

Since taking office for a second term, US President Donald Trump has sought to take a hardline stance against criminal organisations across Latin America, blaming the groups for unregulated immigration and drug-trafficking on US soil.

Trump has termed their actions a criminal “invasion”, using nativist rhetoric to justify military action in international waters.

Viv Ansanm has been part of Trump’s crackdown. On his first day in office, on January 20, Trump issued an executive order setting the stage for his administration to label Latin American criminal groups as “foreign terrorist organisations”.

That process began several weeks later. In May, Viv Ansanm and another Haitian criminal organisation, Gran Grif, were added to the growing list of criminal networks to receive the “foreign terrorist” designation.

Since the assassination of Haitian President Jovenel Moise in 2021, a power vacuum has formed in Haiti. The last national elections were held in 2016, and its last democratically elected officials reached the end of their terms in 2023.

That has created a crisis of public confidence that criminal networks, including gangs, have exploited to expand their power. Viv Ansanm is one of the most powerful groups, as a coalition of gangs largely based in the capital, Port-au-Prince.

In July, Ghada Waly, the executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, warned that the gangs now have “near-total control of the capital”, with 90 percent of its territory under their control.

Nearly 1.4 million people have been displaced in the country as a result of the gang violence, a 36 percent increase over 2024. Last year, more than 5,600 people were killed, and a further 2,212 injured.

In Friday’s sanctions, the US Treasury accused Herard, the former police officer, of having “colluded with the Viv Ansanm alliance”, including through training and the provision of guns.

It also noted that Herard had been imprisoned by Haitian authorities for involvement in the Moise assassination. He later escaped in 2024.

Sanon, meanwhile, is identified as the leader of the Bel Air gang, part of the Viv Ansanm alliance. The Treasury said he “played a significant role” in building Viv Ansanm’s power, and it added that he has been implicated in killings, extortion and kidnappings.

The UN Security Council echoed the US’s sanctions against Sanon and Herard, designating both men on Friday. It also agreed to extend its arms embargo on Haiti, which began in 2022.

In September, the UNSC also approved the creation of a “gang suppression force”, with a 12-month mandate to work with Haitian police and military. That force is expected to replace a Kenyan-led mission to reinforce Haiti’s security forces, and it is slated to include 5,550 people.

But on Friday, the Trump administration said that the UN had not gone far enough in its efforts to combat Haiti’s gangs. It called for more designations against individual suspects.

“While we applaud the Council for designating these individuals, the list is not complete. There are more enablers of Haiti’s insecurity evading accountability,” an open letter from US Ambassador Jennifer Locetta read.

“Haiti deserves better. Colleagues, we will continue pressing for more designations through the Security Council and its subsidiary bodies to ensure the sanctions lists are fit for purpose.”

As voters in Bolivia prepare to go to the polls for the final round of the country’s presidential election, there is no left-wing candidate on the ballot for the first time in nearly two decades.

Since the last election, the current governing party, the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS), has suffered an implosion, with party leaders splintering off and attacking one another.

Amid the fracas, MAS failed to advance a candidate to the run-off election, meaning its leadership — nearly uninterrupted since 2006 — is slated to come to an end.

A centrist and a right-wing candidate are now facing off in Sunday’s highly anticipated run-off.

But the election is unlikely to smooth over the divides that have fractured and destabilised Bolivian politics in recent years, with a severe economic crisis spurring continuing unrest.

Who are the candidates? What issues are front and centre for voters? And what challenges could the new government face in the months ahead? We answer those questions and more in this brief explainer.

When does voting take place?

The run-off vote will take place on October 19, with the winner of the election inaugurated on November 8.

What was the result of the first round?

The final stage of the election is itself a sign of the shifting and unpredictable state of the country’s politics.

Rodrigo Paz, one of the two final candidates, was the surprise victor in the first round of voting despite registering less than 10 percent in early polling. He carried more than 32 percent of the votes in the August 17 general election.

His rival is Jorge “Tuto” Quiroga, a former president who came in second place with nearly 27 percent of the vote.

Neither met the threshold to win the presidency outright, which would have required winning 50 percent of the vote, or 40 percent with a 10-point margin over the nearest competitor.

Who is Rodrigo Paz?

Paz is a senator and the son of the former left-wing President Jaime Zamora.

Though he has aligned himself with various parties throughout his career, in this election, he is representing the centre-right Christian Democratic Party.

Paz has pitched himself as a more moderate voice who will embrace pro-market policies while taking a cautious approach to austerity measures. “Capitalism for All” is his campaign slogan.

His running mate, meanwhile, is Edman Lara, an evangelical Christian and former police officer who resigned from his position and became a popular figure on social media for his outspoken criticism of corruption.

Who is Jorge Quiroga?

Jorge “Tuto” Quiroga is a businessman and former president.

Early in his career, he worked in Texas for the multinational tech company IBM. But his interests shifted to politics, particularly in the 1990s, and he even worked under Paz’s father as Bolivia’s finance minister.

In 1997, Quiroga ran as the running mate on the successful presidential ticket of Hugo Banzer, who led a military dictatorship in the 1970s. But when Banzer was diagnosed with cancer and resigned in 2001, Quiroga succeeded him as president, serving the remainder of his term.

Quiroga’s subsequent bids for the presidency have fallen short: He lost in 2005, 2014 and 2020.

In this election, he is running on a stridently pro-market platform as the head of a right-wing coalition, the Libre Alliance.

Quiroga’s running mate is Juan Pablo Velasco, a 38-year-old tech entrepreneur.

What do the polls say?

Polling currently shows Quiroga with a slight advantage, but analysts have pointed out that polling before the first round of voting failed to detect support for Paz.

A poll taken between October 1 and 6 by the research firm CB Consultora found that Paz has an approval rating of 42.5 percent. Quiroga, meanwhile, leads with 56.7 percent approval.

While 75 percent of respondents said they would vote in the run-off, CB Consultora said protest votes — with ballots intentionally left blank or spoiled — are expected to increase.

What happened to Bolivia’s left?

Under the presidency of Evo Morales from 2006 to 2019, the left-wing MAS party oversaw a period of strong economic growth while simultaneously decreasing inequality, a rare feat.

That translated into electoral dominance for Morales, who is considered the country’s first Indigenous president.

But an electoral crisis in 2019 resulted in Morales fleeing the country after seeking a contested fourth term, in circumstances that his supporters have characterised as a coup.

The crisis caused a brief interruption in MAS leadership, and the post-election period saw turmoil and widespread protests, with the short-lived right-wing government overseeing a deadly crackdown.

In 2020, the left returned to power when Morales’s finance minister became the current president, Luis Arce. But internal divides have critically weakened MAS, leading to Morales leaving the party.

Courts have barred Morales, who faces an arrest warrant for alleged statutory rape, from seeking a fourth term. But Morales has persisted in his efforts, characterising the ban on his candidacy as an assault on his rights.

He has called upon his followers, many of whom are rural and Indigenous voters, to boycott the vote.

What issues are front and centre?

For many Bolivians, concerns about the economy and the cost of living are top of mind as they head to the polls.

High inflation and fuel shortages, along with dwindling foreign currency reserves, have been a source of hardship.

“People are waiting in line for hours at a time for gasoline,” said Kathryn Ledebur, director of the Andean Information Network, a Bolivia-based group that promotes human rights. “Diesel, which is important for the transportation of other goods, is even worse.”

Polling compiled by the Americas Society/Council of the Americas (ASCOA) shows that 24 percent of Bolivians consider the economy their primary concern this election season. Another 17 percent cited price increases as a top concern, and fuel shortages were at 14 percent.

What controversies have defined the election?

Velasco, Quiroga’s vice presidential running mate, has faced scrutiny over a series of racist social media posts he made in the past, celebrating violence against the country’s Indigenous population.

The posts, some of which are nearly 15 years old, were initially unearthed by an Argentinian social media figure. Bolivian fact-checking agencies have since verified the posts.

Velasco responded by denying that he authored the posts. He has also attacked the fact-checkers, prompting the Bolivian press association to release a statement in support of the fact-checking agencies.

What policies have the candidates proposed?

Both Quiroga and Paz are promising pro-market policies and a departure from the left-wing programme that has dominated Bolivian politics for the last two decades.

Where the two candidates differ is over how quickly to implement those economic changes.

Quiroga has said that he will cut spending on social programmes and fuel subsidies, privatise state enterprises, and seek assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Paz has been more hesitant when it comes to embracing calls for austerity and steep cuts to social programmes, although he has also said that he would cut fuel subsidies.

He has also suggested that Bolivia could lower tariffs to help import goods that the country does not produce itself and expressed interest in greater integration into regional trade blocs, such as MERCOSUR.

What will the election mean for relations with the United States?

The administration of US President Donald Trump has expressed approval over the prospect of a right-wing government in Bolivia.

Bilateral ties under MAS leadership had been strained over conflicting policies towards growing coca, a major crop in Bolivia and the raw ingredient for cocaine.

On October 14, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio addressed the election outright, calling it “important”.

“Later this month, there’ll be an election in Bolivia,” Rubio said. “After 25, 30 years of anti-American, hostile governments, both of the candidates running in that election, in the run-off election, want strong and better relations with the United States. Another transformative opportunity there.”

Morales, a firm critic of the US “war on drugs”, expelled the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in 2008 and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2013, alleging it was working to influence Bolivian politics.

“There was a great deal of frustration in Washington, DC, because this was a refutation of the idea that, to govern successfully, you need cooperation and funding from the US,” said Ledebur.

Both Paz and Quiroga have said that they will seek closer ties with the US. Quiroga, in particular, has been a critic of left-wing governments in Latin America, including in Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua, with which MAS had cultivated ties.

That shift comes at a moment when the Trump administration is taking on a more aggressive stance in Latin America, pushing a highly militarised approach to combating drug trafficking and using US influence to assist right-wing allies in countries such as Argentina and Brazil.

What’s next for the Bolivian left?

After years of dominance, Bolivia’s political left is preparing for a period in the political wilderness.

The candidate for MAS, Eduardo del Castillo, won just 3.2 percent in the first round of voting in August. A former MAS member, Andronico Rodriguez, won approximately 8 percent of the vote.

Many former MAS supporters have turned to Paz due to his populist stance and softer approach towards economic austerity, and Ledebur says that the once-powerful left will have to mend internal rifts and find a new path forward.

But the forces that have powered the Bolivian left for decades, such as Indigenous and rural voting blocs, are likely to remain a formidable force, even if MAS finds itself out of power.

Ledebur says that efforts to implement harsh austerity measures could spark strong backlash and protests.

She predicts that conflict with the new government could help unite the left around a common cause, but that doing so will take time.

“The left will definitely have to change something after its defeat in the election,” she said. “There will be a reconfiguration, but it could take a long time.”

The government has said it is “doing everything in our power” to overturn a ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans attending a football match in Birmingham and is exploring what additional resources could be required.

On Thursday, Aston Villa said the city’s Safety Advisory Group (SAG) decided that fans of the Israeli club should not be permitted to attend the Europa League fixture on 6 November over safety concerns.

Facing mounting pressure to resolve the situation, the government said it was working with police and exploring what additional resources are required.

A meeting of the SAG to discuss the match is expected next week, the Home Office said.

“No one should be stopped from watching a football game simply because of who they are,” a government spokesperson said.

They added the government was working with police and other bodies to ensure the game could “safely go ahead with all fans present”.

After it was announced on Thursday, Sir Keir Starmer called the move to block fans attending “wrong”, adding “we will “not tolerate antisemitism on our streets”, while there has also been criticism from other party leaders.

The SAG – which advises the council on whether to issue safety certificates – will review the decision if West Midlands Police changes its risk assessment for the match, Birmingham City Council said.

On Thursday, West Midlands Police said it had classified the fixture as “high risk” based on current intelligence and previous incidents, including “violent clashes and hate crime offences” between Ajax and Maccabi Tel Aviv fans before a match in Amsterdam in November 2024.

More than 60 people were arrested over the violence, which city officials described as a “toxic combination of antisemitism, hooliganism, and anger” over the war in Gaza, Israel and elsewhere in the Middle East.

The Home Office was briefed that restrictions on visiting fans might be imposed last week, but the BBC understands officials were not informed about the final decision until Thursday.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said the revelation left the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, with “serious questions to answer” about why her department did “nothing” to avert the ban.

She said: “This is a weak government that fails to act when required.”

A source close to Mahmood told the BBC that “this is categorically untrue”.

“The first time the home secretary knew that the fans were being banned was last night,” they added.

Ayoub Khan, an independent MP for Birmingham Perry Barr who campaigned on a pro-Gaza platform in last year’s general election, had pushed for the match to be cancelled due to safety concerns and welcomed Thursday’s decision.

Khan told BBC Newsnight “nobody should tolerate antisemitism” but added: “We cannot conflate antisemitism when we look at what some of these fans did in Amsterdam in 2024. The vile chants of racism and hatred, the chants that there are no schools left in Gaza because there are no children left in Gaza.”

Andrew Fox, honorary president of Aston Villa’s Jewish Villans supporters’ club, said he thought Khan’s comments on Amsterdam were “shameful”, describing what happened there as a “premeditated Jew hunt”.

If bill is signed into law, Portugal would join several European countries which already have full or partial bans.

Portugal has approved a bill to ban face veils used for “gender or religious motives” in most public spaces that was proposed by the far-right Chega party and targets burqas and niqabs worn by Muslim women.

Under the bill, approved by parliament on Friday, proposed fines for wearing face veils in public would range from 200 to 4,000 euros ($234-$4,670). Forcing someone to wear one would be punishable with prison terms of up to three years.

Face veils would still be allowed in aeroplanes, diplomatic premises and places of worship.

According to local media reports, the bill is now set to be discussed in the parliamentary committee on Constitutional Affairs, Rights, Freedoms, and Guarantees – a body responsible for reviewing legislation related to constitutional matters.

If signed into law, it would put Portugal alongside European countries, including France, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands, which already have full or partial bans.

President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa could still veto the bill or send it to the Constitutional Court for checks.

During Friday’s parliamentary session, Chega leader Andre Ventura was confronted by several female lawmakers from left-wing parties who opposed the bill, but it passed with support from the centre-right coalition.

“We are today protecting female members of parliament, your daughters, our daughters, from having to use burqas in this country one day,” Ventura said.

In a post on X, he wrote: “Today is a historic day for our democracy and for the safeguarding of our values, our identity and women’s rights.”

Andreia Neto, a lawmaker from the ruling Social Democratic Party, said before the vote: “This is a debate on equality between men and women. No woman should be forced to veil her face.”

Two out of the 10 parties in parliament abstained from the vote – the People-Animals-Nature party, and the Together for the People party, according to local media reports.

The parties have suggested that the proposal incited discrimination.

Only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe cover their faces, and in Portugal such veils are very rare.

But full-face coverings such as niqabs and burqas have become a polarising issue across Europe, with some arguing that they symbolise gender discrimination or can represent a security threat and should be outlawed.

It’s almost a year into Trump 2.0 and MAGA has gone full “snowflake.”

You know the word, the one that for the past decade the right has wielded against liberals as the ultimate epithet — you know, because libs are supposedly feelings-obsessed, physically weak, morally delicate and whiny as all get out.

Well, if you’re MAGA in 2025, you should probably embrace the term like Trump hugging an American flag with a Cheshire Cat grin.

Because if you think, among other things, that Portland is “War ravaged” like Trump claims it is and the U.S. of A. has to send in the military, you truly are a snowflake.

It sure wasn’t the left that called for the firing of people who criticized one of their heroes in the wake of their tragic death. Or that revoked visas over it. Or cheered when a late-night talk show host was temporarily suspended after the FCC chairman threatened to punish his network, as Brendan Carr did to ABC when he told a podcaster Disney could mete out punishment to Jimmy Kimmel “the easy way or hard way.”

Which president complains any time someone doesn’t think they’re the greatest leader in human history? Threatens retribution against foes real and imagined every waking second? Whines like he’s a bottle of Chardonnay?

Trump even complained this week about a Time magazine cover photo that he proclaimed “may be the Worst of All Time.”

“They ‘disappeared’ my hair, and then had something floating on top of my head that looked like a floating crown, but an extremely small one. Really weird!” the king of MAGA-dom wrote on Truth Social.

Here’s guessing he’d have complained a little less if the “something” floating on the top of his head looked like a really, super-big crown.

President Trump speaks to reporters before boarding Air Force One prior to departure from Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on Sunday.

(Saul Loeb / AFP via Getty Images)

Watch out, Time magazine, Trump might send the Texas National Guard to your newsroom!

This is an administration that is forcing airports to run videos blaming the government shutdown on their opponents? What branch of the government just asked journalists to only publish preapproved information?

And always with the reacting to Democrat-led cities like Portland, Chicago and L.A. as if they’re Stalingrad during the siege.

Kristi Noem, Homeland Security secretary in August: “L.A. wouldn’t be standing today if President Trump hadn’t taken action then. That city would have burned down if left to the devices of the mayor and the governor of that state.”

Trump about Washington, D.C., over the summer as he issued an executive order to take over its police department in the wake of what he characterized as out-of-control crime: “It is a point of national disgrace that Washington, D.C., has a violent crime rate that is higher than some of the most dangerous places in the world.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to military brass he called in from across the world last month to declare the following: “No more beardos. The era of rampant and ridiculous shaving profiles is done.”

Welcome to our Snowflake Government. The way these people’s tough talk turns into waterworks at the slightest provocation, you’d think they were the ski slopes of Mt. Baldy come summertime.

Trump and his lackeys possess scary power and don’t hesitate to use it in the name of punishing enemies. But what betrays their inherent snowflake-ness is how much they cry about what they still don’t dominate and their continued use of brute force to try and subdue the slightest, well, slight.

The veritable pity party gnashes its teeth more and more as the months pass. Trump was so angry at the sight of people causing chaos over a relatively small area of downtown L.A. after mass raids swept Southern California in June — chaos that barely registered to what happens after a Dodgers World Series win — that he sent in the Marines.

His spokesperson, Karoline Leavitt, keeps describing any nasty look or bad word thrown at migra agents as proof of them suffering a supposedly unprecedented level of assault despite never offering any concrete proof.

The Southland’s acting U.S. attorney, Bill Essayli, accused an LAPD spokesperson last week of leaking information to The Times after one of my colleagues asked him about … wait for it … an upcoming press conference.

No part of the government melts faster, however, than the agency with the apropos acronym of ICE.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement and their fellow travelers across Homeland Security are Trump’s own Praetorian Guard, tasked with carrying out his deportation deluge. They’ve relished their months in the national spotlight cast by the federal government simultaneously as an unstoppable force and an immovable object. La migra continues to crash into neighborhoods and communities like a masked avalanche of tear gas and handcuffs, justice be damned.

But have you seen how they’re flailing in Chicago?

Illinois State Police clash with demonstrators by the ICE facility in Broadview, Ill., as tensions rise over prolonged protests targeting federal ICE operations in Chicago on Oct. 10.

(Jacek Boczarski / Anadolu via Getty Images)

They’re firing pepper balls at the heads of Presbyterian priests outside detention facilities and tackling middle-aged reporters.

Border Patrol sector chief Gregory Bovino, who thinks he’s Napoleon with a crew cut and an Appalachian drawl, has accused protester Cole Sheridan of causing an unspecified groin injury even though the government couldn’t provide any video evidence during a preliminary court hearing earlier this month.

Agents have set off tear gas canisters without giving a heads-up to Chicago police. They’re detaining people without giving them a chance to prove their citizenship until hours later.

All this because — wah, wah! — Windy City residents haven’t welcomed la migra as liberators.

Bovino and his ICE buddies keep whimpering to Trump that they need the National Guard to back them up because they supposedly can’t do their job despite being the ones armed and masked up and backed by billions of dollars in new funds.

That’s why the government is now pushing tech giants to crack down on how activists are organizing. In the past two weeks, Apple has taken down apps that tracked actions by ICE agents and a Chicago Facebook group that was a clearinghouse for migra sightings at the request of the Department of Justice.

On X, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi bragged that she “will continue engaging tech companies to eliminate platforms where radicals can incite imminent violence against federal law enforcement” despite offering no evidence whatsoever — because who needs facts in the face of Trump’s blizzard of lies?

Since the start of all this madness, I’ve seen the left offer a rejoinder to the snowflake charge: the slogan “ICE Melts,” usually accompanied by a drawing of the action at hand. It’s meant to inspire activists by reminding them that la migra is not nearly as mighty as the right makes them out to be.

That’s clever. But the danger of all these conservative snowflakes turning into a sopping mess the way they do over their perceived victimhood is that the resulting flood threatens to drown out a little thing we’d come to love over many, many, many years.

Democracy.

In the early days of President Trump’s second term, the U.S. appeared keen to cooperate with Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela’s authoritarian leader. Special envoy Ric Grenell met Maduro, working with him to coordinate deportation flights to Caracas, a prisoner exchange deal and an agreement allowing Chevron to drill Venezuelan oil.

Grenell told disappointed members of Venezuela’s opposition that Trump’s domestic goals took priority over efforts to promote democracy. “We’re not interested in regime change,” Grenell told the group, according to two sources familiar with the meeting.

But Marco Rubio, Trump’s secretary of State, had a different vision.

In a parallel call with María Corina Machado and Edmundo González Urrutia, two leaders of the opposition, Rubio affirmed U.S. support “for the restoration of democracy in Venezuela” and called González “the rightful president” of the beleaguered nation after Maduro rigged last year’s election in his favor.

Rubio, now also serving as national security advisor, has grown closer to Trump and crafted an aggressive new policy toward Maduro that has brought Venezuela and the United States to the brink of military confrontation.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio whispers to President Trump during a roundtable meeting at the White House on Oct. 8, 2025.

(Evan Vucci / Associated Press)

Grenell has been sidelined, two sources told The Times, as the U.S. conducts an unprecedented campaign of deadly strikes on suspected Venezuelan drug boats — and builds up military assets in the Caribbean. Trump said Wednesday that he has authorized the CIA to conduct covert action in the South American nation, and that strikes on land targets could be next.

“I think Venezuela is feeling the heat,” he said.

The pressure campaign marks a major victory for Rubio, the son of Cuban emigres and an unexpected power player in the administration who has managed to sway top leaders of the isolationist MAGA movement to his lifelong effort to topple Latin America’s leftist authoritarians.

“It’s very clear that Rubio has won,” said James B. Story, who served as ambassador to Venezuela under President Biden. “The administration is applying military pressure in the hope that somebody inside of the regime renders Maduro to justice, either by exiling him, sending him to the United States or sending him to his maker.”

In a recent public message to Trump, Maduro acknowledged that Rubio is now driving White House policy: “You have to be careful because Marco Rubio wants your hands stained with blood, with South American blood, Caribbean blood, Venezuelan blood,” Maduro said.

As a senator from Florida, Rubio represented exiles from three leftist autocracies — Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela — and for years he has made it his mission to weaken their governments. He says his family could not return to Cuba after Fidel Castro’s revolution seven decades ago. He has long maintained that eliminating Maduro would deal a fatal blow to Cuba, whose economy has been buoyed by billions of dollars in Venezuelan oil in the face of punishing U.S. sanctions.

In 2019, Rubio pushed Trump to back Juan Guaidó, a Venezuelan opposition leader who sought unsuccessfully to topple Maduro.

Rubio later encouraged Trump to publicly support Machado, who was barred from the ballot in Venezuela’s 2024 presidential election, and who last week was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her pro-democracy efforts. González, who ran in Machado’s place, won the election, according to vote tallies gathered by the opposition, yet Maduro declared victory.

Rubio was convinced that only military might would bring change to Venezuela, which has been plunged into crisis under Maduro’s rule, with a quarter of the population fleeing poverty, violence and political repression.

But there was a hitch. Trump has repeatedly vowed to not intervene in the politics of other nations, telling a Middle Eastern audience in May that the U.S. “would no longer be giving you lectures on how to live.”

Denouncing decades of U.S. foreign policy, Trump complained that “the interventionalists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand.”

To counter that sentiment, Rubio painted Maduro in a new light that he hoped would spark interest from Trump, who has been fixated on combating immigration, illegal drugs and Latin American cartels since his first presidential campaign.

Venezuelan presidential candidate Edmundo González Urrutia, right, and opposition leader María Corina Machado greet supporters during a campaign rally in Valencia before the country’s presidential election in 2024.

(Ariana Cubillos / Associated Press)

Going after Maduro, Rubio argued, was not about promoting democracy or a change of governments. It was striking a drug kingpin fueling crime in American streets, an epidemic of American overdoses, and a flood of illegal migration to America’s borders.

Rubio tied Maduro to Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan street gang whose members the secretary of State says are “worse than Al Qaeda.”

“Venezuela is governed by a narco-trafficking organization that has empowered itself as a nation state,” he said during his Senate confirmation hearing.

Meanwhile, prominent members of Venezuela’s opposition pushed the same message. “Maduro is the head of a narco-terrorist structure,” Machado told Fox News last month.

Security analysts and U.S. intelligence officials suggest that the links between Maduro and Tren de Aragua are overblown.

A declassified memo by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence found no evidence of widespread cooperation between Maduro’s government and the gang. It also said Tren de Aragua does not pose a threat to the U.S.

The gang does not traffic fentanyl, and the Drug Enforcement Administration estimates that just 8% of cocaine that reaches the U.S. passes through Venezuelan territory.

Still, Rubio’s strategy appears to have worked.

In July, Trump declared that Tren de Aragua was a terrorist group led by Maduro — and then ordered the Pentagon to use military force against cartels that the U.S. government had labeled terrorists.

Trump deployed thousands of U.S. troops and a small armada of ships and warplanes to the Caribbean and has ordered strikes on five boats off the coast of Venezuela, resulting in 24 deaths. The administration says the victims were “narco-terrorists” but has provided no evidence.

Elliott Abrams, a veteran diplomat who served as special envoy to Venezuela in Trump’s first term, said he believes the White House will carry out limited strikes in Venezuela.

“I think the next step is that they’re going to hit something in Venezuela — and I don’t mean boots on the ground. That’s not Trump,” Abrams said. “It’s a strike, and then it’s over. That’s very low risk to the United States.”

He continued: “Now, would it be nice if that kind of activity spurred a colonel to lead a coup? Yeah, it would be nice. But the administration is never going to say that.”

Even if Trump refrains from a ground invasion, there are major risks.

“If it’s a war, then what is the war’s aim? Is it to overthrow Maduro? Is it more than Maduro? Is it to get a democratically elected president and a democratic regime in power?” said John Yoo, a professor of law at UC Berkeley, who served as a top legal advisor to the George W. Bush administration. “The American people will want to know what’s the end state, what’s the goal of all of this.”

“Whenever you have two militaries bristling that close together, there could be real action,” said Christopher Sabatini, a senior fellow for Latin America at the think tank Chatham House. “Trump is trying to do this on the cheap. He’s hoping maybe he won’t have to commit. But it’s a slippery slope. This could draw the United States into a war.”

Sabatini and others added that even if the U.S. pressure drives out Maduro, what follows is far from certain.

Venezuela is dominated by a patchwork of guerrilla and paramilitary groups that have enriched themselves with gold smuggling, drug trafficking and other illicit activities. None have incentive to lay down arms.

And the country’s opposition is far from unified.

Machado, who dedicated her Nobel Prize to Trump in a clear effort to gain his support, says she is prepared to govern Venezuela. But there are others — both in exile and in Maduro’s administration — who would like to lead the country.

Machado supporter Juan Fernandez said anything would be better than maintaining the status quo.

“Some say we’re not prepared, that a transition would cause instability,” he said. “How can Maduro be the secure choice when 8 million Venezuelans have left, when there is no gasoline, political persecution and rampant inflation?”

Fernandez praised Rubio for pushing the Venezuela issue toward “an inflection point.”

What a difference, he said, to have a decision-maker in the White House with family roots in another country long oppressed by an authoritarian regime.

“He perfectly understands our situation,” Fernandez said. “And now he has one of the highest positions in the United States.”

Linthicum reported from Mexico City, Wilner from Dallas and Ceballos from Washington. Special correspondent Mery Mogollón in Caracas contributed to this report.

Past visits by top leaders to Yasukuni, which honours convicted war criminals, have angered Japan’s neighbours.

The new leader of Japan’s governing party, Sanae Takaichi, has decided not to visit a controversial World War II shrine in Tokyo, as uncertainty remains over whether she will be appointed prime minister ahead of a visit by United States President Donald Trump before the end of the month.

Takaichi, 64, seen as an arch-conservative from the right of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), has previously visited the Yasukuni Shrine, including as a government minister.

However, Takaichi opted on Friday to send an offering, and reports said she was likely to refrain from visiting in order not to antagonise the country’s neighbours whom Imperial Japan had occupied and committed atrocities against in the first half of the 20th century.

Past visits by top leaders to Yasukuni, which honours convicted war criminals, have angered China and South Korea. The last visit by a Japanese premier was in 2013 by the late Shinzo Abe, Takaichi’s mentor.

Takaichi’s decision not to visit the shrine came as Japan’s former Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama, best known for making a statement apologising for atrocities Japan committed in Asia over the course of World War II, died aged 101.

Murayama, in office from 1994 to 1996, issued the 1995 “Murayama statement” on the 50th anniversary of Japan’s unconditional surrender.

Murayama died on Friday at a hospital in his hometown, Oita, in southwestern Japan, according to a statement from Mizuho Fukushima, head of Japan’s Social Democratic Party (SDP).

Hiroyuki Takano, secretary-general of the SDP in Oita, told the AFP news agency he had been informed that Murayama died of old age.

Political wrangling

Takaichi became LDP leader on October 4, but her aim to become Japan’s first female prime minister was derailed after the LDP’s coalition partner of 26 years, the Komeito party, pulled the plug on their alliance last week.

The LDP is now in talks about forming a different alliance, boosting Takaichi’s chances of becoming premier in a parliamentary vote that local media reports said will likely happen on Tuesday.

The clock is ticking for Takaichi to become Japan’s fifth prime minister in as many years with Trump’s impending visit.

Details of Washington and Tokyo’s trade deal remain unresolved and Trump – who had warm relations with Abe in his first term – wants Japan to stop Russian energy imports and boost defence spending.

Komeito said that the LDP has failed to tighten rules on party funding following a damaging slush fund scandal involving dodgy payments of millions of dollars.

The LDP this week began talks on forming a new coalition with the Japan Innovation Party instead.

The two parties would be two seats short of a majority but the alliance would still likely ensure that Takaichi succeeds in becoming premier.

A spanner in the works could be if opposition parties agreed on a rival candidate but talks earlier this week appeared to make little headway.

More talks were due to take place on Friday.

It was a major talking point in the final months of Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign: If re-elected, the Republican leader pledged to make in vitro fertilisation (IVF) free for those seeking to get pregnant.

“Under the Trump administration, we are going to be paying for that treatment,” Trump told NBC News last year, adding that his plans would cover “all Americans that get it, all Americans that need it”.

“We’re going to be paying for that treatment. Or we’re going to be mandating that the insurance company pay.”

While that campaign promise remains unrealised, the Trump administration took a step on Thursday to make the procedure more accessible.

Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump announced a collaboration with the company EMD Serono, a subsidiary of the pharmaceutical giant Merck, to offer lower-priced fertility drugs on his upcoming prescription marketplace, TrumpRx.

“ EMD Serono, the largest fertility drug manufacturer in the world, has agreed to provide massive discounts to all fertility drugs they sell in the United States, including the most popular drug of all, the IVF drug Gonal-F,” Trump told reporters.

Expanding TrumpRx project

The announcement marks the third major pharmaceutical company to agree to provide discounted products on TrumpRx, a direct-to-consumer website slated to launch in 2026.

Trump had threatened drug companies in September with a 100-percent tariff on their products unless they started to build manufacturing facilities in the US.

But that tariff was postponed after the pharmaceutical manufacturer Pfizer announced a deal with TrumpRx on September 30, a day before the tax hike was slated to hit. AstraZeneca, another power player in the industry, followed suit last week.

In Thursday’s news conference, Trump once again credited his tariff threats with bringing the companies to heel.

“They’ll bring a significant portion of their drug manufacturing back to the United States,” Trump said of EMD Serono. “That’s for a lot of reasons, but primarily because of the election result, November 5th, and maybe most importantly because of the tariffs.”

In addition to the forthcoming discounts from EMD Serono, Trump indicated he would encourage insurance companies to expand coverage for IVF treatments.

In the US, laws vary by state as to whether health insurance must cover fertility treatments like IVF. Trump touted the guidance as a breakthrough in making reproductive healthcare more accessible and affordable.

“Effective immediately, for the first time ever, we will make it legal for companies to offer supplemental insurance plans specifically for fertility,” Trump said.

“ Americans will be able to opt in, do specialised coverage, just as they get vision and dental insurance.”

Those plans typically come at an extra fee, on top of regular health insurance rates. That raises questions about how effective the new insurance guidance will be.

More than 26 million Americans – roughly 8 percent of the population – are uninsured, according to US census data. Even more lack access to supplemental policies for dental and vision care.

The American Dental Association, an industry professional group, estimates more than 22 percent of US adults lacked dental insurance as of 2021.

Trump seemed to acknowledge gaps in coverage during his remarks, but he maintained that the new government guidance would offer some adults a pathway to parenthood.

“They’re going to get fertility insurance for the first time,” he continued. “So I don’t know.  I don’t know how well these things are covered.”

A campaign-trail controversy

The Republican leader also credited a 2024 court decision with propelling him to focus on IVF treatments.

IVF involves removing eggs from a patient’s ovaries and fertilising them in a laboratory environment. These eggs are then inserted into the patient’s uterus or frozen for future use.

The use of such treatments is on the rise in the US: In 2023, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine found that 95,860 babies were born as the result of an IVF procedure.

But in February the following year, a ruling from the Alabama Supreme Court prompted fears about whether IVF would remain widely available.

In a novel decision, the court – located in a strongly conservative state – ruled that embryos created through IVF could be considered children under state law, thereby making the destruction of such embryos potentially a criminal act.

The decision sent shockwaves throughout the IVF industry, with clinics in Alabama temporarily suspending services. Discarding embryos is standard practice in IVF: Generally, more eggs are collected than will ultimately be used, and not all fertilised eggs will be suitable to start a pregnancy.

Within weeks, the Alabama state legislature stepped in to shield IVF providers from prosecution. But the ruling created lingering concerns that IVF could be targeted by anti-abortion rights advocates.

On Thursday, Trump revisited that controversy, which happened in the midst of his re-election bid. He called the court’s ruling a “bad decision” and credited it with helping to make him aware of IVF.

“I wasn’t that familiar with it,” Trump said. “Now I think I’ve sort of become the father.”

Senator Katie Britt, who represents the state of Alabama, echoed that evaluation, praising Trump for taking steps to protect IVF.

Thursday was not the first time Trump has gestured at lowering costs for the fertility procedure. In February, he also issued a presidential order calling on his administration to start “protecting IVF access and aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs”.

“ Mr President, this is the most pro-IVF thing that any president in the history of the United States of America has done,” Britt told Trump on Thursday. “You are the reason why the Republican Party is now the party of parents.”

Addressing the US birthrate

Trump, who previously called himself the “fertilisation president”  during a Women’s History Month event, also framed the new measures as progress towards increasing the US birthrate.

In April, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that fertility remained at a historic low, rising slightly in 2024 to 1.6 births per woman.

Those numbers have fuelled a push within the Republican Party to ignite a new baby boom, with right-wing figures like tech billionaire Elon Musk going so far as to call the low birthrate “the biggest danger civilization faces by far”.

At Thursday’s meeting, top figures in the Trump administration echoed those concerns, including Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr.

“We are below replacement right now,” he said, referencing the number of births needed to outpace deaths in the US. “That is a national security threat to our country.”

Mehmet Oz, who serves under Kennedy as the administrator for Medicaid services, took a more positive approach, framing the new IVF guidance as the beginning of a reversal of that downward trend.

“There are going to be a lot of Trump babies,” Oz quipped. “I think that’s probably a good thing. But it turns out the fundamental creative force in society is about making babies.”

But it remains to be seen if insurance companies and employers will follow through with Trump’s guidance to offer supplemental fertility benefits for adults seeking to get pregnant.

Most Americans receive health insurance as part of their workplace benefits. Senator Britt argued the guidelines would put employers “in the driver’s seat”, allowing them to shape the benefits they offer to their workers.

“Employers are going to be able to decide how to cover the root causes of infertility, things like obesity and metabolic health, and other things that are impacting infertility,” she said. “We want employers to be the ones that can make those decisions, not the government.”

But for Democrats, the guidance fell far short of what Trump promised on the campaign trail.

“Donald Trump lied when he pledged to make IVF available to every family for FREE,” Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts posted afterwards on social media. “It’s insulting – a broken promise.”

GREENBELT, Md. — Former Trump administration national security advisor John Bolton was charged Thursday in a federal investigation into the potential mishandling of classified information, a person familiar with the matter told the Associated Press.

The investigation into Bolton, who served for more than a year in President Trump’s first administration before being fired in 2019, burst into public view in August when the FBI searched his home in Maryland and his office in Washington for classified records he may have held onto from his years in government.

The existence of the indictment was confirmed to the AP by a person familiar with the matter who could not publicly discuss the charges and spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity.

Agents during the August search seized multiple documents labeled “classified,” “confidential” and “secret” from Bolton’s office, according to previously unsealed court filings. Some of the seized records appeared to concern weapons of mass destruction, national “strategic communication” and the U.S. mission to the United Nations, the filings stated.

The indictment sets the stage for a closely watched court case centering on a longtime fixture in Republican foreign policy circles who became known for his hawkish views on American power and who after leaving Trump’s first government emerged as a prominent and vocal critic of the president. Though the investigation that produced the indictment began before Trump’s second term, the case will unfold against the backdrop of broader concerns that his Justice Department is being weaponized to go after his political adversaries.

It follows separate indictments over the last month accusing former FBI Director James Comey of lying to Congress and New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James of committing bank fraud and making a false statement, charges they both deny. Both of those cases were filed in federal court in Virginia by a prosecutor Trump hastily installed in the position after growing frustrated that investigations into high-profile enemies had not resulted in prosecution.

The Bolton case, by contrast, was filed in Maryland by a U.S. attorney who before being elevated to the job had been a career prosecutor in the office.

Questions about Bolton’s handling of classified information date back years. He faced a lawsuit and a Justice Department investigation after leaving office related to information in a 2020 book he published, “The Room Where it Happened,” that portrayed Trump as grossly uninformed about foreign policy.

The Trump administration asserted that Bolton’s manuscript included classified information that could harm national security if exposed. Bolton’s lawyers have said he moved forward with the book after a White House National Security Council official, with whom Bolton had worked for months, said the manuscript no longer contained classified information.

A search warrant affidavit that was previously unsealed said a National Security Council official had reviewed the book manuscript and told Bolton in 2020 that it appeared to contain “significant amounts” of classified information, some at a top-secret level.

Bolton’s attorney Abbe Lowell has said that many of the documents seized in August had been approved as part of a pre-publication review for Bolton’s book. He said that many were decades old, from Bolton’s long career in the State Department, as an assistant attorney general and as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

The indictment is a dramatic moment in Bolton’s long career in government. He served in the Justice Department during President Reagan’s administration and was the State Department’s point man on arms control during George W. Bush’s presidency. Bolton was nominated by Bush to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, but the strong supporter of the Iraq war was unable to win Senate confirmation and resigned after serving 17 months as a Bush recess appointment. That allowed him to hold the job on a temporary basis without Senate confirmation.

In 2018, Bolton was appointed to serve as Trump’s third national security advisor. But his brief tenure was characterized by disputes with the president over North Korea, Iran and Ukraine.

Those rifts ultimately led to Bolton’s departure, with Trump announcing on social media in September 2019 that he had accepted Bolton’s resignation. Bolton subsequently criticized Trump’s approach to foreign policy and government in his 2020 book, including by alleging that Trump directly tied providing military aid to the country’s willingness to conduct investigations into Joe Biden, who was soon to be Trump’s Democratic 2020 election rival, and members of his family.

Trump responded by slamming Bolton as a “washed-up guy” and a “crazy” warmonger who would have led the country into “World War Six.” Trump also said at the time that the book contained “highly classified information” and that Bolton “did not have approval” for publishing it.

Tucker, Durkin Richer and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press. Tucker and Durkin Richer reported from Washington.

Jose Raul Mulino says the visa-removal policy is ‘not coherent’ with the ‘good relationship’ he hopes to have with the US.

Panama President Jose Raul Mulino said that someone at the United States Embassy has been threatening to cancel the visas of Panamanian officials.

His statements come as the administration of US President Donald Trump pressures Panama to limit its ties to China.

Responding to a reporter’s question at his weekly news conference, Mulino said — without offering evidence — that an official at the US Embassy is “threatening to take visas”, adding that such actions are “not coherent with the good relationship I aspire to maintain with the United States”. He did not name the official.

The US Embassy in Panama did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Trump administration has previously declined to comment on individual visa decisions.

But in September, the US Department of State said in a statement that the country was committed to countering China’s influence in Central America. It added that it would restrict visas for people who maintained relationships with China’s Communist Party or undermined democracy in the region on behalf of China.

Earlier this week, the Trump administration revoked the visas of six foreigners deemed by US officials to have made derisive comments or made light of the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk last month.

Similar cases have surfaced recently in the region. In April, former Costa Rica President and Nobel Peace Prize winner Oscar Arias said the US had cancelled his visa. In July, Vanessa Castro, vice president of Costa Rica’s Congress, said that the US Embassy told her her visa had been revoked, citing alleged contacts with the Chinese Communist Party.

Panama has become especially sensitive to the US-China tensions because of the strategically important Panama Canal.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited Panama in February on his first foreign trip as the top US diplomat and called for Panama to immediately reduce China’s influence over the canal.

Panama has strongly denied Chinese influence over canal operations but has gone along with US pressure to push the Hong Kong-based company that operated ports on both ends of the canal to sell its concession to a consortium.

Mulino has said that Panama will maintain the canal’s neutrality.

“They’re free to give and take a visa to anyone they want, but not threatening that, ‘If you don’t do something, I’ll take the visa,’” Mulino said Thursday.

He noted that the underlying issue — the conflict between the US and China — “doesn’t involve Panama”.