law

United States President Donald Trump has dismissed international law, saying only his “own morality” can curb the aggressive policies he is pursuing across the world after the abduction of Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro.

“I don’t need international law. I’m not looking to hurt people,” Trump told The New York Times on Thursday.

Asked whether he needs to abide by international law, Trump said he does, but it “depends what your definition of international law is”.

Trump has shown a willingness to use the brute force of the US military to achieve his foreign policy goals.

On Saturday, the US launched an early-morning attack on Venezuela, with explosions reported across the capital Caracas and at Venezuelan military bases.

US troops ultimately abducted Venezuelan President Maduro from Caracas in what critics say was a clear violation of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”.

The attack on Venezuela appears to have supercharged the belligerence of the US president, who received the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize Award last month.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, Trump said the US would “run” Venezuela and exploit the country’s vast oil reserves, though his administration has said it would cooperate with interim President Delcy Rodriguez.

Still, the Trump administration said it would “dictate” policy to the interim government and repeatedly threatened a “second wave” of military actions if US demands were disobeyed.

“If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro,” Trump said of Rodriguez in a Sunday interview with The Atlantic.

Earlier this week, Trump also suggested that the US may carry out a strike against Colombia’s left-wing President Gustavo Petro, and he has escalated his campaign to acquire the Danish territory of Greenland.

In June, Trump joined Israel’s unprovoked war against Iran, ordering the bombing of the country’s three main nuclear sites.

Trump aide Stephen Miller has criticised the post-World War II international order, saying that, from here forward, the US would “unapologetically” use its military force to secure its interests in the Western Hemisphere.

“We’re a superpower, and under President Trump, we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower,” Miller told CNN on Monday.

But experts warn that disregard for international law could have catastrophic consequences for the entire global community, including the US.

International law is the set of rules and norms that govern ties between states. It includes UN conventions and multilateral treaties.

Margaret Satterthwaite, the UN special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, told Al Jazeera earlier this week that US statements dismissing international law are “extremely dangerous”.

Satterthwaite said she is concerned the world may be returning to an “age of imperialism”, stressing that degrading international laws may embolden Washington’s adversaries to launch their own acts of aggression.

“International law cannot stop states from doing terrible things if they’re committed to doing them,” Satterthwaite told Al Jazeera.

“And I think that the world is aware of all of the atrocities that have happened in Gaza recently, and despite efforts by many states and certainly by the UN to stop those atrocities, they continued. But I think we’re worse off if we don’t insist on the international law that does exist. We’ll simply be going down a much worse kind of slippery slope.”

Yusra Suedi, an assistant professor of international law at the University of Manchester, warned against the belief that “might is right” and the trend towards disregarding international law.

“It signals something very dangerous, in that it gives permission to other states to essentially follow suit – states such as China, who might be eyeing Taiwan, or Russia with respect to Ukraine,” Suedi told Al Jazeera.

Ian Hurd, a professor of political science at Northwestern University, said history illustrates the perils of US policies in Latin America.

The region has witnessed more than a century of US invasions and US-supported military coups, leading to instability, repression and human rights abuses.

“There are innumerable examples historically of this, from Panama to Haiti to Nicaragua to Chile in the ’70s and on and on,” Hurd told Al Jazeera.

He added that Trump’s policies in Venezuela are “in line” with how the US has previously attempted to decide how other parts of the Americas are governed.

“You can see that in every one of those cases, the US came to regret its choice to intervene. These never work well.”

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, one of the top Republican candidates running for California governor, met a woman sprawled on the sidewalk as he walked around Skid Row in downtown Los Angeles.

“I’m waiting for the sun to come out from the clouds. I’m sunbathing,” the woman said Tuesday morning, lying on her jacket on the cold concrete, denying that any drug use was taking place in the roughly 50-block swath of downtown Los Angeles. “This is what we do here in California.”

Bianco and Kate Monroe, chief executive of VetComm, talks with a woman on the sidewalk as they walk around of Skid Row.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

Bianco shook his head, and as he walked away said there was zero chance the woman was not high on methamphetamines or something else. He said it was immoral for the state’s leaders to allow people to live in such conditions, and pledged to clean up Skid Row within four years if he is elected governor in November.

“Why on God’s green earth, why would we allow this to happen?” Bianco later said. “And why would you have something that you call Skid Row, that you just accept, instead of doing something to fix … these people’s lives.”

Bianco squarely blamed the problem on waste, fraud and mismanagement under Gov. Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and prior elected leaders, who he argued failed to effectively tackle the issue. He is among the critics who points to a 2024 state audit that found the state had spent $24 billion to combat homelessness over the prior five years without tracking the results.

A spokesman for Newsom disputed such characterizations of the spending.

“There is no ‘lost’ $24 billion for homelessness. All the money is accounted for,” Newsom spokesman Izzy Gardon said. “What the report found was that not all state programs required locals to report, at the time, how those dollars improved homelessness outcomes. Gov. Newsom has since changed the law to fix this longstanding issue.”

Bianco also pledged to use existing laws against drug dealing, human trafficking, prostitution and other crimes to clean up these blocks, while offering addicts and the mentally ill who are breaking the law the option of going to jail or being placed in treatment programs.

Democrats shot back that Bianco was not offering realistic approaches to an intractable problem.

Bianco talks with Antonio Fuller, left, and John Shepar.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

“Chad Bianco is the best example of an all-hat, no-cattle politician with tough talk and no solutions,” state Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks said. “That is not what California voters want in our next governor.”

Throughout his campaign, Bianco has leaned into his role as a law enforcement leader. On Tuesday, as his allies shot video after his visit to Skid Row, he pulled up the edge of his T-shirt to reveal his Riverside County sheriff badge.

Amid scenes of desperation, chaos and squalor, Bianco was surrounded by a gaggle of invited media.

Los Angeles Police Department patrol cars were frequently seen nearby as the group sidestepped feces, used condoms, sidewalk fires, open-air drug use and drug dealing, barely clothed women, and people screaming and cursing.

People make their way around Skid Row on Tuesday.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

Monroe talks with Emilio Marroquin.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

Bianco was accompanied by veteran and homeless advocate Kate Monroe, who handed the homeless envelopes containing $5 bills and cigarettes as encouragement to talk. Some did not take kindly to the offer.

“Get out of my face. Get out of my face. You’re offering me cigarettes,” the woman said. Monroe replied, ‘I’ll give you five bucks.” The woman repeated, “Get out of my face.”

But others were more receptive, including Emilio Marroquin.

The 42-year-old said he had started drinking as a teenager as he struggled with being gay in a Christian home. He didn’t come out until his father, a pastor, passed away. His drinking spiraled out of control, he said, leading friends and family to abandon him. After Marroquin ended up on the streets eight years ago, he said, he started using crystal meth and crack, and explained the splotchy wounds on his hand were the result of being beaten up for failing to pay drug debts.

After learning that Marroquin briefly lived in sober housing, Bianco asked him about the difficulties of transitioning from living on the streets to structured housing, and then spoke with a passing community service provider who identified herself as S.R.

“We need a new change. We need something other than what we’ve been hearing for the past, I don’t know, 20 years or longer,” she said, to which Bianco replied that she had “more courage, passion and commitment and a big heart than probably anyone to be able to come down here and do this over.”

Bianco greets a man who goes by Cigaretteman.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

The Riverside County sheriff’s appearance on Skid Row comes as the 2026 governor’s race is finally starting to see some energy.

A crowded field of prominent though little-known Democrats is competing to finish in the top two spots in the June primary. If they all remain in the race, the Democrats could splinter the vote and allow one of the far smaller number of top Republican candidates to win one of the spots.

Bianco’s top GOP rival, former Fox News commentator and British political strategist Steve Hilton, held a rainy-day news conference on Monday in front of the California Employment Development Department in San Francisco to highlight alleged fraud in state government.

Saying that Newsom has turned the state into “Califraudia,” Hilton and GOP controller candidate Herb Morgan called on the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal officials to investigate waste and fraud in state spending.

“This gets to that question that every Californian is asking: How is it that we have the highest taxes in the country? They’ve doubled the budget of the state of California nearly in the last five years, and everything is worse,” Hilton said. “We have the worst outcomes in America. How is that possible, that they spend so much and we get so little? … We are going to get to the bottom of this when we are elected.”

SEOUL, Jan. 7 (UPI) — The leader of South Korea’s main opposition People Power Party apologized Wednesday for former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s brief declaration of martial law last year, distancing the conservative party from the impeached ex-leader while pledging sweeping reforms aimed at broadening its political appeal ahead of upcoming local elections.

Rep. Jang Dong-hyeok, chairman of the People Power Party, delivered the apology during a press conference at party headquarters in Seoul, as Yoon awaits trial on insurrection charges stemming from the failed December 2024 move.

“The emergency martial law declared on December 3, 2024, was a wrongful measure that did not fit the situation,” Jang said. “It caused great confusion and inconvenience to our people and inflicted deep wounds on our party members who have defended the constitutional order of liberal democracy.”

Jang said the People Power Party bore a “heavy responsibility” for the episode, acknowledging that it failed to fulfill its role as a governing party. He was among 18 PPP lawmakers who rushed overnight to the National Assembly to vote down the decree, which was overturned within hours.

“I gravely acknowledge that responsibility and offer my deepest apology to the people,” he said.

Seeking to move beyond the fallout, Jang unveiled what he called a “Change to Win” initiative, outlining plans to rebuild the party around youth participation, expert-driven policymaking and expanded public outreach.

Proposed measures include mandatory youth nominations in upcoming local elections, new platforms to recruit outside policy experts and standing committees focused on labor, social welfare and generational issues.

The announcement comes less than five months before nationwide local elections scheduled for June 1, as the People Power Party looks to reassert itself as a viable alternative to the current administration of President Lee Jae Myung.

Jang also signaled a willingness to broaden the party’s political coalition, saying the PPP would work with other opposition parties to win future elections.

“If they agree with the values of liberal democracy and share the will to stop the dictatorship of the Lee Jae Myung regime, we will open our hearts and join forces with anyone,” he said.

Lee, a former opposition leader, won the presidency in June following Yoon’s removal from office, with his Democratic Party holding a commanding majority in parliament. Conservatives have accused Lee’s administration of overreach, arguing that the party’s legislative dominance has marginalized the opposition, while the government says its actions are necessary to ensure stability and advance voter-mandated reforms.

Jang said the PPP would press ahead with internal reforms, including stricter anti-corruption rules, centralized oversight of candidate nominations and a possible change of the party’s name.

Past political turmoil, including the martial law episode and Yoon’s impeachment, should be left to the courts and historians, Jang said, urging the party to focus instead on restoring public trust.

“We will cross the river of martial law and impeachment and move toward the future,” he said.

WASHINGTON — Approaching the fifth anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, the official plaque honoring the police who defended democracy that day is nowhere to be found.

It’s not on display at the Capitol, as is required by law. Its whereabouts aren’t publicly known, though it’s believed to be in storage.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, has yet to formally unveil the plaque. And the Trump administration’s Department of Justice is seeking to dismiss a police officers’ lawsuit asking that it be displayed as intended. The Architect of the Capitol, which was responsible for obtaining and displaying the plaque, said in light of the federal litigation, it cannot comment.

Determined to preserve the nation’s history, some 100 members of Congress, mostly Democrats, have taken it upon themselves to memorialize the moment. For months, they’ve mounted poster board-style replicas of the Jan. 6 plaque outside their office doors, resulting in a Capitol complex awash with makeshift remembrances.

“On behalf of a grateful Congress, this plaque honors the extraordinary individuals who bravely protected and defended this symbol of democracy on Jan. 6, 2021,” reads the faux bronze stand-in for the real thing. “Their heroism will never be forgotten.”

Jan. 6 void in the Capitol

In Washington, a capital city lined with monuments to the nation’s history, the plaque was intended to become a simple but permanent marker, situated near the Capitol’s west front, where some of the most violent fighting took place as rioters breached the building.

But in its absence, the missing plaque makes way for something else entirely — a culture of forgetting.

Visitors can pass through the Capitol without any formal reminder of what happened that day, when a mob of President Trump’s supporters stormed the building trying to overturn the Republican’s 2020 reelection defeat to Democrat Joe Biden. With memory left unchecked, it allows new narratives to swirl and revised histories to take hold.

Five years ago, the jarring scene watched the world over was declared an “insurrection” by the then-GOP leader of the Senate, while the House GOP leader at the time called it his “saddest day” in Congress. But those condemnations have faded.

Trump calls it a “day of love.” And Johnson, who was among those lawmakers challenging the 2020 election results, is now the House speaker.

“The question of January 6 remains – democracy was on the guillotine — how important is that event in the overall sweep of 21st century U.S. history,” said Douglas Brinkley, a professor of history at Rice University and noted scholar.

“Will January 6 be seen as the seminal moment when democracy was in peril?” he asked. Or will it be remembered as “kind of a weird one-off?”

“There’s not as much consensus on that as one would have thought on the fifth anniversary,” he said.

Memories shift, but violent legacy lingers

At least five people died in the riot and its aftermath, including Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt, who was fatally shot by police while trying to climb through a window toward the House chamber. More than 140 law enforcement officers were wounded, some gravely, and several died later, some by suicide.

All told, some 1,500 people were charged in the Capitol attack, among the largest federal prosecutions in the nation’s history. When Trump returned to power in January 2025, he pardoned all of them within hours of taking office.

Unlike the twin light beams that commemorated the Sept. 11, 2001, attack or the stand-alone chairs at the Oklahoma City bombing site memorial, the failure to recognize Jan. 6 has left a gap not only in memory but in helping to stitch the country back together.

“That’s why you put up a plaque,” said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa. “You respect the memory and the service of the people involved.”

Police sue over Jan. 6 plaque, DOJ seeks to dismiss

The speaker’s office over the years has suggested it was working on installing the plaque, but it declined to respond to a request for further comment.

Lawmakers approved the plaque in March 2022 as part of a broader government funding package. The resolution said the U.S. “owes its deepest gratitude to those officers,” and it set out instructions for an honorific plaque listing the names of officers “who responded to the violence that occurred.” It gave a one-year deadline for installation at the Capitol.

This summer, two officers who fought the mob that day sued over the delay.

“By refusing to follow the law and honor officers as it is required to do, Congress encourages this rewriting of history,” said the claim by officers Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges. “It suggests that the officers are not worthy of being recognized, because Congress refuses to recognize them.”

The Justice Department is seeking to have the case dismissed. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro and others argued Congress “already has publicly recognized the service of law enforcement personnel” by approving the plaque and displaying it wouldn’t alleviate the problems they claim to face from their work.

“It is implausible,” the Justice Department attorneys wrote, to suggest installation of the plaque “would stop the alleged death threats they claim to have been receiving.”

The department also said the plaque is required to include the names of “all law enforcement officers” involved in the response that day — some 3,600 people.

Makeshift memorials emerge

Lawmakers who’ve installed replicas of the plaque outside their offices said it’s important for the public to know what happened.

“There are new generations of people who are just growing up now who don’t understand how close we came to losing our democracy on Jan 6, 2021,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a member of the Jan. 6 committee, which was opposed by GOP leadership but nevertheless issued a nearly 1,000-page report investigating the run-up to the attack and the attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

Raskin envisions the Capitol one day holding tours around what happened. “People need to study that as an essential part of American history,” he said.

“Think about the dates in American history that we know only by the dates: There’s the 4th of July. There’s December 7th. There’s 9/11. And there’s January 6th,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-calif., who also served on the committee and has a plaque outside her office.

“They really saved my life, and they saved the democracy and they deserve to be thanked for it,” she said.

But as time passes, there are no longer bipartisan memorial services for Jan. 6. On Tuesday, the Democrats will reconvene members from the Jan. 6 committee for a hearing to “examine ongoing threats to free and fair elections,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York announced. It’s unlikely Republicans will participate.

The Republicans under Johnson have tapped Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia to stand up their own special committee to uncover what the speaker calls the “full truth” of what happened. They’re planning a hearing this month.

“We should stop this silliness of trying to whitewash history — it’s not going to happen,” said Rep. Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., who helped lead the effort to display the replica plaques.

“I was here that day so I’ll never forget,” he said. “I think that Americans will not forget what happened.”

The number of makeshift plaques that fill the halls is a testimony to that remembrance, he said.

Instead of one plaque, he said, they’ve “now got 100.”

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

Jan. 4 (UPI) — The International Bar Association on Sunday expressed concerns over the United States military intervention in Venezuela, stating it “raises serious questions under international law.”

The United States removed Venezuela’s authoritarian president, Nicolas Maduro, and arrested his wife on Saturday in a clandestine military operation following months of speculation amid a U.S. military build in the region.

The Trump administration has framed its military action as a law enforcement operation as Maduro was indicted in the United States on narco-terrorism and drug conspiracy charges in 2020.

While Maduro’s claim to the presidency has been challenged for years following widely disregarded elections, his arrest in Venezuela by the United States has drawn allegations, including from ally France, that his detainment is illegal under international law.

In a statement emailed to UPI on Sunday night, the International Bar Association, the world’s largest association of lawyers, said it “expresses concern” over the U.S. military action in the South American country, while citing the United Nations Charter, which prohibits intervention in matters within domestic jurisdiction, the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

“Measures or policies aimed at coercing political change in another state, when undertaken outside internationally recognized legal frameworks, are inconsistent with these obligations and risk normalizing conduct that international law was designed to prevent,” the IBA said.

“Even in the face of ongoing reprehensible conduct by state leaders, adherence to international law remains essential to preserving the integrity of the rules-based international order.”

Maduro is a long-time foe of U.S. President Donald Trump, who tried to oust the South American leader during his first term.

During his reign as Venezuela’s leader, Maduro has been accused of committing human rights violations against his own people, millions of whom have left the country over the last decade.

The IBA said it is aware of the allegations and conduct of Maduro’s regime that have led to widespread suffering and that they warrant “robust scrutiny and accountability both under domestic and international law, pursued through lawful mechanisms, including international or independent domestic judicial processes.”

“The IBA encourages a democratic transition in Venezuela that respects the rule of law,” it said.

The United States intervention in Venezuela to abduct President Nicolás Maduro is not law enforcement extended beyond its borders. It is international vandalism, plain and unadorned.

Power has displaced law, preference has replaced principle and force has been presented as virtue. This is not the defence of the international order. It is its quiet execution. When a state kidnaps the law to justify kidnapping a leader, it does not uphold order. It advertises contempt for it.

The forcible seizure of a sitting head of state by the US has no foothold in international law. None. It is not self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. It was not authorised by the UN Security Council. International law is many things, but it is not a roving moral warrant for great powers to perform regime change by abduction.

The claim that alleged human rights violations or trafficking in narcotics justifies the removal of a foreign head of state is particularly corrosive. There is no such rule. Not in treaty law. Not in custom law. Not in any serious jurisprudence.

Human rights law binds states to standards of conduct. It does not license unilateral military seizures by self-appointed global sheriffs. If that were the rule, the world would be in a permanent state of sanctioned chaos.

Indeed, if the US were serious about this purported principle, consistency would compel action far closer to home. By the logic now advanced, there would be a far stronger legal and moral case to seize Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, given the extensive documentation of mass civilian harm and credible allegations of genocide arising from Israel’s conduct in Gaza.

Yet no such logic is entertained. The reason is obvious. This is not law. It is power selecting its targets.

Regime change is not an aberration in American foreign policy. It is a habit with a long paper trail, from Iran in 1953 to Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973 and Iraq in 2003.

But the kidnapping of a sitting president marks a new low. This is precisely the conduct the post-1945 legal order was designed to prohibit. The ban on the use of force is not a technicality. It is the central nervous system of international law. To violate it without authorisation is to announce that rules bind only the weak.

The US understands this perfectly. It is acting anyway and in doing so is conducting the autopsy of the UN Charter system itself.

The rot does not stop there. Washington has repeatedly violated its obligations under the UN Charter and the UN Headquarters Agreement. It has denied entry to officials it disfavours. Preventing the Palestinian president from addressing the UN General Assembly in person last year was not a diplomatic faux pas. It was a treaty breach by the host state of the world’s principal multilateral institution.

The message was unmistakable. Access to the international system and adherence to the UN Charter is conditional on American approval.

The UN was designed to constrain power, not flatter it. Today, it increasingly fails to constrain serious international law violations. Paralysed by vetoes, bullied by its host and ignored by those most capable of violating its charter, the UN has drifted from the supposed guardian of legality to a stage prop for its erosion.

At some point, denial becomes self-deception. The system has failed in its core promise. Not because international law is naive but because its most powerful beneficiary has decided it is optional.

It is, therefore, time to say the unsayable: The UN should be permanently relocated away from a host state that treats treaty obligations as inconveniences. And the international community must begin a serious, sober conversation about an alternative global structure whose authority is not hostage to one capital, one veto or one currency – or a system whose powers supersede the UN precisely because the UN has been hollowed out from within.

Law cannot survive as a slogan. Either it restrains those who wield the most force, or it is merely rhetoric deployed against those who do not. What the US has done in Venezuela is not a defence of order. It is a confirmation that international order has been replaced by preference. And preferences, unlike law, recognise no limits.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

President Trump’s decision to send U.S. forces into Venezuela to capture President Nicolás Maduro and his wife and return them to the U.S. to face drug charges elicited condemnation from legal experts and other critics who argued that the operation — conducted without congressional or United Nations approval — clearly violated U.S. and international law.

Such criticism came from Democratic leaders, international allies and adversaries including Mexico, France, China and Russia, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and experts on international law and wartime powers.

“Nicolás Maduro was a thug and an illegitimate leader of Venezuela, terrorizing and oppressing its people for far too long and forcing many to leave the country. But starting a war to remove Maduro doesn’t just continue Donald Trump’s trampling of the Constitution, it further erodes America’s standing on the world stage and risks our adversaries mirroring this brazen illegal escalation,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) wrote on X.

A U.N. spokesman said Guterres was “deeply alarmed” by the U.S. operation and “deeply concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected.”

China’s foreign ministry said “such hegemonic acts of the U.S. seriously violate international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty,” while France’s foreign minister said the U.S. operation “contravenes the principle of the non-use of force that underpins international law.”

Republicans largely backed the president, with both House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) defending the operation as “decisive” and legally justified. However, other Republicans questioned Trump’s authority to act unilaterally, and raised similar concerns as Schiff about other world leaders citing Trump’s actions to justify their own aggression into neighboring nations.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) defended Trump’s actions as “great for the future of Venezuelans and the region,” but said he was concerned that “Russia will use this to justify their illegal and barbaric military actions against Ukraine, or China to justify an invasion of Taiwan.”

Trump defended the operation as a legitimate law enforcement action necessary to combat threats to the U.S. from Maduro, whom he accused of sending violent gang members and deadly drugs across the U.S. border on a regular basis.

“The illegitimate dictator Maduro was the kingpin of a vast criminal network responsible for trafficking colossal amounts of deadly and illicit drugs into the United States,” Trump said at a news conference. “As alleged in the indictment, he personally oversaw the vicious cartel known as Cartel de los Soles, which flooded our nation with lethal poison responsible for the deaths of countless Americans.”

However, Trump also made no secret of his interest in Venezuela’s oil. He said U.S. officials would be running Venezuela for the foreseeable future and ensuring that the nation’s oil infrastructure is rebuilt — to return wealth to the Venezuelan people, but also to repay U.S. businesses that lost money when Maduro took over the industry.

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi announced that Maduro, who had previously been indicted in the U.S. in 2020, is now the subject of a superseding indictment charging him, his wife and several others with narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices and conspiracy to possess such weapons and devices.

“They will soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts,” Bondi wrote on X.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio also framed the operation as a law enforcement effort, and defended the lack of advance notice to Congress.

“At its core, this was an arrest of two indicted fugitives of American justice, and the Department of War supported the Department of Justice in that job,” Rubio said. “It’s just not the kind of mission that you can pre-notify, because it endangers the mission.”

Trump said Congress could not be notified in advance because “Congress will leak, and we don’t want leakers.”

Michael Schmitt, an international law professor at the University of Reading in the United Kingdom and a professor emeritus of international law at the U.S. Naval War College, said Trump’s actions were a “clear violation” of international law.

He said the U.S. had no authority from the U.N. Security Council to conduct military operations in Venezuela, nor any legitimate justification to act in self-defense against an armed attack — which drug trafficking does not amount to.

Schmitt said the operation in Venezuela went far beyond a normal law enforcement action. But even if it were just a law enforcement action, he said, the U.S. would still lack legal authority under international law to engage in such activity on Venezuelan soil without the express permission of Venezuelan authorities — which it did not have.

“International law is clear. Without consent, you cannot engage in investigations or arrest or seizure of criminal property on another state’s territory,” he said. “That’s a violation of that state’s sovereignty.”

Because the operation was illegitimate from the start, the resulting occupation and interference in Venezuela’s oil industry are also unlawful, Schmitt said — regardless of whether the country’s nationalizing of U.S.-tied oil infrastructure was also unlawful, as some experts believe it was.

“That unlawfulness — of seizing U.S. business interests, nationalizing them, in a way that was not in accordance with the required procedures — is not a basis for using force,” Schmitt said.

Matthew Waxman, chair of the National Security Law Program at Columbia Law School, said that in the days ahead, he expects the Trump administration to try to justify its actions not just as a law enforcement operation, but “as part of a larger campaign to defend the United States against what it has characterized as an attack or invasion by Maduro-linked drug cartels.”

“All modern presidents have claimed broad constitutional power to use military force without congressional authorization, but that is always hotly contested. We’ll see if there’s much pushback in Congress in this case, which will probably depend a lot on how things now play out in Venezuela,” Waxman said. “Look at what happened last year in Iran: The president claimed the power to bomb nuclear program infrastructure, and when the operation didn’t escalate, congressional opponents backed off.”

Already on Saturday, some members of Congress were softening their initial skepticism.

Within hours of posting on X that he was looking forward “to learning what, if anything, might constitutionally justify this action in the absence of a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) had posted again, saying Rubio told him that the military action was “to protect and defend those executing the arrest warrant” for Maduro.

Such action “likely falls within the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect U.S. personnel from an actual or imminent attack,” Lee added.

Others remained more skeptical.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said Trump’s remarks about taking over the country and controlling its oil reserves did not seem “the least bit consistent” with Bondi’s characterization of the operation as a law enforcement effort.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., ended the first year of President Trump’s second term with a record of rulings that gave him much broader power to control the federal government.

In a series of fast-track decisions, the justices granted emergency appeals and set aside rulings from district judges who blocked Trump’s orders from taking effect.

With the court’s approval, the administration dismissed thousands of federal employees, cut funding for education and health research grants, dismantled the agency that funds foreign aid and cleared the way for the U.S. military to reject transgender troops.

But the court also put two important checks on the president’s power.

In April, the court twice ruled — including in a post-midnight order — that the Trump administration could not secretly whisk immigrants out of the country without giving them a hearing before a judge.

Upon taking office, Trump claimed migrants who were alleged to belong to “foreign terrorist” gangs could be arrested as “enemy aliens” and flown secretly to a prison in El Salvador.

Roberts and the court blocked such secret deportations and said the 5th Amendment entitles immigrants, like citizens, a right to “due process of law.” Many of the arrested men had no criminal records and said they never belonged to a criminal gang.
Those who face deportation “are entitled to notice and opportunity to challenge their removal,” the justices said in Trump vs. J.G.G.

They also required the government to “facilitate” the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been wrongly deported to El Salvador. He is now back in Maryland with his wife, but may face further criminal charges or efforts to deport him.

And last week, Roberts and the court barred Trump from deploying the National Guard in Chicago to enforce the immigration laws.

Trump had claimed he had the power to defy state governors and deploy the Guard troops in Los Angeles, Portland, Ore., Chicago and other Democratic-led states and cities.

The Supreme Court disagreed over dissents from conservative Justices Samuel A. Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.

For much of the year, however, Roberts and the five other conservatives were in the majority ruling for Trump. In dissent, the three liberal justices said the court should stand aside for now and defer to district judges.

In May, the court agreed that Trump could end the Biden administration’s special temporary protections extended to more than 350,000 Venezuelans as well as an additional 530,000 migrants who arrived legally from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua or Venezuela.

It was easier to explain why the new administration’s policies were cruel and disruptive rather than why they were illegal.

Trump’s lawyers argued that the law gave the president’s top immigration officials the sole power to decide on these temporary protections and that “no judicial review” was authorized.

Nonetheless, a federal judge in San Francisco twice blocked the administration’s repeal of the temporary protected status for Venezuelans, and a federal judge in Boston blocked the repeal of the entry-level parole granted to migrants under Biden.

The court is also poised to uphold the president’s power to fire officials who have been appointed for fixed terms at independent agencies.

Since 1887, when Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate railroad rates, the government has had semi-independent boards and commissions led by a mix of Republicans and Democrats.

But Roberts and the court’s conservatives believe that because these agencies enforce the law, they come under the president’s “executive power.”

That ruling may come with an exception for the Federal Reserve Board, an independent agency whose nonpartisan stability is valued by business leaders.

Georgetown Law Professor David Cole, the former legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the court has sent mixed signals.

“On the emergency docket, it has ruled consistently for the president, with some notable exceptions,” he said. “I do think it significant that it put a halt to the National Guard deployments and to the Alien Enemies Act deportations, at least for the time being. And I think by this time next year, it’s possible that the court will have overturned two of Trump’s signature initiatives — the birthright citizenship executive order and the tariffs.”

For much of 2025, the court was criticized for handing down temporary unsigned orders with little or no explanation.

That practice arose in 2017 in response to Trump’s use of executive orders to make abrupt, far-reaching changes in the law. In response, Democratic state attorneys and lawyers for progressive groups sued in friendly forums such as Seattle, San Francisco and Boston and won rulings from district judges who put Trump’s policies on hold.

The 2017 “travel ban” announced in Trump’s first week in the White House set the pattern. It suspended the entry of visitors and migrants from Venezuela and seven mostly-Muslim countries on the grounds that those countries had weak vetting procedures.

Judges blocked it from taking effect, and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, saying the order discriminated based on nationality.

A year later, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and upheld Trump’s order in a 5-4 ruling. Roberts pointed out that Congress in the immigration laws clearly gave this power to the president. If he “finds that the entry of … any class of aliens … would be detrimental,” it says, he may “suspend the entry” of all such migrants for as long as “he shall deem necessary.”

Since then, Roberts and the court’s conservatives have been less willing to stand aside while federal judges hand down nationwide rulings.

Democrats saw the same problem when Biden was president.

In April 2023, a federal judge in west Texas ruled for anti-abortion advocates and decreed that the Food and Drug Administration had wrongly approved abortion pills that can end an early pregnancy. He ordered that they be removed from the market before any appeals could be heard and decided.

The Biden administration filed an emergency appeal. Two weeks later, the Supreme Court set aside the judge’s order, over dissents from Thomas and Alito.

The next year, the court heard arguments and then threw out the entire lawsuit on the grounds that abortion foes did not have standing to sue.

Since Trump returned to the White House, the court’s conservative majority has not deferred to district judges. Instead, it has repeatedly lifted injunctions that blocked Trump’s policies from taking effect.

Although these are not final rulings, they are strong signs that the administration will prevail.

But Trump’s early wins do not mean he will win on some of his most disputed policies.

In November, the justices sounded skeptical of Trump’s claim that a 1977 trade law, which did not mention tariffs, gave him the power to set these import taxes on products coming from around the world.

In the spring, the court will hear Trump’s claim that he can change the principle of birthright citizenship set in the 14th Amendment and deny citizenship it to newborns whose parents are here illegally or entered as visitors.

Rulings on both cases will be handed down by late June.

Listening to the usual legacy media suspects, one might think 2025 was an apocalyptic wasteland of sorts — an authoritarian fever dream brought on by the return of Donald J. Trump to the Oval Office. The reality looked very different. This past year was, in many ways, a pretty great and clarifying one. Let’s take stock of what happened when our government remembered whom it serves, as well as what unfinished business remains as we flip the calendar.

First, the obvious: Political sanity was restored to the nation’s capital. After years of leftist elite-driven chaos — wide-open borders, hyper-vindictive lawfare, fecklessness on the world stage and more — the nation has begun to revert back to first principles: national sovereignty, law and order, and strong leadership abroad. Under Trump, the United States has once again acted like a real nation-state that pursues its real interests — not a nongovernmental organization with a nagging guilt complex.

That reorientation has paid huge dividends. On immigration, the Biden-era invasion at the southern border has tapered by more than 90%. On energy, a renewed embrace of domestic production has led to the lowest average national gas prices in nearly five years. Violent crime, thanks to Trump’s law enforcement operations and innovative use of the National Guard, has dramatically fallen: Murders decreased by nearly 20% from 2024, and robbery and burglary also saw double-digit percentage decreases. Abroad, allies and adversaries alike recalibrated to the reality that the White House once again means what it says.

Still, work always remains. Here, then, is my 2026 wish list.

Peace in Eastern Europe

The Russia-Ukraine war has gone on far, far too long. The Trump administration has exerted tremendous diplomatic effort trying to orchestrate a peace deal, which remains elusive. A durable peace — one that halts the senseless slaughter on both sides, respects Ukrainian sovereignty and accommodates legitimate Russian concerns, and avoids a wider great-power conflagration — should be a paramount Trump administration foreign policy goal in 2026. Russia is the invader and Vladimir Putin is the greater obstacle to a lasting peace, but both sides need to make painful — if, frustratingly, also painfully obvious — concessions.

Victory on birthright citizenship

Back home, a consequential legal battle now sits before the U.S. Supreme Court: the Trump administration’s righteous challenge to the erroneous practice of constitutionally “required” birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of noncitizens. The notion that the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, was meant to constitutionalize a global human trafficking magnet — granting automatic citizenship to all children born here, including those whose parents entered the country illegally — is indefensible as a matter of plain constitutional text, the congressional history in the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, and basic common sense. Indeed, birthright citizenship has been nothing short of ruinous for the United States. A Trump administration victory would restore Congress’s rightful authority over circumscribing citizenship and remove a longstanding incentive for illegal immigration.

Improved affordability and housing costs

Legal victories mean relatively little if ordinary Americans continue to feel like they are getting squeezed. Improved affordability must be front and center in 2026 — from the federal level down to states and localities. The cost of living is not an economic abstraction; it affects rent, groceries, child care and the difficulty of buying a first home. Housing, in particular, demands attention. Housing policy should reward supply, not suffocate it — cutting red tape and burdensome construction fees, reforming zoning incentives, and curtailing the inflationary spending that puts upward pressure on mortgage rates. A nation where young families cannot afford to put down roots is a nation courting decline — the very antithesis of Trumpian restoration.

Justice for Minnesota fraud scandal

The burgeoning fraud scandal over state and federal funds for child care in Minnesota, including at businesses run by Somali Americans — astonishing in scale — has become a test case for whether the rule of law still applies when politics get uncomfortable. Justice means following the facts wherever they lead: recovering stolen taxpayer dollars and holding wrongdoers and abettors legally accountable without fear or favor. To wit, on the subject of abettors: What did Gov. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and other prominent Minnesota politicians know, and when did they know it? Moreover, what did Kamala Harris — who picked Walz as her 2024 presidential running mate — know, and when did she know it? The Biden administration and the Walz administration began investigating these fraud allegations years ago, and the American people deserve answers to all these questions.

Tamed Communist China

Finally, no wish list can be complete without confronting the central geopolitical challenge of our age: that of Communist China. Simply put, Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party, who just presided over their largest live-fire military exercises around Taiwan, must be meaningfully deterred in the Indo-Pacific. That means maintaining a combative tariff posture, implementing as much economic decoupling as is feasible and emboldening key regional allies — such as Japan — who share America’s interest in freedom of maritime navigation and diminished Chinese hegemony. Decades from now, Trump’s presidential legacy will be partially defined by how he handled the China challenge. Now is not the time to take the foot off the gas pedal.

This past year showed what is possible when Washington rejects the politics of managed decline and reembraces the best of the American tradition and way of life. Let us hope we will see more — a lot more — of that same success in this new year.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. X: @josh_hammer

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice has expanded its review of documents related to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein to 5.2 million as it also increases the number of attorneys trying to comply with a law mandating release of the files, according to a person briefed on a letter sent to U.S. attorneys.

The figure is the latest estimate in the expanding review of case files on Epstein and his longtime girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell that has run more than a week past a deadline set in law by Congress.

The Justice Department has more than 400 attorneys working on the review, but does not expect to release more documents until Jan. 20 or 21, according to the person briefed on the letter who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it.

The White House did not dispute the figures laid out in the email, and pointed to a statement from Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general who said the administration’s review was an “all-hands-on-deck approach.”

Blanche said Wednesday that lawyers from the Justice Department in Washington, the FBI, the Southern District of Florida and the Southern District of New York are working “around the clock” to review the files. The additional documents and lawyers related to the case were first reported by the New York Times.

“We’re asking as many lawyers as possible to commit their time to review the documents that remain,” Blanche said. “Required redactions to protect victims take time but they will not stop these materials from being released.”

Still, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi is facing pressure from Congress after the Justice Department’s rollout of information has lagged behind the Dec. 19 deadline to release the information.

“Should Attorney General Pam Bondi be impeached?” Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who helped lead the effort to pass the law mandating the document release, asked on social media this week.

Democrats also are reviewing their legal options as they continue to seize on an issue that has caused cracks in the Republican Party and at times flummoxed President Trump’s administration.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said on social media that the latest figures from the Department of Justice “shows Bondi, Blanche, and others at the DOJ have been lying to the American people about the Epstein files since day one” and pointed out that the documents released so far represent a fraction of the total.

Groves and Kim write for the Associated Press.

Isiah Whitlock Jr., best known for his role in HBO’s “The Wire” and his collaborations with director Spike Lee in films such as “BlacKkKlansman” and “Da 5 Bloods,” has died. He was 71.

Whitlock’s manager, Brian Liebman, shared news of his client’s death in an Instagram post on Tuesday.

“It is with tremendous sadness that I share the passing of my dear friend and client Isiah Whitlock Jr.,” Liebman wrote. “If you knew him — you loved him. A brilliant actor and even better person. May his memory forever be a blessing. Our hearts are so broken. He will be very, very missed.”

Liebman told Deadline that Whitlock died peacefully in New York after a short illness.

Born in South Bend, Ind., Whitlock had dreams of playing pro football. He told NPR in 2021 that, while playing at Southwest Minnesota State University, he got “banged up … concussions, broken ankles.”

“To me it just didn’t seem to make sense anymore. … I wandered by the theater department.” After nabbing a role in “The Crucible,” he said he’d been “working ever since.”

After graduating in 1976, Whitlock joined the American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco.

At the start of his career, the actor picked up roles in procedurals and dramas, including iterations of the “Law & Order” franchise, notably “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” and “Law & Order: Criminal Intent.”

He most famously left his mark on HBO’s “The Wire” as corrupt Maryland State Sen. Clay Davis, whose drawn-out, drawled profanity, “s—,” became a memorable element of the 60-episode crime drama.

After brief appearances on multiple short-lived TV series, including Fox’s “New Amsterdam,” ABC’s “The Unusuals,” CBS’ “Chaos,” and others, Whitlock made his HBO return with a recurring role on the political satire “Veep” as George Maddox, the secretary of defense and presidential candidate.

Whitlock also appeared on CBS shows “The Good Wife,” “Elementary,” FX’s “Louie,” “Atlanta,” Fox’s “Gotham,” NBC’s “The Carmichael Show” among many more. His final TV role was as Chief of Police Larry Dokes in Netflix’s 2025 mystery comedy drama “The Residence.”

On the big screen, Whitlock appeared in the black comedy horror film “Cocaine Bear” in 2023, as well as multiple movies directed by Lee, including “She Hate Me” (2004), “Chi-Raq” (2015), “BlacKkKlansman” (2018) and “Da 5 Bloods” (2020).

The director shared a photo of the two on his Instagram account, writing, “Today I learned of the passing of my dear beloved brother Isiah Whitlock. God Bless.”

Whitlock is slated for two posthumous releases, the 2026 Pixar animated film “Hoppers” and the Irish American film “The Body Is Water,” directed by Vicky Wight.

The Environmental Protection Agency under President Trump has cut federal limits on air and water pollution and promoted fossil fuels, a metamorphosis that clashes with the agency’s stated mission — to protect human health and the environment.

The administration says its actions will “unleash” the American economy, but environmentalists say the agency’s abrupt change in focus threatens to unravel years of progress on climate-friendly initiatives that could be hard or impossible to reverse.

“It just constantly wants to pat the fossil fuel business on the back and turn back the clock to a pre-Richard Nixon era” when the agency didn’t exist, said historian Douglas Brinkley.

A lot has happened this year at “Trump’s EPA,” as Administrator Lee Zeldin frequently calls the agency. Zeldin proposed overturning the landmark finding that climate change is a threat to human health. He pledged to roll back dozens of environmental regulations in “the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen.” He froze billions of dollars for clean energy and upended agency research.

Zeldin has argued the EPA can protect the environment and grow the economy at the same time. He announced “five pillars” to guide the EPA’s work; four were economic goals, including energy dominance — President Trump’s shorthand for more fossil fuels — and boosting the auto industry.

A former New York congressman who had a record as a moderate Republican on some environmental issues, Zeldin said his views on climate change have evolved. Many federal and state climate goals are unattainable in the near future — and come at a huge cost, he said.

“We should not be causing … extreme economic pain for an individual or a family” because of policies aimed at “saving the planet,” he told reporters at EPA headquarters in early December.

But scientists and experts say the EPA’s new direction comes at a cost to public health and would lead to far more pollutants in the environment, including mercury, lead and especially tiny airborne particles that can lodge in lungs. They also note higher emissions of greenhouse gases will worsen atmospheric warming that is driving more frequent, costly and deadly extreme weather.

Christine Todd Whitman, a longtime Republican who led the EPA under President George W. Bush, said watching Zeldin attack laws protecting air and water has been “just depressing.”

“It’s tragic for our country. I worry about my grandchildren, of which I have seven. I worry about what their future is going to be if they don’t have clean air, if they don’t have clean water to drink,” said Whitman, who joined a centrist third party in recent years.

The history behind EPA

The EPA was launched under Nixon in 1970 at a time when pollution was disrupting American life, some cities were suffocating in smog and industrial chemicals turned some rivers into wastelands. Congress passed laws then that remain foundational for protecting water, air and endangered species.

The agency’s aggressiveness has always seesawed depending on who occupies the White House. The Biden administration boosted renewable energy and electric vehicles, tightened restrictions on motor-vehicle emissions and proposed greenhouse gas limits on coal-fired power plants and oil and gas wells. Industry groups called rules overly burdensome and said the power plant rule would force many aging facilities to shut down. In response, many businesses shifted resources to meet the more stringent rules that are now being undone.

“While the Biden EPA repeatedly attempted to usurp the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law to impose its ‘Green New Scam,’ the Trump EPA is laser-focused on achieving results for the American people while operating within the limits of the laws passed by Congress,” EPA spokeswoman Brigit Hirsch said.

Zeldin’s list of targets is long

Zeldin has announced plans to abandon soot pollution rules, loosen rules around harmful refrigerants, limit wetland protections and weaken gas mileage rules. Meanwhile, he would exempt polluting industries and plants from federal emissions-reduction requirements.

Much of the EPA’s new direction aligns with Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation road map that argued the agency should gut staffing, cut regulations and end what it called a war on coal or other fossil fuels.

“A lot of the regulations that were put on during the Biden administration were more harmful and restrictive than in any other period. So that’s why deregulating them looks like EPA is making major changes,” said Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of Heritage’s Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment.

But Chris Frey, an EPA official under Biden, said the regulations Zeldin has targeted “offered benefits of avoided premature deaths, of avoided chronic illness … bad things that would not happen because of these rules.”

Matthew Tejada, a former EPA official under both Trump and then-President Biden who now works at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said of the revamped EPA: “I think it would be hard for them to make it any clearer to polluters in this country that they can go on about their business and not worry about EPA getting in their way.”

Zeldin also has shrunk EPA staffing by about 20% to levels last seen in the mid-1980s.

Justin Chen, president of the EPA’s largest union, called the staff cuts “devastating.” He cited the dismantling of research and development offices at labs across the country and the firing of employees who signed a letter of dissent opposing EPA cuts.

Relaxed enforcement and cutting staff

Many of Zeldin’s changes aren’t in effect yet. It takes time to propose new rules, get public input and finalize rollbacks.

It’s much faster to cut grants and ease up on enforcement, and Trump’s EPA is doing both. The number of new civil environmental actions is roughly one-fifth what it was in the first eight months of the Biden administration, according to the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project.

“You can effectively do a lot of deregulation if you just don’t do enforcement,” said Leif Fredrickson, visiting assistant professor of history at the University of Montana.

Hirsch said the number of legal filings isn’t the best way to judge enforcement because they require work outside the EPA and can bog staff down with burdensome legal agreements. She said the EPA is “focused on efficiently resolving violations and achieving compliance as quickly as possible” and not making demands beyond what the law requires.

EPA’s cuts have been especially hard on climate change programs and environmental justice, the effort to address chronic pollution that typically is worse in minority and poor communities. Both were Biden administration priorities. Zeldin dismissed staff and canceled billions in grants for projects that fell under the “diversity, equity and inclusion” umbrella, a Trump administration target.

Zeldin also spiked a $20-billion “green bank” set up under Biden’s landmark climate law to fund qualifying clean energy projects. The EPA chief argued the fund was a scheme to funnel money to Democratic-aligned organizations with little oversight — allegations a federal judge rejected.

Pat Parenteau, an environmental law expert and former director of the Environmental Law School at Vermont Law & Graduate School, said the EPA’s shift under Trump left him with little optimism for what he called “the two most awful crises in the 21st century”: biodiversity loss and climate disruption.

“I don’t see any hope for either one,” he said. “I really don’t. And I’ll be long gone, but I think the world is in just for absolute catastrophe.”

Phillis, John and Daly write for the Associated Press.

Dec. 26 (Asia Today) — A controversial revision to South Korea’s Information and Communications Network Act, driven through the National Assembly by the ruling Democratic Party, is facing a growing backlash not only from conservatives but also from within the broader progressive camp, with critics urging President Lee Jae-myung to exercise his veto.

The amendment, often dubbed the “anti-disinformation law,” passed the Assembly on Dec. 24 as the Democratic Party leveraged its 170-seat majority. However, smaller progressive allies – including the Progressive Party, the Basic Income Party and the Social Democratic Party – either opposed the bill or abstained, warning that it could violate constitutional protections on freedom of expression.

“The criteria for judging what constitutes harm to the public interest are unclear,” Sohn Sol, senior spokesperson for the Progressive Party, said in a statement on Wednesday. “There is a serious risk the law could be abused as a tool to arbitrarily suppress speech critical of those in power,” she said, calling on the president to return the bill to the Assembly.

During the plenary vote, Progressive Party lawmaker Jung Hye-kyung voted against the bill, while Sohn abstained. Lawmakers Yong Hye-in of the Basic Income Party and Han Chang-min of the Social Democratic Party also cast abstentions. Even Park Joo-min, a Democratic Party lawmaker, abstained, later saying that key provisions he had championed – including the complete repeal of criminal defamation for statements of fact and changes to complaint-based prosecution – were not included in the final version.

The revised law allows courts to award punitive damages of up to five times the assessed harm against media outlets or YouTubers found to have intentionally disseminated fabricated or manipulated information. It also empowers the Korea Communications Commission to impose fines of up to 10 billion won ($7.7 million) on those who repeatedly distribute content ruled to be false by the courts. Supporters argue the measures are necessary to dismantle profit-driven fake news operations.

Despite criticism from both opposition parties and parts of the progressive bloc, the Democratic Party has held firm. Party leader Jung Cheong-rae said “irresponsible freedoms that fuel chaos and profit from malicious agitation cannot be left unchecked,” while Supreme Council member Han Jun-ho dismissed warnings about chilled speech as “overblown.”

The main opposition People Power Party said it would seek legal remedies, including filing a jurisdictional dispute with the Constitutional Court, calling the law “an unconstitutional gag order that suffocates liberal democracy.” Floor leader Song Eon-seok urged President Lee to “immediately exercise his veto.”

Attention has also turned to the Justice Innovation Party, which played a swing role in the legislative process. While the party initially pushed alternative proposals – including limits on punitive damages claims by public officials and repeal of criminal defamation for factual statements – those demands were not fully reflected. The party ultimately backed the Democratic Party’s bill, citing future discussions on criminal law revisions, while securing amendments to strengthen defendants’ rights for journalists and other targets of lawsuits.

–Copyright by Asiatoday

NEW strict customs laws have gone into effect, allowing government officials to request tourists’ DNA in some cases.

The new biometric data collection started on December 26, just ahead of the new year. 

The new rule targets non-citizens entering or leaving the US, according to government documents seen by Reuters. 

Travelers will now be subjected to facial recognition photos at the airport to help match them against existing records.

Those facial recognition pictures will be stored for up to 75 years, according to the documents. 

Under the new law, Department of Homeland Security officials may request additional biometric information, including fingerprints or DNA, from non-citizens.

The updated security measures are meant to “deter the filing of frivolous claims and provide operational consistency,” according to the government.

The new biometric rules would also remove any age restrictions on facial recognition, meaning that any foreigner is now subject to the biometric measures.

Up until now, there were restrictions on who could be scanned using facial recognition.

Travelers under 14 years old and those over 79 years old were exempt from those requirements.

Biometric data has been collected from foreign visitors for years, but now the government is pushing to collect more information to tighten border security.

The new rules expand what officials are legally allowed to ask for. 

Select visitors planning to stay in the US for more than 29 days are now required to pay a $30 fee.

Those who refuse to pay the fee and be fingerprinted could be hit with a $5,000 fine.

The new rules come one day before one of the busiest travel days of the year, according to United Airlines. 

The popular airline said that December 27 is expected to be a record-breaking day in the winter travel season.

Travelers should brace for longer security lines and make sure everything they have complies with TSA rules and restrictions. 

“You will probably be waiting an extra-long time in the security line this Christmas,” Air passenger rights expert Ivaylo Danailov, CEO of SkyRefund, warned.

“There are going to be many more people than normal carrying much more stuff than usual for the Christmas season, both of which result in longer security waits.”

Most importantly, Danailov urged travelers to “check the TSA’s website” before they fly.

“Unfortunately for Christmas travellers, this scrutiny also extends to wrapped goods,” he said.

“It doesn’t matter what you have wrapped, or how nicely, the TSA will unwrap anything to get a good look at it and are not always gentle in the process.”

Algeria’s parliament unanimously passed a law declaring France’s colonisation a crime. Lawmakers celebrated in the chamber as they demanded an apology, reparations and assigned France legal responsibility for the harms caused during colonial rule.

NEW YORK — A planned Christmas Eve jazz concert at the Kennedy Center, a holiday tradition dating back more than 20 years, has been canceled. The show’s host, musician Chuck Redd, says that he called off the performance in the wake of the White House announcing last week that President Trump’s name would be added to the facility.

As of Friday, the building’s facade reads The Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts. According to the White House, the president’s handpicked board approved the decision, which scholars have said violates the law. Trump had been suggesting for months he was open to changing the center’s name.

“When I saw the name change on the Kennedy Center website and then hours later on the building, I chose to cancel our concert,” Redd told the Associated Press in an email Wednesday. Redd, a drummer and vibraphone player who has toured with everyone from Dizzy Gillespie to Ray Brown, has been presiding over holiday “Jazz Jams” at the Kennedy Center since 2006, succeeding bassist William “Keter” Betts.

The Kennedy Center did not immediately respond to email seeking comment. The center’s website lists the show as canceled.

President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, and Congress passed a law the following year naming the center as a living memorial to him. Kennedy niece Kerry Kennedy has vowed to remove Trump’s name from the building once he leaves office and former House historian Ray Smock is among those who say any changes would have to be approved by Congress.

The law explicitly prohibits the board of trustees from making the center into a memorial to anyone else, and from putting another person’s name on the building’s exterior.

Trump, a Republican, has been deeply involved with the center named for an iconic Democrat after mostly ignoring it during his first term. He has forced out its leadership, overhauled the board while arranging for himself to head it and hosted this year’s Kennedy Center honors, breaking a long tradition of presidents mostly serving as spectators. The changes at the Kennedy Center are part of the president’s larger mission to fight “woke” culture at federal cultural institutions.

Numerous artists have called off Kennedy Center performances since Trump returned to office, including Issa Rae and Peter Wolf. Lin-Manuel Miranda canceled a planned production of “Hamilton.”

Italie writes for the Associated Press.

CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy — Pope Leo XIV said Tuesday he was “very disappointed” that his home state of Illinois had approved a law allowing for medically assisted suicide, and he called for greater respect for life.

Leo said he had spoken “explicitly” with Gov. JB Pritzker and urged him to not sign the bill into law. Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich did the same, Leo told reporters as he left his country house in Castel Gandolfo, south of Rome.

“We were very clear about the necessity to respect the sacredness of life from the very beginning to the very end, and unfortunately, for different reasons, he decided to sign that bill,” Leo said. “I am very disappointed about that.”

Pritzker signed the legislation Dec. 12. The measure is also known as “Deb’s Law,” honoring Deb Robertson, a resident of the state living with a rare terminal illness. She had pushed for the measure’s approval and testified to the suffering of people and their families wanting the chance to decide for themselves how and when their lives should end.

Pritzker, a Democrat, had said he had been moved by stories of patients suffering from terminal illnesses.

Leo, who grew up in Chicago, cited Catholic teaching, which calls for the defense and protection of life from conception until natural death, forbidding abortion and euthanasia.

“I would invite all people, especially in these Christmas days, to reflect upon the nature of human life, the goodness of human life,” Leo said. “God became human like us to show us what it means really to live human life, and I hope and pray that the respect for life will once again grow in all moments of human existence, from conception to natural death.”

The state’s six Catholic dioceses had criticized Pritzker’s signing, saying the law puts Illinois “on a dangerous and heartbreaking path.”

Eleven other states and the District of Columbia allow medically assisted suicide, according to the advocacy group, Death With Dignity. Delaware was the latest, and its provision takes effect Jan. 1, 2026. Seven other states are considering allowing it.

Santalucia writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Nicole Winfield contributed to this report from Rome.

Venezuela’s National Assembly has passed a law enacting harsh penalties for those who support or help finance blockades and acts of piracy, including up to 20 years in prison.

The legislation was passed on Tuesday after the United States seized oil tankers linked to Venezuela, acts that the government of President Nicolas Maduro has denounced as lawless acts of piracy.

“This law seeks to protect the national economy and avoid the erosion of living standards for the population,” lawmaker Giuseppe Alessandrello said, while presenting the law before the National Assembly, controlled by Maduro’s governing party.

The US has carried out a series of increasingly aggressive measures over the past several months, deploying sizeable military forces to Latin America, seizing oil tankers, killing dozens of people in military strikes on what it says are drug-trafficking boats, and threatening land strikes on Venezuela itself.

The legality of some of those acts, such as the seizure of oil tankers in international waters, is contested. Others, such as the strikes against alleged drug traffickers, are widely considered illegal.

“We are in the presence of a power that acts outside of international law, demanding that Venezuelans vacate our country and hand it over,” Samuel Moncada, Venezuela’s representative at the United Nations, told the Security Council (UNSC) during a meeting on Tuesday.

“The threat is not Venezuela,” he added. “The threat is the US government.”

China and Russia also criticised US actions. Russia’s ambassador, Vassily Nebenzia, said that the Trump administration was creating a “template” for the use of force that could be used against other Latin American countries in the future.

“We saw clear support for Venezuela from Russia and China, but also from Colombia, and even from some other member states, talking about how the US needs to abide by international law and calling for de-escalation,” Al Jazeera correspondent Gabriel Elizondo said from the UN.

He added that several Latin American countries with right-wing governments, such as Argentina, Panama and Chile, appeared to side with the US.

“The bottom line here is that we have not gotten any better sense from the United States on what their endgame is here, where they plan to take this,” he added.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday that the US military had moved special operations aircraft and cargo planes with troops into the Caribbean this week.

“We have a massive armada formed, the biggest we’ve ever had, and by far the biggest we’ve ever had in South America,” Trump told reporters on Monday.

Maduro has said the US is seeking to topple his government and seize control of Venezuela’s large oil reserves, which members of the Trump administration have falsely claimed rightfully belong to the US. Trump said on Monday that the US would retain the oil seized from the tankers as well as the tankers themselves.

Addressing the UNSC, the US ambassador, Mike Waltz, said that oil sales were a “primary economic lifeline for Maduro and his illegitimate regime”, repeating an unsubstantiated claim that Maduro oversees a vast criminal enterprise that traffics drugs to the US.

“The single most serious threat to this hemisphere, our very own neighbourhood and the United States, is from transnational terrorist and criminal groups,” Waltz said.

The US pressure campaign has become a useful pretext for the Venezuelan government’s efforts to crack down on internal dissent.

Rights groups have said that Maduro’s government has become more repressive since the presidential election in July 2024, in which Maduro claimed victory despite the widespread doubts about the credibility of the results. The opposition has maintained it was the true winner, and few countries have recognised Maduro’s victory.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled against President Trump on Tuesday and said he did not have legal authority to deploy the National Guard in Chicago to protect federal immigration agents.

Acting on a 6-3 vote, the justices denied Trump’s appeal and upheld orders from a federal district judge and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that said the president had exaggerated the threat and overstepped his authority.

The decision is a major defeat for Trump and his broad claim that he had the power to deploy military forces in U.S. cities.

In an unsigned order, the court said the Militia Act allows the president to deploy the National Guard only if U.S. military forces were unable to quell violence.

“At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois. The President has not invoked a statute that provides an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act,” the court said.

Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had allowed the deployments in Los Angeles and Portland, Ore., after ruling that judges must defer to the president.

But U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled Dec. 10 that the federalized National Guard troops in Los Angeles must be returned to the control of California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Trump’s lawyers had not claimed in their appeal that the president had the authority to deploy the military for ordinary law enforcement in the city. Instead, they said the Guard troops would be deployed “to protect federal officers and federal property.”

The two sides in the Chicago case, like in Portland, told dramatically different stories about the circumstances leading to Trump’s order.

Democratic officials in Illinois said small groups of protesters objected to the aggressive enforcement tactics used by federal immigration agents. They said police were able to contain the protests, clear the entrances and prevent violence.

By contrast, administration officials described repeated instances of disruption, confrontation and violence in Chicago. They said immigration agents were harassed and blocked from doing their jobs, and they needed the protection the National Guard could supply.

Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said the president had the authority to deploy the Guard if agents could not enforce the immigration laws.

“Confronted with intolerable risks of harm to federal agents and coordinated, violent opposition to the enforcement of federal law,” Trump called up the National Guard “to defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence,” he told the court in an emergency appeal filed in mid-October.

Illinois state lawyers disputed the administration’s account.

“The evidence shows that federal facilities in Illinois remain open, the individuals who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested, and enforcement of immigration law in Illinois has only increased in recent weeks,” state Solicitor Gen. Jane Elinor Notz said in response to the administration’s appeal.

The Constitution gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”

The Militia Act of 1903 says the president may call up and deploy the National Guard if he faces an invasion, a rebellion or is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

Trump’s lawyers said that referred to police and federal agents. But after taking a closer look, the court concluded it referred to the regular military forces. By that standard, the president’s authority to deploy the National Guard comes only after the military has failed to quell violence.

But on Oct. 29, the justices asked both sides to explain what the law meant when it referred to the “regular forces.”

Until then, both sides had assumed it referred to federal agents and police, not the military.

Trump’s lawyers stuck to their position. They said the law referred to the “civilian forces that regularly execute the laws,” not the military.

If those civilians cannot enforce the law, “there is a strong tradition in this country of favoring the use of the military rather than the standing military to quell domestic disturbances,” they said.

State attorneys for Illinois said the “regular forces” are the “full-time, professional military.” And they said the president could not “even plausibly argue” that the U.S. soldiers were required to enforce the law in Chicago.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Newsom filed a brief in the Chicago case that warned of the danger of the president using the military in American cities.

“On June 7, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the President invoked [U.S. law] to federalize a State’s National Guard over the objections of the State’s Governor,” they said.

“President Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth transferred 4,000 members of California’s National Guard — one in three of the Guard’s total active members — to federal control to serve in a civilian law enforcement role on the streets of Los Angeles and other communities in Southern California.”

That has proved to be “the opening salvo in an effort to transform the role of the military in American society,” they said. “At no prior point in our history has the President used the military this way: as his own personal police force, to be deployed for whatever law enforcement missions he deems appropriate.

“What the federal government seeks is a standing army, drawn from state militias, deployed at the direction of the President on a nationwide basis, for civilian law enforcement purposes, for an indefinite period of time,” they said.

California milk cartons may lose their coveted recycling symbol, the one with the chasing arrows, potentially threatening the existence of the ubiquitous beverage containers.

In a letter Dec. 15, Waste Management, one of the nation’s largest waste companies, told the state the company would no longer sort cartons out of the waste stream for recycling at its Sacramento facility. Instead, it will send the milk- and food-encrusted packaging to the landfill.

Marcus Nettz, Waste Management’s director of recycling for Northern California and Nevada, cited concerns from buyers and overseas regulators that cartons — even in small amounts — could contaminate valuable material, such as paper, leading them to reject the imports.

The company decision means the number of Californians with access to beverage carton recycling falls below the threshold in the state’s “Truth in Recycling” law, or Senate Bill 343.

And according to the law, that means the label has to come off.

The recycling label is critical for product and packaging companies to keep selling cartons in California as the state’s single-use packaging law goes fully into effect. That law, Senate Bill 54, calls for all single-use packaging to be recyclable or compostable by 2032. If it isn’t, it can’t be sold or distributed in the state.

The labels also provide a feel-good marketing symbol suggesting to consumers the cartons won’t end up in a landfill when they’re discarded, or find their way into the ocean where plastic debris is a large and growing problem.

On Tuesday, the state agency in charge of waste, CalRecycle, acknowledged Waste Management’s change.

In updated guidelines for the Truth in Recycling law, recycling rates for carton material have fallen below the state threshold.

It’s a setback for carton manufacturers and their customers, including soup- and juice-makers. Their trade group, the National Carton Council, has been lobbying the state, providing evidence that Waste Management’s Sacramento Recycling and Transfer Station successfully combines cartons with mixed paper and ships it to Malaysia and other Asian countries including Vietnam, proving that there is a market. The Carton Council persuaded CalRecycle to reverse a decision it made earlier this year that beverage cartons did not meet the recycling requirements of the Truth in Recycling law.

Brendon Holland, a spokesman for the trade group, said in an email that his organization is aware of Waste Management’s decision, but its understanding is that the company will now sort the cartons into their own dedicated waste stream “once a local end market is available.”

He added that even with “this temporary local adjustment,” food and beverage cartons are collected and sorted in most of California, and said this is just a “temporary end market adjustment — not a long-term shift away from historical momentum.”

In 2022, Malaysia and Vietnam banned imports of mixed paper bales — which include colored paper, newspapers, magazines and other paper products — from the U.S. because they were so often contaminated with non-paper products and plastic, such as beverage cartons. Waste Management told The Times on Dec. 5 that it has a “Certificate of Approval” by Malaysia’s customs agency to export “sorted paper material.” CalRecycle said it has no regulatory authority on “what materials may or may not be exported.”

Adding the Sacramento facility to the list of waste companies that were recycling cartons meant that the threshold required by the state had been met: More than 60% of the state’s counties had access to carton recycling.

At the time, CalRecycle’s decision to give the recycling stamp to beverage cartons was controversial. Many in the environmental, anti-plastic and no-waste sectors saw it as a sign that CalRecycle was doing the bidding of the plastic and packaging industry, as opposed to trying to rid the state of non-recyclable, polluting waste — which is not only required by law, but is something state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta is investigating.

Others said it was a sign that the Truth in Recycling law was working: Markets were being discovered and in some cases, created, to provide recycling.

“Recyclability isn’t static, it depends on a complicated system of sorting, transportation, processing, and, ultimately, manufacturers buying the recycled material to make a new product,” said Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste.

He said this new information, which will likely remove the recycling label from the cartons, also underscores the effectiveness of the law.

“By prohibiting recyclability claims on products that don’t get recycled, SB 343 doesn’t just protect consumers. It forces manufacturers to either use recyclable materials or come to the table to work with recyclers, local governments and policymakers to develop widespread sustainable and resilient markets,” he said.

Beverage and food cartons — despite their papery appearance — are composed of layers of paper, plastic and sometimes aluminum. The sandwiched blend extends product shelf life, making it attractive to food and beverage companies.

But the companies and municipalities that receive cartons as waste say the packaging is problematic. They say recycling markets for the material are few and far between.

California, with its roughly 40 million residents, has some of the strictest waste laws in the nation. In 1989, the state passed legislation requiring cities, towns and municipalities to divert at least 50% of their residential waste away from landfills. The idea was to incentivize recycling and reuse. However an increasing number of products have since entered the commercial market and waste stream — such as single use plastics, polystyrene and beverage cartons — that have limited (if any) recycling potential, can’t be reused, and are growing in number every year.

Fines for municipalities that fail to achieve the required diversion rates can run $10,000 a day.

As a result, garbage haulers often look for creative ways to deal with the waste, including shipping trash products overseas or across the border. For years, China was the primary destination for California’s plastic, contaminated paper and other waste. But in 2018, China closed its doors to foreign garbage, so U.S. exporters began dumping their waste in smaller southeast Asian countries, including Malaysia and Vietnam.

They too have now tried to close the doors to foreign trash as reports of polluted waterways, chokingly toxic air, and illness grows — and as they struggle with inadequate infrastructure to deal with their own domestic waste.

Jan Dell, the founder and CEO of Last Beach Cleanup, released a report with the Basel Action Network, an anti-plastic organization, earlier this month showing that the Sacramento facility and other California waste companies were sending bales of carton-contaminated paper to Malaysia, Vietnam and other Asian nations.

According to export data, public records searches and photographic evidence collected by Dell and her co-authors at the Basel Action Network, more than 117,000 tons or 4,126 shipping containers worth of mixed paper bales were sent by California waste companies to Malaysia between January and July of this year.

Dell said these exports violate international law. A spokesman for Waste Management said the material they were sending was not illegal — and that they had received approval from Malaysia.

However, the Dec. 15 letter suggests they were receiving more pushback from their export markets than they’d previously disclosed.

“While certain end users maintain … that paper mills are able to process and recycle cartons,” some of them “have also shared concerns … that the inclusion of cartons … may result in rejection,” wrote Nettz.

Dell said she was “pleased” that Waste Management “stopped the illegal sortation of cartons into mixed paper bales. Now we ask them and other waste companies to stop illegally exporting mixed paper waste to countries that have banned it.”

In 2013, before the Affordable Care Act helped millions get health insurance, California’s Placer County provided limited healthcare to some 3,400 uninsured residents who couldn’t afford to see a doctor.

For several years, that number has been zero in the predominantly white, largely rural county stretching from Sacramento’s eastern suburbs to the shores of Lake Tahoe.

The trend could be short-lived.

County health officials there and across the country are bracing for an estimated 10 million newly uninsured patients over the next decade in the wake of Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The act, which President Trump signed into law this summer, is expected to reduce Medicaid spending by more than $900 billion over that period.

“This is the moment where a lot of hard decisions have to be made about who gets care and who doesn’t,” said Nadereh Pourat, director of the Health Economics and Evaluation Research Program at UCLA. “The number of people who are going to lose coverage is large, and a lot of the systems that were in place to provide care to those individuals have either gone away or diminished.”

It’s an especially thorny challenge for states such as California and New Mexico where counties are legally required to help their poorest residents through what are known as indigent care programs. Under Obamacare, both states were able to expand Medicaid to include more low-income residents, alleviating counties of patient loads and redirecting much of their funding for the patchwork of local programs that provided bare-bones services.

Placer County, which estimates that 16,000 residents could lose healthcare coverage by 2028, quit operating its own clinics nearly a decade ago.

“Most of the infrastructure that we had to meet those needs is gone,” said Rob Oldham, Placer County’s director of health and human services. “This is a much bigger problem than it was a decade ago and much more costly.”

In December, county officials asked to join a statewide association that provides care to mostly small, rural counties, citing an expected rise in the number of uninsured residents.

New Mexico’s second-most populous county, Doña Ana, added dental care for seniors and behavioral health benefits after many of its poorest residents qualified for Medicaid. Now, federal cuts could force the county to reconsider, said Jamie Michael, Doña Ana’s health and human services director.

“At some point we’re going to have to look at either allocating more money or reducing the benefits,” Michael said.

Straining state budgets

Some states, such as Idaho and Colorado, abandoned laws that required counties to be providers of last resort for their residents. In other states, uninsured patients often delay care or receive it at hospital emergency rooms or community clinics. Those clinics are often supported by a mix of federal, state and local funds, according to the National Assn. of Community Health Centers.

Even in states like Texas, which opted not to expand its Medicaid program and continued to rely on counties to care for many of its uninsured, rising healthcare costs are straining local budgets.

“As we have more growth, more people coming in, it’s harder and harder to fund things that are required by the state Legislature, and this isn’t one we can decrease,” said Windy Johnson, program manager with the Texas Indigent Health Care Assn. “It is a fiscal issue.”

California lawmakers face a nearly $18-billion budget deficit in the 2026-27 fiscal year, according to the latest estimates by the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who recently acknowledged he’s mulling over a White House run, has rebuffed several efforts to significantly raise taxes on the ultrawealthy. Despite blasting the bill passed by Republicans in Congress as a “complete moral failure” that guts healthcare programs, the Democrat this year rolled back state Medi-Cal benefits for seniors and for immigrants without legal status after rising costs forced the program to borrow $4.4 billion from the state’s general fund.

H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the state’s Department of Finance, said that the Newsom administration is still refining its fiscal projections and that it would be premature to discuss potential budget solutions.

Newsom will unveil his initial budget proposal in January. State officials have said California could lose $30 billion a year in federal funding for Medi-Cal under the new law, as much as 15% of the state program’s entire budget.

“Local governments don’t really have much capacity to raise revenue,” said Scott Graves, a director at the independent California Budget & Policy Center with a focus on state budgets. “State leaders, if they choose to prioritize it, need to decide where they’re going to find the funding that would be needed to help those who are going to lose healthcare as a result of these federal funding and policy cuts.”

Reviving county-based programs in the near term would require “considerable fiscal restructuring” through the state budget, the Legislative Analyst’s Office said in an October report.

No easy fixes

It’s unclear how many people are enrolled in California’s county indigent programs, because the state doesn’t track enrollment and utilization. But enrollment in county health safety net programs dropped dramatically in the first full year of Affordable Care Act implementation, going from about 858,000 people statewide in 2013 to roughly 176,000 by the end of 2014, according to a survey at the time by Health Access California.

“We’re going to need state investment,” said Michelle Gibbons, executive director of the County Health Executives Assn. of California. “After the Affordable Care Act and as folks got coverage, we didn’t imagine a moment like this where potentially that progress would be unwound and folks would be falling back into indigent care.”

In November, voters in affluent Santa Clara County approved a sales tax increase, in part to backfill the loss of federal funds. But even in the home of Silicon Valley, where the median household income is about 1.7 times the statewide average, that is expected to cover only a third of the $1 billion a year the county stands to lose.

Health advocates fear that, absent major state investments, Californians could see a return to the previous patchwork of county-run programs, with local governments choosing whom and what they cover and for how long.

In many cases, indigent programs didn’t include specialty care, behavioral health or regular access to primary care. Counties can also exclude people based on immigration status or income. Before the ACA, many uninsured people who needed care didn’t get it, which could lead to them winding up in emergency rooms with untreated health conditions or even dying, said Kiran Savage-Sangwan, executive director of the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network.

Rachel Linn Gish, interim deputy director of Health Access California, a consumer advocacy group, said that “it created a very unequal, maldistributed program throughout the state.”

“Many of us,” she said. “including counties, are reeling trying to figure out: What are those downstream impacts?”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF, the independent source for health policy research, polling and journalism.