law

The Israeli parliament’s approval of a legislation that seeks the death penalty for Palestinians convicted of deadly attacks has stoked fears among the Palestinians and drawn condemnation from the international community, dismayed at the further entrenching of what rights groups have long described as Israel’s “system of apartheid”.

The law, which does not apply to Jewish citizens of Israel, was met with jubilation among its backers in the country’s far right.

France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom have all raised concerns over what many describe as the overtly racist nature of the bill, whose nature and wording appear to exclusively target Palestinians.

“We are particularly worried about the de facto discriminatory character of the bill. The adoption of this bill would risk undermining Israel’s commitments with regards to democratic principles,” the foreign ministries wrote in a joint statement on Sunday.

Rights groups have also criticised the bill, with Amnesty International in February saying the legislation would make the death penalty “another discriminatory tool in Israel’s system of apartheid”.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) on Tuesday called the law discriminatory as it would primarily, if not exclusively, be applied to Palestinians.

“Israeli officials argue that the imposing the death penalty is about security, but in reality, it entrenches discrimination and a two-tiered system of justice, both hallmarks of apartheid,” Adam Coogle, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement.

“The death penalty is irreversible and cruel. Combined with its severe restrictions on appeals and its 90-day execution timeline, this bill aims to kill Palestinian detainees faster and with less scrutiny.”

Nevertheless, on its successful passage through parliament, amidst the celebrating lawmakers, the legislation’s principal champion, far- right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir – who has previous convictions for far-right “terrorism” – was seen brandishing a champagne.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had attended the chamber to support the bill, could also be seen congratulating lawmakers on its passage.

So, how can Israel pass a law targeting one ethnic group and not others? Is that legal, and is this the first time Israel has passed legislation that deliberately discriminates against Palestinians?

Here’s what we know.

How does the law target Palestinians and not Israelis?

By limiting the bulk of the legislation to the military courts that only try Palestinians under occupation.

Under the new legislation, anyone found guilty of the killing of an Israeli citizen within the occupied West Bank will, by default, be sentenced to death by the military courts overseeing the occupied territory.

While the courts do not regularly publish statistics on convictions, in 2010, the court system did concede that, of the Palestinians tried for offences committed in the occupied West Bank, 99.74 percent were found guilty.

In contrast, Israeli settlers, who have killed seven Palestinians in just the weeks following the start of their country’s war on Iran in late February, are tried in civilian courts in Israel. According to an analysis by the UK’s Guardian newspaper in late March, Israel has yet to prosecute any of its citizens for killing Palestinians in the occupied West Bank since the start of this decade.

Under the new legislation, Israel’s civilian courts are granted an extra degree of leniency in sentencing Israelis found guilty of killing Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, with judges having the option to choose between the death penalty and life imprisonment.

Sentences for the military courts trying Palestinians, in contrast, carry an automatic death penalty, with life imprisonment only available under extreme circumstances.

According to a study by the Israeli rights group, Yesh Din, conviction rates for settlers found guilty by civilian courts of committing crimes against Palestinians in the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) between 2005 and 2024 ran to about 3 percent. Some 93.8 percent of investigations into settler violence were closed at the end of an investigation with no indictment filed, the group noted.

Underpinning much of this is Israel’s 2018 Nation State law, which, in the eyes of many, codifies Israel’s apartheid system of government, defining Israel as the exclusive homeland of the Jewish people and prioritising Jewish settlement as a national value.

Critics argue that it downgrades the status of Palestinian citizens, who make up about 20 percent of the population, by omitting any guarantee of equality.

How is that even legal?

According to many, it isn’t.

Despite the best efforts of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich – who has administrative power over the occupied West Bank – to annex the Palestinian territory, it remains a foreign territory under military occupation.

According to Amichai Cohen, a senior fellow at the Center for Security and Democracy of The Israel Democracy Institute, international law does not permit Israel’s parliament to legislate for the West Bank, since the area is not legally part of Israel’s sovereign territory.

In September 2024, the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly called for end to Israeli occupation of the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem within a year. The UNGA resolution backed an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which called Israeli occupation “unlawful”.

Similarly, the Association of Civil Rights in Israel announced it had already taken the matter to Israel’s highest court only minutes after the bill was approved. The group argued that the measure was “discriminatory by design” and that lawmakers had no legal authority to impose it on Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank, who are not Israeli citizens.

Is this the first time Israel has been accused of using its legal system to target Palestinians?

Far from it.

Human rights groups – including HRW and Amnesty International – have long argued that the legal systems applying to Palestinians and to Israeli settlers in the West Bank are fundamentally unequal.

Palestinians live under military law, while settlers fall under Israeli civil law, creating two parallel systems in the same territory.

According to rights groups, this structure enables discriminatory detention practices, such as administrative detention (where people can be held indefinitely without charge), dramatically unequal protections under the law, and the selective enforcement of those laws, which have all underpinned widespread accusations of apartheid.

As of March 2026, approximately 9,500 Palestinians are detained in Israeli prisons under harsh conditions, with about half held under administrative detention or labelled “unlawful combatants”, denied trial and unable to defend themselves.

Legislation relating to the treatment of children in custody has led to concern among many international observers and rights groups. Palestinian minors can be interrogated without parental present and are often denied timely access to legal counsel in defiance of Israel’s own and international law, the HRW noted.

Another key area of international concern is the ongoing demolition of Palestinian homes built without permits, which are nearly impossible for Palestinians to obtain. Unauthorised settler outposts, in contrast, are rarely troubled and increasingly retroactively legalised.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco says he’d like to be our governor, but more and more, it’s looking to me like the real goal for the far-right provocateur is just to be MAGA-famous.

That’s cool. That’s fine. Honestly, who in Southern California hasn’t dreamed of their 15 minutes? And he certainly has the cop-stache to play the role of rogue Wild West lawman.

But Bianco’s bid for celebrity may help extremists take down American elections, and that is a problem — one California needs to deal with quickly, before the midterms suffer from his antics. There are two separate issues at play here, both of which state courts will be asked to weigh in on in coming days — Bianco apparently is putting his so-called investigation on hold until those cases bring some measure of clarity, and hopefully sanity.

First, are California sheriffs answerable to anyone, or are they a law unto themselves? Second, who in California can legally handle and count ballots according to law, if state law does in fact matter?

The fact that these two issues are coming up now — together— is no accident. President Trump’s election fraud claims have been moving toward this moment for years, largely out of the consciousness of mainstream voters, but very much intentionally pushed by those who would like to see MAGA officials remain in power, even at the cost of democracy.

The real question being answered right now in Riverside — the one we should all be clear on — is, if Republicans want to invalidate election results that don’t go their way this November, what’s the nitty-gritty of actually doing that?

Bianco is attempting an answer.

“This is about more than just what Sheriff Bianco is doing,” said Matt Barreto, faculty director of the UCLA Voting Rights Project. “… It shouldn’t happen. And again, it doesn’t matter if Democrats are winning or Republicans are winning, no sheriff should come in and take over possession or counting of ballots.”

By now, you’ve probably heard that Bianco has obtained multiple secret, sealed search warrants from a buddy judge that allowed him to spirit away hundreds of thousands of ballots in his county from November’s Proposition 50 election.

Bianco claims he has the right to seize these ballots and investigate as he sees fit — and it’s not our business or anyone else’s, not even state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who ordered Bianco to stop what he was doing until Bonta could review it.

Bianco has largely ignored that order, instead scooping up even more ballots late last week — all but giving Bonta a certain finger reserved for simple communication. Fox News loved it. Bianco’s admission Monday that he is pausing his effort is the first hint that even he may see he’s gone too far.

But Bianco’s hubris is in line with the attitude of many so-called constitutional sheriffs, a national movement by some far-right elected lawmen that Bianco has been associated with, though he’s never claimed outright affinity.

These extremist sheriffs misguidedly believe that they are above both state and federal law, and get to decide for themselves what’s constitutional or not in their jurisdictions — and therefore what’s law and what’s not.

Since about 2020, empowered by successes in ignoring pandemic restrictions, these sheriffs have dived deeper and deeper into the election fraud movement that Trump loves so much, claiming increasing rights to investigate alleged fraud. Though their national organization doesn’t publish its membership list, media and other tracking show there are at minimum dozens of these like-minded lawmen across the country, likely closely watching Riverside County.

Some election experts now worry that if Bianco is successful in the courts in retaining the right to take ballots, it will give a dangerous legal precedent that empowers other constitutional sheriffs to do the same at the midterms. Only then it would be fresh, uncounted ballots — leaving these far-right sheriffs in charge of providing results instead of trained, trusted elections officials.

“What happens if the ballots have not been properly counted by the right people yet and a sheriff decides they want to go confiscate them?” said Chad Dunn, co-founder of UCLA’s Voting Rights Project and the trial lawyer who successfully halted Texas’ gerrymandering effort, for now anyway.

“Once the chain of custody … is broken, as they have been with these, you’ll never count them in a way that you’ll be able to get reasonable confidence from the public,” Dunn said. “It puts the entire election process in jeopardy.”

The constitutional sheriffs would become the boots on the ground for Trump’s election deniers to implement their will, seizing ballots as they see fit and creating such a crisis of confidence that it’s likely we the voters would never accept the results, Republican or Democrat.

It could even give Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson a plausible reason — an ongoing fraud investigation — not to seat elected Democrats, stalling as he did with Arizona’s Adelita Grijalva last year after she won a special election.

The Voting Rights Project, along with Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, filed a lawsuit last week asking the state Supreme Court to uphold the laws that govern how ballots are handled in California — basically protecting that chain of custody and making it clear sheriffs can’t ignore it and are not part of it.

“They do not, under California law, have the right to take ballots away from the Registrar of Voters, and they do not, under California law, have the right to count or handle ballots,” Barreto said. “There’s no question that it violates California election law.”

Separately, Bonta’s office filed its own action, with that issue of constitutional sheriffs front and center. Bonta is asking courts to tell Bianco that he’s not a law unto himself, and does in fact answer to the state attorney general.

This issue of whether sheriffs have any legal duty to listen to the state’s top law enforcement officer has long been one of Bonta’s fights — he argued about it with then-L.A. Sheriff Alex Villanueva in another public corruption fiasco over then-L.A. County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl.

I’m guessing Bianco will refer Bonta back to that simple communication of a single finger, much the same as Villanueva did.

But it’s long past time that the state decide just how powerful sheriffs are, for the good of the country this time. The state Legislature has repeatedly kicked the can on clarifying the issue, a failure on their part.

Legislators could amend the state Constitution to make sheriffs appointed instead of elected — the same as police chiefs. Then boards of supervisors could hire and fire them just like other law enforcement leaders.

With the Legislature’s resounding absence on the issue, we have to rely on courts. That’s likely to be a long battle.

In the meantime, Bianco is up to his mustache in attention. This has become a national story, boosting his profile throughout the MAGA-verse as a champion of election deniers everywhere.

Whether Bianco wins or loses these legal battles, resumes his investigation or not, he’s won the attention battle — he’s even polling at the top in the gubernatorial race, thanks to the 8 million Democrats who refuse to drop out.

Riverside County, once as red as it comes, is increasingly purple, Barreto points out. Bianco’s tenure as elected sheriff may not last forever. His shot at governor, despite the polls, is unlikely.

But maybe Fox News will be so impressed with his aggressive rants that he’ll get an offer. Maybe Trump, known for watching it, will like what he sees. So many possibilities from the publicity.

And so much real damage to democracy.

Minnesota public universities can continue to offer in-state tuition and scholarships to some immigrants in the country without legal status, a federal judge ruled Friday, dismissing a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Justice Department last summer that attempted to halt the programs.

The decision follows a series of clashes between the federal government and Minnesota officials over immigration enforcement.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez said in her decision that the federal government failed to prove that programs offering in-state tuition for immigrants without legal status discriminated against U.S. citizens.

The federal lawsuit named Democratic Gov. Tim Walz and Democratic state Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison as defendants, along with the state’s Office of Higher Education. It said Minnesota law discriminates against U.S. citizens because it provides in-state tuition and scholarships to students living in the U.S. illegally if they attended a Minnesota high school for three years, and U.S. citizens who attended schools outside of the state cannot receive the same benefits. States generally set higher tuition rates for out-of-state students.

The federal government said those state statutes “flagrantly” violate a federal law that prevents states from providing preferential benefits to immigrants in the U.S. illegally regardless of whether or not they meet residency requirements.

“No state can be allowed to treat Americans like second-class citizens in their own country by offering financial benefits to illegal aliens,” U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in a statement after the lawsuit was filed last year.

Menendez said the Justice Department misinterpreted the law, enacted during the Clinton administration, because anyone who attended a Minnesota high school for at least three years are granted the same public benefits, regardless of their U.S. residency or immigration status.

She also said the federal government didn’t have standing to sue the state attorney general or governor since neither has the power to change the state laws that determine tuition eligibility.

Ellison celebrated the decision in a statement Friday.

“Today, we defeated another one of Donald Trump’s efforts to misconstrue federal law to force Minnesota to abandon duly passed state laws and become a colder, less caring state,” he wrote.

The funding for immigrants without legal status represents an “investment for our state to do everything we can to encourage a more educated workforce,” Ellison wrote.

The U.S. Justice Department didn’t respond to an email request for comment Friday.

The department has filed similar lawsuits this month against policies in Kentucky and Texas. Last week, a federal judge in Texas blocked that state’s law giving a tuition break to students living in the U.S. illegally after the state’s Republican attorney general, Ken Paxton, said he supported the legal challenge.

In discussing the Texas case last year, Bondi suggested more lawsuits might be coming.

Florida ended in-state tuition eligibility for immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. At least 22 states and the District of Columbia have laws or policies granting the in-state benefit, according to the National Immigration Law Center. Those states include Democratic-led California and New York, but also Republican states including Kansas and Nebraska.

According to the center, at least 13 states in addition to Minnesota allow immigrant students without legal status to receive financial aid and scholarships on top of in-state tuition.

Riddle writes for the Associated Press.

Carlos Mendoza Potellá is an economist and university professor with vast experience and expertise regarding the Venezuelan oil industry. In this exclusive interview with Venezuelanalysis, Mendoza Potellá offers his analysis on the recent reform of the Hydrocarbon Law, the longstanding influence of Western conglomerates over Venezuela’s energy sector, and the struggle for sovereignty.

In late January, the Venezuelan National Assembly approved a reform of the Hydrocarbon Law. What are your views on the new law?

In broad terms, it is the relinquishing of our condition as a sovereign nation, plain and simple. We are not a nation anymore. We are a territory with some delegate administrators implementing decisions made abroad. Who decides? Emperor Trump, who has his proconsul Marco Rubio.

The approved law meets the maximum demands that the Venezuelan right and the oil conglomerates have been making for at least the last 25 years. The 2002 coup against Chávez was to impose something like this, the return to the old concession model. It is the fulfillment of all the dreams of the old “meritocratic” leadership of [state oil company PDVSA], the people who did everything to minimize the fiscal contributions to the country, whether that meant buying 37 refineries abroad or other disasters that wrecked the country.

The reform is a victory for international oil capital, alongside a discourse that hands over the destiny of the industry to major corporations and diminishes national participation as some unproductive “rentierism.”

The Venezuelan oil industry has gone through various stages, with varying degrees of influence from major transnational corporations, whether that is the period prior to the formal nationalization in 1976 or the Oil Liberalization (Apertura Petrolera) of the 1990s. How do we situate the new law within that context?

I believe this is a step backward beyond the apertura or the pre-nationalization period –perhaps it’s a return to 1832! In 1829, Simón Bolívar issued a decree transferring the Spanish crown’s mining rights to Gran Colombia. This, in turn, was based on old medieval law, essentially establishing that mines were the property of the sovereign, the king. In fact, that is where the term “royalty” comes from –as a tribute to the king. And in 1832, when Venezuela separated from Gran Colombia, that decree ratified the nation’s ownership of its mines. 

Obviously, oil didn’t emerge until 30 or 40 years later, but by 1866 concessions were already being granted. For a time, people spoke of “material that comes from the subsoil,” even though everyone already knew it was oil.

Our first boom was with asphalt. In 1883, Guzmán Blanco granted the Lago Guanoco concession to his buddy Horacio Hamilton, who later transferred it to the New York & Bermúdez Company, a subsidiary of the US firm General Asphalt. The asphalt boom lasted 50 years, and with it, streets and highways were built all over the United States.

But the example of New York & Bermúdez is significant because when Cipriano Castro came to power in 1899, he found out that the company had not paid taxes and attempted to collect them. What did the corporation do? It financed the so-called Revolución Libertadora led by Manuel Antonio Matos, a banker from La Victoria, which was ultimately defeated after two bloody battles. It was the first instance of foreign hydrocarbon interests seeking to control national politics. And it was always linked to the United States.

In the 1920s, then-dictator Juan Vicente Gómez tasked his minister, Gumersindo Torres, with drafting a hydrocarbons law, but the foreign companies did not like it. And Gómez told them, “Well, then, write the law yourselves!” Later, in 1936, the López Contreras administration drafted a very good law, but since it wasn’t retroactive, the companies did not mind because they already had their concessions granted.

When do we start seeing the first steps toward Venezuelan oil nationalism?

It was precisely in 1941 that Medina Angarita took office and commissioned a massive dossier on all the concessions in the country, informing the US government that Venezuela was aware of the importance of its oil. This was during World War II, and the oil companies were haunted by the specter of the 1938 Mexican nationalization under the government of Lázaro Cárdenas.

What was [Franklin D.] Roosevelt’s response? He sent a delegation from the State Department, not to intercede on behalf of the oil companies, but to convince them to accept Medina’s reform, because Venezuelan oil was vital to the war effort. The law passed in 1943 was quite progressive. Its first article stated that hydrocarbons are a matter of national public interest, and as such, concessions were granted for a maximum term of 40 years. Eighty percent of the concessions were granted at that time, to expire in 1983.

Venezuelan production grew through the 1970s, but as the end of the concessions approached, the transnational corporations began implementing policies to somewhat ease the hostility toward foreign investment.

Thus, a policy of “Venezuelanization” of the industry’s management was put into effect. That is why, when the so-called nationalization took place (1976), companies such as Shell and Creole, a subsidiary of Standard Oil-Exxon, had Venezuelans serving as president or vice president. These executives later assumed leadership of the newly created national companies. Their passports were Venezuelan, but their hearts belonged to foreign corporations!

Historically, how was the relationship between foreign corporations and Venezuelan authorities? And how did they respond to the 1976 nationalization?

The corporations grew accustomed to the idea of an industry tailored to their interests. I mentioned how they were the ones who drafted the first Hydrocarbons Law. Oversight bodies, such as the Technical Office of Hydrocarbons, were constantly undermined in their efforts to regulate oil activities. And so the companies could extract oil without paying royalties, violate technical standards for field exploitation, or export gasoline instead of fuel oil.

The 1970s were a turbulent time for the oil sector, marked by geopolitical tensions and the 1973 crisis in the Arab countries. In 1973, James Akins, the Nixon administration’s Director of Energy at the State Department, wrote an article in Foreign Affairs titled “The Oil Crisis; This Time the Wolf Is Here.” He argued that Venezuela could be key to reducing dependence on the Middle East, and that in the face of growing oil nationalism, it was necessary to cede some ground and consider other models of participation, while maintaining control over critical areas such as refining and commercialization.

Put differently, it was possible to offer some token concessions to the nationalist aspirations of oil-producing countries like Venezuela. And that rhetoric spread to the transnational corporations. The president of Shell said at the time, “Venezuela is going to have to take action regarding its oil industry,” while the head of Creole spoke of “the Venezuelans’ oil”!

There were growing signs of how the nationalization would take shape and how the transnationals were restructuring. A good example is the Venezuelan Petroleum Corporation (CVP), created in 1960. Juan Pablo Pérez Alfonzo, whom I consider a visionary and a deeply nationalist figure, had conceived it as a company that would develop until the time came for the state to take over production. But the governments did not let it grow; they did not assign concessions it was entitled to, and by the time of nationalization, the CVP was simply one more operator among 13 or 14. 

In contrast, [Petróleos de Venezuela, SA] PDVSA, created with the nationalization, did have a very clear vision from the start. I remember hearing senior PDVSA executives talking among themselves, discussing how one came from the “Exxon culture,” which was more vertical, and the other from the “Shell culture,” which was more horizontal. And these were the managers! They were the leaders of the Venezuelan oil industry, which had very little “Venezuelan” about it. What we are seeing now is the reconstitution of all these things.

Circling back to the current reform, we have seen that sovereignty is a central issue. How is it affected on different fronts?

For me, a fundamental issue is the return of concessions. Because that means going back decades, handing control back to transnational conglomerates. With taxes and royalties, the problem is not whether the rate is 30% or 15%; that flexibility existed in the past. But now it is the transnational corporations that tell the government what their operating costs are and how much goes to the Venezuelan state. There is no oversight body to verify this; instead, the company says, “I need you to lower royalties to this level” for the project to be profitable.

The return of international arbitration is also a brutal setback, because it means that disputes are not settled in Venezuelan courts, but in other bodies that have a history of defending corporate interests. There is no role left for the Public Solicitor’s Office (Procuradoría General), which is essentially the nation’s attorney. 

For months we were told we were ready to confront imperialism, but the truth is that everything is being imposed on us. Even the National Assembly is castrating itself. It has enacted a law stating that oil projects no longer require the parliament’s approval; they need only be notified. And on top of all that, there is also the constitutional issue. The reform conflicts with Articles 1, 12, 150, 151, and several others of the Constitution. But this is not merely a constitutional violation; it is a total surrender. A surrender of sovereignty that calls into question our status as a republic.

One of the issues under debate is the distinction between a country that owns oil and a country that produces oil. How should we understand the difference?

Of course, that’s fundamental. A country that owns oil simply collects royalties, and it does so according to its political capabilities. At the moment, Venezuela’s capabilities are limited, because the military cannot confront the enemy, and allies like Russia and China have not shown themselves willing to take any risks. So, there is little room to impose conditions on the US.

But this is a country that has grown used to the multinational corporations having free rein over its oil sector. Unfortunately, there are many people, within the industry itself, who believe that “the foreign conglomerates developed this and therefore have a right to these privileges.” Curiously, that is the same rhetoric Trump uses! 

This struggle for sovereignty is fundamental in oil-producing countries. We have seen this with the countries of the Middle East, which try to assert themselves but remain highly dependent on the United States. Obviously, they have the advantage of not being as close as we are. But in my opinion, historically we have lacked nationalism on this issue.

One of the arguments in favor of reforming the Hydrocarbon Law was the need to attract investment to so-called “green fields,” on the grounds that when the previous law was passed in 2001, there were many mature fields ready for development and this is no longer the case. However, major corporations have not shown much enthusiasm. What is your reading on this?

Those are fantasies about oilfields that have always been unviable; it is the obsession with the Orinoco Oil Belt. Humberto Calderón Berti, minister of mines in the 1980s and a major proponent of PDVSA’s internationalization, was already talking about green fields back then. By the way, Calderón Berti is now talking about the possibility of fracking in Lake Maracaibo, which would make the lake’s environmental disaster even worse.

The idea that an avalanche of investment is coming is an illusion, and the oil companies themselves know it. Trump talks about investments of $100 billion, but transnational corporations like ExxonMobil use the word “uninvestable.” With market volatility, no one is thinking about investing in oil with extremely high production costs. There is a study that concludes that increasing production to 2.6 million barrels per day based on the Orinoco Belt would require US $90 billion in investments and $122 billion in operating expenses over the next 10 years to drill 13,000 new wells! In other words, it is completely unfeasible.

On top of that, OPEC’s forecasts for oil demand over the coming decades aren’t particularly ambitious. (1)

So who stands to benefit from this new landscape? On the one hand, small “rogue” companies that can take on a well here and there. But above all, the conglomerates that are already here, like Chevron, which know the lay of the land and can expand their operations or make their current operations more profitable. The same goes for Eni and Repsol, which have some crown jewels, like the offshore Perla natural gas field. The corporations that come will be betting mostly on conventional fields, not the Orinoco Belt.

It is very commonplace to hear about US refineries in the Gulf of Mexico that are built to receive Venezuelan crude. That is true, but it is not oil from the Orinoco Belt! It is oil from the Oriente (East) and Occidente (West) oil-producing regions.

Let us stay for a moment on the Orinoco Oil Belt, since that is where the talk of the “largest oil reserves on the planet” centers, as well as the prospects for a massive increase in production. What are the myths and realities surrounding these deposits?

The Orinoco Belt is a geological miracle. Eighty million years ago, 10–15 percent of all life that existed on the planet was fossilized north of the Orinoco River. It is something to cry out to the heavens. But that is not exploitable oil. It is extra-heavy crude, a sticky mess that needs to be upgraded. First it must be converted into liquid petroleum so it can flow through pipelines, and then taken to be refined and turned into gasoline. 

In the 1970s, the United States saw the energy crisis coming and asked, “When conventional oil runs out, where can we find oil around the world?” In three places: the Soviet Union, Canada, and Venezuela. And where in Venezuela? In the Orinoco Oil Belt. Pérez Alfonzo spoke of the belt as “something for the future,” but the United States wanted to accelerate exploitation and sent a delegation in 1971 to convince President Rafael Caldera to begin the process. In fact, the name was changed from “Tar Belt” to “Oil Belt” to make it more attractive.

The US Geological Survey estimates that there are 513 billion barrels of “technically recoverable” oil. But that is absurd, because there is no capacity. What makes a reserve recoverable has to do with economic ability, the market, and the available technology. Nevertheless, the Orinoco Belt has been at the center of grandiose projections over the past few decades, alongside the highly lucrative business of certifying reserves.

The oil reform took place in a specific context, following years of economic sanctions that have left PDVSA in a very difficult situation. What would be an alternative path? How can the industry recover without surrendering sovereignty?

There are no magic solutions, obviously. We are facing imperialism in the Trump era; we see all its destructive potential. It is a phase where the US, paradoxically, recognizes its weakness and is entrenching itself in its “backyard.” But we must be aware that the industry’s current course is one of total capitulation.

Whether we can recover, whether it is possible or not, we must think about it rigorously, in a sovereign manner. And above all, we must have a serious plan; we cannot be dreaming of 5 or 6 million barrels a day.

There are 17,000 conventional oil wells, with the capacity to produce, abandoned around the country. Of the 35,000 wells in Venezuela, only half are currently producing. The others require investment, though not particularly large ones. And what kind of oil will these wells produce? Crude grades ranging from 20 to 30 degrees. But we need a plan, to examine wells one by one. These are wells that will produce 20, 50, or 100 barrels a day, but it is light and medium crude—the “classic” Venezuelan oil.

So, from a nationalist perspective, what does the future hold for Venezuela’s oil industry? 

The future is to build a post-oil Venezuela. This was already being discussed by theorists such as Francisco Mieres and Pérez Alfonzo in the 1970s. Then, in recent years, many began talking about a post-oil or post-rentier country, but mostly to cover up their incompetence and inability to maintain production levels.

There is no magic solution, and the oil industry will have to play an important role. But the current situation is dire. We are in a new phase of absolute political dependence. It’s not just about oil, or that the US controls revenues, imposes concessions, and so on. It is that the country has lost the ability to make its own decisions.

There are also expectations of the people, who to a large extent have become accustomed to the idea that their oil will last forever. That creates the illusion that things can improve very quickly. The path will be slow, but it has to start with regaining sovereignty.

Note

(1) The interview was conducted before the launch of the US-Israeli war against Iran.

March 26 (UPI) — South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden on Thursday signed six election-related bills, including one that requires newly registered voters to prove their citizenship.

The bills, which Rhoden, his administration and the state legislature said are meant to protect the integrity of the state’s elections, also affect campaign finance disclosures, publication of election results, processing of absentee ballots, publication of statewide voter registration files and the submission of nomination petitions.

The voter registration law, called the South Dakota SAVE Act, is one of several that states across the country have been considering as similar legislation has been the subject of heated debate in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate.

“In South Dakota, we do things right, especially when running out state elections,” Rhoden said in a press release.

“This bill ensures only citizens vote in state elections, keeping our elections safe and secure,” he said.

All six bills that Rhoden signed were named emergencies, which allows them to go into effect immediately, as opposed to July 1, when laws in South Dakota usually go into effect.

This will allow for the requirements to apply to the state’s June 2 primary elections, registration for which has a May 18 deadline, the South Dakota Searchlight reported.

The governor’s office said the state’s SAVE Act applies only to state elections and only to people who are registering to vote in South Dakota for the first time, and will need to show a passport, birth certificate or other document that proves they are a U.S. citizen.

South Dakota residents who are already registered do not need to take any action, and those who need to update their name, address or other information are not required to prove their U.S. citizenship.

“Noncitizens cannot vote in South Dakota — this bill is wholly unnecessary,” South Dakota Democratic state Rep. Erik Muckey said during debate of the bill, The New York Times reported.

Earlier this year, Rhoden also signed into law a bill that would allow voters to challenge the citizenship of other registered voters with a sign, sworn statement and some type of documented evidence.

That law will not take effect before the primary, but it will be effective during the general election in November.

March 26 (UPI) — A petition effort to put a repeal of Utah’s anti-gerrymandering law approved by voters eight years ago on the November ballot failed to meet state requirements, an updated tally indicated Thursday.

The Utah state Republican Party has spent months gathering signatures to put Proposition 4 to a vote this fall, and while organizers had enough signatures to qualify, they did not get enough of them from enough parts of the state.

In order to place an amendment on Utah’s ballot, at least 8% of registered voters in the entire state must sign the petition and 8% of registered voters in at least 26 of the state’s 29 Senate districts must sign the petition.

The group pushing for the new amendment, Utahns for Representative Government, initially surpassed the required 141,000 signatures statewide — they’d collected 162,974 — and met the 8% in 26 districts requirement, but an effort to remove signatures deemed inadmissable in Utah’s District 15 nixed the effort, KUTV-TV in Salt Lake City reported.

“We have significant concerns about the practices utilized by the opposition and continue to review the signature validation and removal process,” Rob Axson, chair of the Utah Republican Party, said in a statement to KTVX-TV in Salt Lake City.

“Whether now or in the future, by litigation or initiative, we will Repeal Prop 4,” he said. “This fight is not over but just beginning.”

The 2018 law that was passed by Utah voters created an independent redistricting commission and banned partisan gerrymandering.

For the past year, Republican-controlled state legislatures have looked to redraw congressional districts to make it easier for GOP candidates to win seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and retain control of the chamber in this year’s election.

Generally, congressional districts are redrawn by states once a decade, using data from the latest census.

Utah’s legislature last year approved redrawn districts alleged to favor Republicans, but they were later invalidated by a federal court for violating Prop 4 — leading to the effort to repeal the voter-approved law.

Over the past several months, the groups Better Boundaries and Brave Utahns Rapid Response Network have challenged signatures and the methods used to collect them, successfully dropping the petition effort below the numbers it needed to make the ballot.

“A well-informed voting population leads to better outcomes for everyone,” said Elizabeth Rasmussen, executive director of Better Boundaries. “A majority of Utah voters approved Prop 4 in 2018, and we look forward to the day when Utah voters can finally pick their politicians, not the other way around.”

The U.S. can continue to detain immigrants without bond, an appeals court ruled on Wednesday, handing a victory to the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.

The opinion from a panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis overturned a lower court ruling that required that a native of Mexico arrested for lacking legal documents be given a bond hearing before an immigration judge.

It’s the second appeals court to rule in favor of the administration on this issue. The 5th Circuit in New Orleans ruled last month that the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to deny bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country was consistent with the Constitution and federal immigration law.

Both appeals court opinions counter recent lower court decisions across the country that argued the practice is illegal.

In November, a district court decision in California granted detained immigrants with no criminal history the opportunity to request a bond hearing and had implications for noncitizens held in detention nationwide.

Under past administrations, most noncitizens with no criminal record who were arrested away from the border had an opportunity to request a bond hearing while their cases wound through immigration court. Historically, bond was often granted to those without criminal convictions who were not flight risks, and mandatory detention was limited to recent border crossers.

In the case before the 8th Circuit, Joaquin Herrera Avila of Mexico was apprehended in Minneapolis in August 2025 for lacking legal documents authorizing his admission into the United States. The Department of Homeland Security detained Avila without bond and began deportation proceedings.

He filed a petition seeking immediate release or a bond hearing. A federal judge in Minnesota granted the petition, saying the law authorized detention without bond when a person seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to being admitted. The judge found this was not the case for Avila because he had lived in the country for years without seeking naturalization, asylum or refugee status and thus wasn’t “seeking admission.”

Circuit Court Judge Bobby E. Shepherd wrote for the majority in a 2-1 opinion that the law was “clear that an ‘applicant for admission’ is also an alien who is ‘seeking admission,’” and so Avila couldn’t petition on these grounds.

Circuit Court Judge Ralph R. Erickson dissented, saying that Avila would have been entitled to a bond hearing during his deportation hearings if he had been arrested during the past 29 years. Now, he wrote, the Circuit Court has ruled that Avila and millions of others would be subject to mandatory detention under a novel interpretation of “alien seeking admission” that hasn’t been used by the courts or five previous presidential administrations.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Avila, didn’t immediately return an email message seeking comment.

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi hailed the ruling, writing in a social media post: “MASSIVE COURT VICTORY against activist judges and for President Trump’s law and order agenda!”

At question is the issue of whether the government is required to ask a neutral judge to to determine whether it is legal to imprison someone.

It’s based on the habeas corpus, which is a Latin legal term referring to the constitutional right for people to legally challenge their detention by the government.

Immigrants have filed more than 30,000 habeas corpus petitions in federal court alleging illegal detention since Trump took office, according to a tally by the Associated Press. Many have succeeded.

McAvoy writes for the Associated Press.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights set a deadline Tuesday that sounds much like two earlier deadlines, giving San José State University 10 days to comply with a list of athletics-related demands or face enforcement action, including the termination of the university’s federal funding.

This is the third 10-day deadline issued by the OCR to SJSU, the first in January and the second having expired last weekend. All three concern the same case, that of a transgender woman who played on the school’s women’s volleyball team from 2022 to 2024.

A federal investigation was launched in February 2025 after controversy over Blaire Fleming disrupted the 2024 volleyball season. Four Mountain West Conference teams — Boise State, Wyoming, Utah State and Nevada-Reno — chose to forfeit matches to SJSU.

The probe concluded that SJSU’s policies “allowing males to compete in women’s sports and access female-only facilities deny women equal educational opportunities and benefits.”

SJSU pushed back, insisting it followed the law in allowing Fleming to play. SJSU president Cynthia Teniente-Matson wrote in a March 6 letter to the campus community that the university “vigorously disputes the conclusions that OCR reached. … Our position is simple: We have followed the law and cannot be punished for doing so.”

SJSU requested that the OCR rescind its findings and close its investigation. Instead, the federal agency redoubled its efforts, with the latest salvo a “letter of impending enforcement” issued Tuesday and accompanied by a statement from U.S. Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey.

“We have provided SJSU with multiple opportunities to resolve its Title IX violations with common sense actions: separating male and female athletes based on their biological sex, keeping men out of women’s locker rooms and bathrooms, restoring rightfully earned titles and accolades to female athletes, and apologizing to the women forced to forfeit competitions to protect themselves,” Richey said. “Yet, SJSU remains obstinate, choosing a radical ideology over safety, dignity, and fairness for its own students.

“With today’s action, the Department is putting the university on notice: comply with the law or risk losing its federal funding.”

SJSU enlisted the support of the California State University system, which sued the Department of Education on March 6 to challenge its allegedly “lawless overreach” and block the federal government from cutting funding to SJSU if the school does not agree to a proposed itemized resolution agreement.

“Whether and under what conditions transgender women should be allowed to compete in women’s athletics has been hotly contested,” the CSU lawsuit said. “But this case is not about that issue. It is about the Department’s attempt to punish SJSU, even though the law in the Ninth Circuit has been and is clear. Under Ninth Circuit law, Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause protect transgender students from discrimination.”

Suing the Education Department “is not a step we take lightly,” Teniente-Matson said. “However, we have a responsibility to defend the integrity of our institution and the rule of law, while ensuring that every member of our community is treated fairly and in accordance with the law.”

An estimated two-thirds of SJSU students receive federal financial aid totaling about $130 million annually, according to Cal State University. Losing federal funds could also disrupt $175 million in research.

The Office of Civil Rights’ proposed resolution agreement, which SJSU dismissed out of hand, contains the following demands:

1) Issue a public statement that SJSU will adopt biology-based definitions of the words “male” and “female” and acknowledge that the sex of a human — male or female — is unchangeable.

2) Specify that SJSU will follow Title IX by separating sports and intimate facilities based on biological sex.

3) State that SJSU will not delegate its obligation to comply with Title IX to any external association or entity and will not contract with any entity that discriminates on the basis of sex.

4) Restore to female athletes all individual athletic records and titles misappropriated by male athletes competing in women’s categories, and issue a personalized letter of apology on behalf of SJSU to each female athlete for allowing her participation in athletics to be marred by sex discrimination.

5) Send a personalized apology to every woman who played in SJSU’s women’s indoor volleyball from 2022 to 2024, beach volleyball in 2023, and to any woman on a team that forfeited rather than compete against SJSU while a male student was on the roster — expressing sincere regret for placing female athletes in that position.

In a related lawsuit, a Colorado district judge this month deferred ruling on motions to dismiss former SJSU volleyball player Brooke Slusser’s lawsuit against the California State University system. Slusser alleged that she was made to share bedrooms and changing spaces with Fleming without being informed that Fleming is transgender.

Judge Kato Crews dismissed the Mountain West Conference as a defendant but said he wants to put the rest of the case on hold until after a Supreme Court ruling in B.P.J. v. West Virginia, which is expected to come in June.

The B.P.J. case went to the Supreme Court after a transgender teen sued West Virginia to block a state law that prevents males from competing in girls’ high school sports.

Former prosecutor at the International Criminal Court Geoffrey Nice says that the US-Israel war on Iran was not based on imminent threat and warns that holding powerful states accountable is ‘unrealistic.’

Schools and hospitals bombed; strikes on apartment buildings; energy facilities targeted and attacks on neighbouring states.

Have Israel, the United States and Iran broken international law in the war? Or what legal justification might they claim?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Geoffrey Nice – Human rights lawyer and former International Criminal Court prosecutor

Brian Finucane – Senior adviser with the US programme at the International Crisis Group and former legal adviser at the US State Department

Nicholas Tsagourias – Professor of international law at the University of Sheffield

Citing concerns about affordability, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is proposing revising the state’s 2019 climate law, asking to delay implementation by several years and to adopt a different greenhouse-gas accounting method.

The changes would effectively water down a law viewed as one of the most ambitious state climate policies in the U.S.

Hochul called the law’s current targets “costly and unattainable” in a statement released Friday. “This is solely out of necessity — to protect New Yorkers’ pocketbooks and economy,” she said.

The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act targets a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2030 and an 85% cut by 2050. As of 2023, the state had lowered its emissions by about 14%.

Meeting the 2030 deadline would drastically drive up energy bills for New Yorkers, Hochul, a Democrat, has said. Regulations to implement the law are already delayed; Hochul wants to push them back to 2030 and create a new emissions target for 2040.

Energy bills have surged around the U.S., partly as a result of AI-driven demand. As of November, the average residential electricity price in New York was 26.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, ranking eighth highest in the country, according to Empire Center, a nonprofit think tank in Albany. The Iran war has sent oil and gas prices surging.

The proposed weakening of the law comes amid the Trump administration’s dismantling of federal climate regulations and clean energy incentives, which environmentalists have looked to Democrat-led states and cities to counter.

“Lots of people around the country — really around the world — have been looking to see how New York does in implementing this strong climate law,” said Michael Gerrard, a Columbia University law professor who directs the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.

“If a very blue state like New York moves backwards on climate change as well, that’s a negative sign for the country,” he said. “If you can’t do it here, can you do it anywhere?”

Hochul, who is running for reelection this year, is seeking to advance changes through the state’s budget, which is due April 1. The proposal is expected to meet resistance from some Democratic lawmakers.

“We will negotiate with the governor,” said State Sen. Pete Harckham, who chairs the body’s environmental conservation committee. “We’ll be able to get to, I think, a resolution of this.”

Policymakers including Harckham and State Sen. Liz Krueger, who chairs the finance committee, penned a letter to Hochul earlier this month urging her not to back a delay.

Given Washington’s war on climate policy, they wrote, “it is incumbent on states like New York to reject this new wave of climate denial and put forward bold policies that will save New Yorkers money, reduce pollution and protect a livable climate.”

Krueger said Friday the proposed changes would increase the likelihood that the climate law will never be fully enacted.

“This is a serious problem,” she said. “We need to be spending the money for the infrastructure to help meet the targets.”

Business groups and Republicans in Albany have argued that implementing the law as it stands would drive up costs and worsen the affordability crisis. State Sen. Tom O’Mara has urged changes. “It is time [to] amend the CLCPA to account for economic realities,” he said in a statement. The Business Council, representing New York companies, last month said the deadlines stipulated “are proving unachievable.”

Even some Democrats have advocated for amendments. State Assemblymembers Carrie Woerner and John T. McDonald said last week that “the reality is difficult to ignore: New York is not on track to meet the CLCPA’s targets on the timeline written into law.”

“The real question is whether New York can remain committed to deep decarbonization while adapting its strategy to today’s conditions,” they added. “The goal should not be abandoning ambition. It should be pursuing it intelligently.”

In 2025, environmental groups sued Hochul’s administration after the state failed to set up a regulatory program for the climate law.

“The main effect of these proposed changes is to allow the Hochul administration to do nothing for at least the next four years,” said Rachel Spector, deputy managing attorney at Earthjustice, an environmental law organization that represents the groups. “These proposals will do nothing to benefit New Yorkers. The only beneficiaries would be Hochul along with gas utilities and corporate polluters.”

Hochul also wants to align New York’s emissions-counting standards with other U.S. states and the international community. That might mean switching from a 20-year emissions-counting methodology to a 100-year one. The shorter timeframe highlights the pollution impact of methane, a short-lived but potent greenhouse gas and the main component of natural gas. The 100-year metric essentially balances out short- with longer-lived gases like carbon dioxide.

“It’s ultimately a way to cheat on a test,” said Liz Moran, New York policy advocate at Earthjustice.

In October, a judge ruled in favor of the environmental groups, putting pressure on Hochul to enact a so-called cap-and-invest program that would help generate revenue for the state to transition to renewable energy.

However, a memo released in February by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority concluded that implementing the policy would result in rocketing energy bills for New Yorkers.

It modeled a scenario in which the law were “implemented with regulations to meet the 2030 targets” and found that upstate New York households relying on oil and natural gas “would see costs in excess of $4,000 a year.”

Many Democrats and environmental advocates have pushed back on the narrative that climate policy is spiking costs. Harckham said the solution to improving affordability and lowering emissions is clear: “It’s renewable energy.”

“We set a law for ourselves,” he added. “We should be held accountable to it.”

Raimonde writes for Bloomberg.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department filed a new lawsuit Friday against Harvard University, saying its leadership failed to address antisemitism on campus, creating grounds for the government to freeze existing grants and seek repayment for grants already paid.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, is another salvo in a protracted battle between the administration of President Trump and the elite university.

“The United States cannot and will not tolerate these failures,” the Justice Department wrote in the lawsuit. It asked the court to compel Harvard to comply with federal civil rights law and to help it “recover billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies awarded to a discriminatory institution.”

The lawsuit also asks a judge to require that Harvard call police to arrest protesters blocking parts of campus and to appoint an “independent outside monitor,” approved by the government, to ensure it complies with court orders.

Harvard did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The lawsuit comes after negotiations appear to have bogged down in the months-long battle with the Trump administration that has tested the boundaries of the government’s authority over America’s universities. What began as an investigation into campus antisemitism escalated into an all-out feud as the Trump administration slashed more than $2.6 billion in research funding, ended federal contracts and attempted to block Harvard from hosting international students.

In a pair of lawsuits filed by the university, Harvard has said it’s being unfairly penalized for refusing to adopt the administration’s views. A federal judge agreed in December, reversing the funding cuts and calling the antisemitism argument a “smokescreen.”

Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, a major association of colleges and universities, accused the administration of launching a “full scale, multi-pronged” attack on Harvard. Friday’s lawsuit, he said, is just the latest attempt to pressure Harvard to agree to changes favored by the administration.

“When bullies pound on the table and don’t get they want, they pound again,” Mitchell said.

The Trump administration began investigating allegations of discrimination against Harvard’s Jewish and Israeli students less than two weeks after the president took office. The allegations focus on Harvard’s actions during and after pro-Palestinian demonstrations during the Israel-Hamas war.

Officials concluded Harvard did not adequately address concerns raised about antisemitism that drove some students to conceal their religious skullcaps and avoid classes. During protests of the war, Trump officials said, Harvard permitted students to demonstrate against Israel’s actions in the school library and allowed a pro-Palestinian encampment to remain on campus for 20 days, “in violation of university policy.”

In its lawsuit Friday, the Justice Department also accused Harvard of failing to discipline staff or students who protested or tacitly endorsed the demonstrations, such as by canceling or dismissing classes that conflicted with protests.

“Harvard University has failed to protect its Jewish students from harassment and has allowed discrimination to wreak havoc on its campus,” White House press secretary Liz Huston said Friday on X. “President Trump is committed to ensuring every student can pursue their academic goals in a safe environment.”

Despite their bitter dispute, Harvard and the Trump administration have held some negotiations, and the two sides have reportedly been close to reaching an agreement on multiple occasions. Last year, the administration and the university were reportedly approaching a deal that would have required Harvard to pay $500 million to regain access to federal funding and to end the investigations. Almost a year later, Trump upped that figure to $1 billion, saying that Harvard has been “behaving very badly.”

At the same time, the administration was taking steps in a civil rights investigation that had the potential to jeopardize all of Harvard’s federal funding.

In June, the Trump administration made a formal finding that Harvard tolerated antisemitism.

In a letter sent to Harvard, a federal task force said its investigation had found the university was a “willful participant” in antisemitic harassment of Jewish students and faculty. The task force threatened to refer the case to the Justice Department to file a civil rights lawsuit “as soon as possible,” unless Harvard came into compliance.

When colleges are found in violation of federal civil rights law, they almost always reach compliance through voluntary agreements. When the government determines a resolution can’t be negotiated, it can try to sever federal funding through an administrative process or, as the Trump administration has done, by referring the case to the Justice Department through litigation.

Such an impasse has been extraordinarily rare in recent decades.

Last summer, Harvard responded that it strongly disagreed with the government’s investigative finding and was committed to fighting bias.

“Antisemitism is a serious problem and no matter the context, it is unacceptable,” the university said in a statement. “Harvard has taken substantive, proactive steps to address the root causes of antisemitism in its community.”

In a letter last spring, Harvard President Alan M. Garber told government officials that the school had formed a task force to combat antisemitism, which released a detailed report of what unfolded on campus after Hamas militants stormed Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing around 1,200 people and abducting 251 others. Israel retaliated with an offensive that killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and displaced around 90% of Gaza’s population — prompting pro-Palestinian demonstrations at colleges around the country.

After the demonstrations at Harvard, Garber said the university had hired a new provost and new deans and that it had reformed its discipline policies to make them “more consistent, fair and effective.”

Since he took office, Trump has targeted elite universities he believes are overrun by left-wing ideology and antisemitism. His administration has frozen billions of dollars in research grants, which colleges have come to rely on for scientific and medical research.

Several universities have reached agreements with the White House to restore funding. Some deals have included direct payments to the government, including $200 million from Columbia University. Brown University agreed to pay $50 million toward state workforce development groups.

Balingit and Casey write for the Associated Press.

March 18 (Asia Today) — A South Korean civic group on Wednesday called for changes to ethics laws after finding that dozens of former police officers took jobs at law firms shortly after retirement, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

The People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy said 144 retired police officials joined law firms between January 2020 and February 2026, based on data from the government ethics oversight body.

Of 228 post-retirement employment reviews during that period, 63.2% were approved, allowing former officers to take positions at law firms, the group said.

Nearly half of those cases – 68 out of 144 – involved individuals who joined law firms within three months of leaving the police force.

The group said the trend raises concerns that former officers could still wield influence over active investigators, particularly because many held mid-level supervisory roles directly involved in criminal investigations.

Such overlap could undermine the neutrality and fairness of police work, it added.

The civic group also noted that the expanding role of police following recent criminal justice reforms has increased the need for stronger safeguards to ensure impartial investigations.

It called for revising the Public Officials Ethics Act, arguing that current rules do not sufficiently restrict employment at law firms for retired officials who hold legal qualifications.

The group urged lawmakers to amend the law to require stricter review of such employment and prevent potential conflicts of interest.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260318010005507

SACRAMENTO — As gas prices surge in California and nationally due to the war in Iran, two Democrats running for California governor are calling for the state to temporarily suspend its fuel tax or ease refinery regulations in an effort to lower costs.

Standing in front of a gas pump in a video posted to social media, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan said the costs are “becoming an emergency for working families, and I think we ought to act like it.”

The moderate Democrat called on state lawmakers to suspend California’s gas tax, which at 61 cents per gallon is the highest in the nation.

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa also called for an “immediate moratorium” on regulations that he blamed for “overburdening” California refineries and working families.

“These failed policies are not only hurting tens of millions of Californians, they are terrible for the environment because they have forced California to depend on imported foreign oil from the Middle East,” Villaraigosa said in a statement.

The cost of living in California, including the price at the pump, remains a pivotal issue for voters in the state, and has become central to the moderate-leaning campaigns of Mahan and Villaraigosa as they attempt to distinguish themselves in the tightly contested race for governor.

According to AAA, the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline in California on Monday was $5.52, the highest in the nation and more than 50 cents higher than any other state. The national average was $3.71, up from the previous month’s average of $2.92.

Gasoline prices in California are often among the highest in the country for a number of reasons, including environmental rules that require a unique blend of cleaner-burning fuel.

The state also relies mostly on crude oil imported from other countries including Brazil, Iraq and Guyana and processed at in-state refineries. In 2025, 61% of oil processed at California refineries was imported, compared with 23% that was produced in the state, according to data from the California Energy Commission.

A greater reliance on foreign oil has made California more susceptible to price spikes during global conflicts and other disruptions.

Republicans have long supported suspending the gas tax and cutting regulations in order to lower prices at the pump.

Steve Hilton, a GOP candidate for governor and former Fox News host, outlined a plan to lower California gas prices to $3 per gallon by slashing regulations including the low-carbon fuel standard, the rule that requires cleaner-burning gas in order to reduce tailpipe emissions.

The other major Republican in the race, Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco, supports suspending the gas tax, according to his website.

The current price spike echoes 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine and disrupted global oil markets.

As prices eventually fell around the rest of the country that year, they remained high for months in California, leading Gov. Gavin Newsom to wage war against oil and gas companies. He accused them of price-gouging drivers and backed laws requiring companies to report their profit margins and keep a supply of fuel on hand to prevent shortages and price spikes.

The governor backed off his battle with the oil companies last year after two refineries announced plans to close. In September, he signed legislation to permit 2,000 new oil wells in Kern County, reflecting an acknowledgement that his war on oil companies threatened to send California’s gas market spiraling.

Republican state lawmakers in 2022 pushed for a temporary suspension of California’s excise tax on gasoline, arguing that it would provide immediate relief to California drivers. That effort was rebuffed by Newsom and Democratic lawmakers, but they later approved $9.5 billion in tax refunds to Californians, providing as much as $1,050 to families as financial relief from record-high gasoline prices and other rising costs.

In 2017, the Democratic-controlled Legislature passed Senate Bill 1, which then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law, levying the state’s first gas tax increase in 23 years to fix California’s roads and bridges in disrepair. Under the law, the tax increases each year on July 1 based on the growth in the California Consumer Price Index.

California voters remain conflicted on the state’s regulation of the oil industry, according to an August survey by the Public Policy Institute of California. It found that more than 60% of adults support goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and generate electricity from renewable energy sources.

But majorities also said the costs of gasoline and utility bills is a major problem for them personally, according to the poll.

Mahan and Villaraigosa are the only two Democrats who have publicly called to roll back regulations on the state’s oil and gas market, illustrating the political murkiness at the nexus of California’s climate and affordability challenges.

Still, Democratic lawmakers – who hold supermajorities in the state Senate and Assembly – continue to shut down proposals to pause the gas tax, arguing that the state would lose out on much-needed money for roads.

“If anyone has a proposal about how to backfill (transportation) revenues, I’m up for that conversation, but so far, it’s just a bulls— political talking point,” said Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine).

Petrie-Norris chairs the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee and has helped lead legislative efforts to stabilize California’s fuels market without retreating from goals to achieve carbon neutrality.

”When I ask people, ‘Do you want affordable gas, clean air or safe roads?’ they say yes. So they want us to do all three of these things,” she said. “We’ve got to be honest with Californians about trade-offs so that we can have real conversations.”

Mahan pushed back on the importance of collecting gas tax revenue.

“The truth is we have the highest taxes in the country and a $350-billion budget, and we ought to be able to pave our roads and enable working families to put food on the table,” he said in an interview. “I just reject the notion that the sky is going to fall if we provide temporary relief to working families who are being pushed to the brink by a war that they didn’t ask for.”

The San José mayor said the state should suspend the fuel tax “for the duration of the war” in Iran “or as long as gas prices are over $5 a gallon” in the state. He also called for “massive regulatory overhaul that brings down costs across the board,” including rules on refineries.

If elected governor, Villaraigosa said he would “reform and overhaul” the California Air Resources Board, which enacts many of the state’s environmental laws — including the low carbon fuel standard and cap-and-invest program.

“We can no longer allow bureaucrats who live in a bubble — with no accountability for the harm they are causing our economy and our people — to have so much power over the lives of every Californian,” Villaraigosa said in a statement.

California and a coalition of other states sued the Trump administration Monday over its efforts to roll back fair housing rules that bar certain types of discrimination by landlords, including against LGBTQ+ people.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development rule change threatening funding for states that offer housing protections for LGBTQ+ and other marginalized individuals who are not explicitly covered by federal law is illegal, undermines state efforts to combat discrimination and would push vulnerable people onto the streets.

“In effect, the Trump administration is attempting to roll back civil rights enforcement in housing at the federal level, and pressure states to weaken their own protections as well,” Bonta said during a news conference Monday. “That’s not just bad policy, it’s unlawful.”

Representatives from HUD and the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The federal Fair Housing Act explicitly bans discrimination based on seven traits: race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status and disability. Under rules set forth during the Obama administration, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has for years interpreted the law as banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Many states, including California, also have adopted laws explicitly banning discrimination against LGBTQ+ people and other marginalized groups not mentioned in the federal law, with California also banning discrimination based on marital status, ancestry, source of income and veteran or military status.

In September, HUD issued new guidance threatening to decertify state housing agencies — stripping their federal funding and ability to investigate discrimination claims — if they provide anti-discrimination protections other than those spelled out in the Fair Housing Act. The guidance also barred state agencies from using federal funds to “promote gender ideology,” “fund or promote elective abortions” or promote illegal immigration, according to the lawsuit.

The guidance followed that of HUD Secretary Scott Turner, a former NFL player and Trump loyalist, who announced last year that HUD would no longer adhere to a 2016 Obama-era rule protecting transgender people from housing discrimination, which Turner said “tied housing programs, shelters and other facilities funded by HUD to far-left gender ideology.”

“We, at this agency, are carrying out the mission laid out by President Trump on January 20th [2025] when he signed an executive order to restore biological truth to the federal government,” Turner said in a statement, referring to Trump’s order calling on federal agencies across the government to rescind protections for transgender Americans.

“This means recognizing there are only two sexes: male and female,” Turner said. “It means getting government out of the way of what the Lord established from the beginning when he created man in His own image.”

Among other things, the administration said rules barring discrimination against transgender people allowed “biological men to enter shelters intended for women impacted by trauma, domestic abuse and violence.”

LGBTQ+ advocacy groups condemned the move, noting that transgender Americans face heightened discrimination in a slate of areas — including housing — and need protections. They also contended that HUD’s new policies violate a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision barring employment discrimination based on gender or gender identity.

Bonta said the Fair Housing Act “set a floor, not a ceiling, for protections against discrimination,” which means that states “have the authority to go further and protect more people,” as California has endeavored to do.

He said HUD has supported the state’s anti-discrimination work for decades through the Fair Housing Assistance Program, which provides funding to state and local agencies to investigate and enforce laws against housing discrimination. HUD’s new guidance “threatens to undermine that system” by demanding an end to state protections not just for LGBTQ+ people, but for military veterans, immigrants as well as women receiving abortions and other reproductive healthcare, he said.

“Families across California are already struggling to find homes they can afford, and the last thing they need is for the federal government to make it harder,” Bonta said. “At its core, this lawsuit is about protecting a fundamental civil right: the right to rent, buy, or live in housing without discrimination.”

Bonta said California interprets the Fair Housing Act’s ban on sex discrimination as protecting LGBTQ+ people, but the Trump administration doesn’t agree — making the state’s more explicit protections important.

He said about $3 million in federal funding is currently at stake for California, with millions more at stake in other states.

Illinois Atty. Gen. Kwame Raoul, who is helping lead the lawsuit and spoke alongside Bonta Monday, said states with robust antidiscrimination laws “will not go backwards and we will not give in to threats” from the Trump administration.

“These actions are part of a broader, ongoing pattern by this administration to subvert the legal protections our country has put in place to combat discrimination, and to tear down the hard fought progress we have made for civil rights,” Raoul said. “It is also just the latest page in the president’s illegal playbook to use funding and programs created by Congress to try to strong arm states into adopting Trump’s preferred policies.”

The states allege that HUD’s targeting of state antidiscrimination policies comes after it downsized its own workforce and significantly reduced its ability to investigate housing discrimination complaints and enforce fair housing laws. They say the new guidance violates multiple federal laws, including laws that govern federal spending and rule changes, and are asking the federal court to immediately invalidate the guidance as unlawful.

Bonta and Raoul are joined in the lawsuit by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

March 13 (Asia Today) — This commentary is the Asia Today Editor’s Op-Ed.

The atmosphere across industrial workplaces following the implementation of the so-called Yellow Envelope law is far from normal, with growing uncertainty emerging across the labor market.

Within two days of the law taking effect, 453 subcontractor unions representing nearly 98,500 workers filed collective bargaining requests against 248 prime contractor workplaces. With many unions closely watching the situation, the number of bargaining demands is expected to increase sharply once the first successful negotiations occur.

Most companies are struggling to respond effectively to the demands from subcontractor unions. Many firms believe the best course of action is to wait for decisions by the Central Labor Relations Commission and for court precedents to emerge through litigation.

Amid this uncertainty, attention is focusing on the activities of South Korea’s two major labor federations – the Federation of Korean Trade Unions and the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions – which have launched campaigns to expand their influence.

Both organizations view the new law as a major opportunity to increase union membership. With the national unionization rate hovering just above 10%, labor leaders believe the law could help reverse the trend.

The Federation of Korean Trade Unions, which had about 1.2 million members as of 2024, has launched an organizing task force with the goal of expanding its membership to 2 million.

The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions has also set an internal target of reaching 2 million members.

As the two federations compete for leadership within the labor movement, the revised labor law is emerging as a catalyst for organizational expansion. Subcontractor unions with limited bargaining power are increasingly turning to these larger labor groups for support.

The shift is already visible. The labor union at auto parts manufacturer Mando recently voted to rejoin the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions’ Metal Workers’ Union after 14 years.

Union leaders reportedly concluded that joining an industrywide union could help reduce job insecurity, particularly as corporate restructuring has become a potential subject of collective bargaining under the new law.

If even the union at a primary contractor such as Mando has decided to rejoin the federation, the choice for subcontractors, special employment workers and platform laborers with weaker bargaining power appears increasingly clear.

The public sector is also experiencing confusion.

While the government has stated that recognizing employer status in the public sector is generally difficult, President Lee Jae-myung offered a different message, saying the government should serve as a model employer.

As a result, collective bargaining demands are pouring in from outsourced workers and subsidiary employees affiliated with central and local governments as well as public institutions. Many of these public-sector unions are also expected to seek membership in the two major labor federations.

Subcontractor unions backed by the organizational strength and strike guidance of higher-level labor groups are likely to adopt a more aggressive stance in labor disputes.

In particular, the expansion of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions – often criticized by companies for confrontational labor tactics – could undermine the stability of labor-management relations.

For companies operating in a rapidly changing business environment that demands specialization and efficiency, the situation presents growing challenges.

The competitiveness of government agencies and public institutions could also be affected.

If the government truly seeks to protect the livelihoods of citizens, it must prioritize the competitiveness of businesses and the national economy while taking steps to minimize disruption across industrial workplaces.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260312010003757

Rights groups have slammed United States Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth for saying that “no quarter” will be shown to Iran, as the US and Israel continue their military campaign against the country.

“We will keep pressing. We will keep pushing, keep advancing. No quarter, no mercy for our enemies,” Hegseth told reporters on Friday.

Under the Hague Convention and other international treaties, it is illegal to threaten that no quarter will be given.

Domestic laws, such as the 1996 War Crimes Act, also prohibit such policies. US military manuals likewise warn that threats of “no quarter” are illegal.

Brian Finucane, a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group, a think tank, said Hegseth’s comments appear to run afoul of those standards.

“These comments are very striking,” Finucane told Al Jazeera over a phone call. “It raises questions about whether this belligerent, lawless rhetoric is being translated into how the war is being conducted on the battlefield.”

But Hegseth has publicly dismissed concerns about international law, claiming he would abide no “stupid rules of engagement” and no “politically correct wars”.

His rhetoric has provoked concern among some experts that measures designed to prevent civilian harm are being ignored in favour of a campaign of “maximum lethality”.

Hegseth’s remarks also come after a US strike on a girls’ school in southern Iran that killed more than 170 people, most of them children. The war has left at least 1,444 Iranians dead and millions more displaced.

‘Inhumane and counterproductive’

Prohibitions against declaring “no quarter” go back more than a century, part of an effort to impose restraints on conduct during war.

The Nuremberg trials after World War II upheld that legal standard, as Nazi officials were prosecuted, in some cases, for denying quarter to enemy forces.

“The basic idea is that it’s both inhumane and counterproductive to execute people who have laid down their arms,” said Finucane.

He added that the “mere announcement” of “no quarter” from a government official can itself be a war crime.

The US and Israel have already faced allegations of violating international law during their war against Iran. Experts have condemned their initial strike on February 28 as “unprovoked”, deeming the conflict an illegal war of aggression.

Iranian officials also protested after a US submarine sank a military vessel, the IRIS Dena, off the coast of Sri Lanka, as it returned from a ceremonial naval exercise in India. That attack killed at least 84 people.

While warships are considered legal military targets, Iran has said that the ship was not fully armed, raising questions about whether it could have been interdicted rather than sunk.

US forces also purportedly declined to help rescue sailors from the Dena, even though the Geneva Convention largely requires aid to the shipwrecked. The Sri Lankan navy ultimately helped collect survivors from the wreckage.

Responding to the attack, Hegseth described the sinking of the ship as a “quiet death”. He also told reporters, “We are fighting to win.”

US President Donald Trump himself remarked that he asked why the ship had been sunk, not captured.

“One of my generals said, ‘Sir, it’s a lot more fun doing it this way,’” Trump said.

‘Serious red flag’

The US military has faced criticism for killing civilians in military operations for decades.

That includes during the so-called “global war on terror”, when airstrikes resulted in thousands of civilian deaths, including a 2008 attack on a wedding party in Afghanistan.

Even before the war with Iran, the Trump administration had faced accusations that it violated international law by attacking alleged drug-trafficking vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean.

At least 157 people have been killed in those attacks since they started on September 2.

The Trump administration, however, has never identified the victims nor presented evidence against them. Scholars have condemned the attacks as a campaign of extrajudicial killings.

Analysts say that the Pentagon’s policies of emphasising lethality at the expense of human rights concerns has carried over into its war against Iran.

“Death and destruction from the sky all day long. We’re playing for keeps. Our warfighters have maximum authorities granted personally by the president and yours truly,” Hegseth said during a briefing on March 4.

“Our rules of engagement are bold, precise and designed to unleash American power, not shackle it.”

Sarah Yager, the Washington director at Human Rights Watch, called such rhetoric alarming.

“I’ve been engaging with the US military for two decades, and I’m shocked by this language. Rhetoric from senior leaders matters because it helps shape the command environment in which US forces operate,” Yager said.

“From an atrocity-prevention perspective, language that dismisses legal restraints is a serious red flag.”

While the impact of Hegseth’s rhetoric on combat operations is not certain, a recent report from the watchdog group Airwars found that the pace of the US and Israeli assault on Iran has far outstripped other military operations in modern history.

Reports indicate that the US dropped nearly $5.6bn worth of munitions in the first two days of the war alone. Airwars says the US and Israel hit more targets in the first 100 hours of the Iran war than in the first six months of the US campaign against ISIL (ISIS).

Following Hegseth’s remarks on Friday, Senator Jeff Merkley condemned the Pentagon chief as a “dangerous amateur”. He cited the attack on the Iranian girls’ school as an example of the consequences.

“His ‘no hesitation’ engagement rules set the stage for failing to distinguish a civilian school from a military target,” Merkley wrote in a social media post.

“The result, more than 150 dead schoolgirls and teachers from an American missile.”

Spring has sprung on Leo Staples’ family farm in Oklahoma, and his Berkshire pigs couldn’t be happier about it.

Weighing in at about 550 pounds, Woody, his largest hog (named by a grandson after the “Toy Story” icon) plays “like a puppy” in his free-range paddock, Staples told me, gobbling up the rye, clovers and winter peas that have grown knee-high under the Southern sun.

Swine life on Staples’ sustainable family farm is a jarring contrast to the existence of a pig on one of America’s “intensive” corporate-owned mega-farms, where some sows are confined to cages so small they literally can’t turn around or take more than a step or two in any direction.

“It’s not necessary and it hasn’t proven to be good science,” Staples, a self-described conservative Republican, said of Big Ag porcine lockups. “It’s also cruel.”

That confinement is at the heart of a congressional fight over animal welfare standards that Staples — and California — is likely to lose, though we shouldn’t.

At issue is the Save Our Bacon Act, a sneak attack backed by foreign corporations currently hidden deep inside the farm bill. It would severely curb the ability of states to enact limits on animal confinement and maybe accidentally open the door for ending all kinds of state-level food safety laws.

The SOB Act, an apt nickname, would not only cripple small family farmers such as Staples (though its supporters claim it helps family farmers), it would negate the will of California voters, potentially introduce risk into the food chain, and turn greater power of our food supply over to China.

It would also limit consumer choice at a time when more Americans — from fans of far-right Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to far-left granola grandmas — are demanding a say in how their food is produced.

Let’s break that down.

What is the SOB Act?

For the vegetarian hard-liners out there, it is true that Woody himself will someday likely be bacon.

But, increasingly over the past decades, meat-friendly consumers have moved toward wanting animals to “live a really great life and have one bad day,” as Nate Beaulac, another conservative Oklahoma pork farmer, describes it.

In 2018, to further that aim, about 63% of California voters passed Proposition 12, which increased the space that breeding sows were required to have, from something about the size of a small car trunk to the size of a coat closet. We’re not talking rolling acres here — just enough room to turn around. Some of these sows are basically caged for the majority of their breeding life — years — and are about the size of a black bear.

But here was the real bite in Proposition 12: No pork from any state could be sold in California if it didn’t come from a farm that met the new standard.

Overnight, the corporate breeders were locked out of the Golden State market. They sued bigly, and lost bigly in 2023 at the Supreme Court, which upheld California’s right to impose the state standard.

Big Pork tried to revive the issue with the Supreme Court in 2025 and was rebuffed. Surprise, surprise, the drums started pounding for the SOB Act shortly after (though various legislative attempts have floated since Proposition 12 was passed) backed by a Midwestern congresswoman from a Big Pork state.

The SOB Act would negate Proposition 12 (and a similar law in Massachusetts) and forbid states from making laws regarding animal confinement, according to an analysis by the Animal Law & Policy Program at Harvard Law.

That would emphatically overturn the will of the majority of California voters who want those standards.

But hey, Big Pork would make big bank.

“They want to limit American consumers’ ability to fight,” Beaulac told me. “They wanted to limit Americans’ ability to pursue any sort of change. And that is why me, not only as a farmer, but as an American and a capitalist, I’m strongly opposed to the Save Our Bacon Act, and in staunch support of Proposition 12.”

What Prop. 12 did

Beaulac was once a Californian himself, before heading to the Sooner State for college. He describes himself as a “Christian, capitalist, conservative environmentalist,” and a sustainable farmer who depends on consumers’ desire for healthy food to sell his pigs, chickens and cows.

Proposition 12, Beaulac said, “was a huge help to smaller farms, and the only people that it really hurt were the huge multinational conglomerates.”

“I mean very simply, we want the opportunity to compete,” he said.

Staples, Woody’s owner, who is also an expert in project management and environmental compliance from a previous career in the power industry, makes the case that the mega-farms can also come with mega-dangers.

“You have 100,000 pigs within two miles of each other, the chance of issues with a swine flu or natural disaster just increases,” he said. He points out that issues such as disease, groundwater contamination and waste disposal have already become problems for some large farms.

The flaws in the SOB Act don’t stop there.

The Harvard Law analysis points out that the loose language of the bill could have other consequences, maybe even gutting some state safety, labeling and cleanliness standards.

And some Republicans in Congress, including Californian Reps. David Valadao and Young Kim, oppose the measure and sent a letter to the Agriculture Committee late last year urging them to dump the act, pointing out that at least a quarter of Big Pork is owned by Chinese companies and does not represent American interests.

“Foreign-owned corporations — particularly those tied to adversarial nations — already hold a disturbing amount of control over U.S. agricultural assets,” the letter read, citing Chinese-owned Smithfield Foods, the largest pork producer in the United States.

The SOB Act “could further consolidate the influence of such foreign entities,” the letter‘s authors warned.

Armed with those arguments and others, Staples and Beaulac traveled to Washington recently to make their case against the SOB Act with lawmakers.

But, both men told me, they were met with a wall of lobbyists and money.

“It’s very eye-opening in terms of how many lobbyists are there every day,” Beaulac said. “The reality is Big Ag donates big money to the senators, and so when they need their bill to go through or they need a bill shut down, they’re going to have a lot more leeway than the small farmers.”

The lobbyists, Staples said, had the debate wrapped up tight long before the farmers even knocked the dirt off their boots and entered Congress.

“It was very obvious,” he said. “I was not prepared for what Big Ag had done, how they had prepared members of Congress to address the issues we wanted to address.”

Beaulac said he’s discouraged and fears the SOB Act will pass, but also isn’t giving up hope. He sees it as a bipartisan issue, and one he hopes for which people will stand up. This week, a social media post featuring a sad photo of a caged pig went viral, drawing attention across party lines.

“Blue, red. It doesn’t matter. People want healthy food,” Beaulac said. “They want to know how it’s raised. They genuinely care how they’re feeding their family, and it has nothing to do with who they vote for in November.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Thune Is in a Vise as Trump and Far Right Demand Fight on Voter Bill
The deep dive: The exodus of California’s tech billionaires from the Golden State to Florida’s Gold Coast
The L.A. Times Special: California could be attacked by drones because of Iran war, memo warns. Officials downplay threat
Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

P.S. Here’s a post by right-wing commentator Michael Cernovich on the SOB Act, just a taste of how much some of the MAGA folks don’t like this measure.

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Caracas, March 11, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Energy conglomerates Chevron and Shell are reportedly securing major oil deals in Venezuela following the recent pro-business reform of the country’s Hydrocarbon Law.

According to Reuters, joint venture Petropiar, where Chevron holds a minority stake, will expand its operations into the Ayacucho 8 bloc of Venezuela’s Orinoco Oil Belt. 

Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA completed exploration and appraisal of the 510 square-kilometer area located south of Petropiar’s current operations, but its development has been limited. Under the agreement, Chevron looks to significantly expand its extra-heavy crude output from the Orinoco Oil Belt, which holds three-quarters of Venezuela’s oil reserves.

Chevron is reportedly looking to secure reduced royalties and taxes under the recently reformed Hydrocarbon Law in order to launch operations in the new area. Petropiar currently produces 90,000 barrels per day (bpd) of upgraded Hamaca crude. PDVSA’s joint ventures with Chevron have a total present output of around 250,000 bpd.

In January, Venezuela’s National Assembly approved a legislative overhaul that significantly improved conditions and benefits for private corporations in the oil and natural gas sector. Royalty and income tax levies, previously set at 30 and 50 percent, respectively, can now be slashed at the Venezuelan executive’s discretion.

In addition, joint venture minority partners can directly manage crude operations and sales, while legal disputes can be taken to international arbitration instances. Furthermore, PDVSA can also lease out projects to private operators in exchange for a percentage of the oil output.

Under the latter model, Shell is reportedly set to take over operations in PDVSA’s Punta de Mata division in eastern Monagas state, one of the most historically productive and profitable regions for Venezuela’s oil industry. The division produced over 400,000 bpd of light and medium crude grades in the 2000s but recent production was around 90,000 bpd.

The London-based multinational, which had a strong presence in the Venezuelan energy sector throughout the twentieth century, is likewise interested in capturing and processing natural gas that is currently flared in oil extraction processes. 

Shell is additionally set to lead the Dragon offshore natural gas project alongside Trinidad and Tobago’s National Gas Corporation (NGC) in Venezuelan waters. The Nicolás Maduro government had suspended all joint initiatives with Trinidad due to its administration’s support for Washington’s Caribbean military buildup and threats against Venezuela last year.

Since the January 3 US military strikes and kidnapping of President Maduro, the acting Venezuelan authorities led by Delcy Rodríguez have fast-tracked a diplomatic rapprochement with the Trump administration while also vowing to “adapt” legislation to attract foreign investment. Following the hydrocarbon reform, a new mining law has also been preliminarily approved by the Venezuelan parliament.

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum have visited Venezuela in recent weeks and hailed the investment opportunities in oil and minerals for US conglomerates.

Since January, the Trump administration has taken control of Venezuelan oil exports, with crude shipments handled by commodity traders Vitol and Trafigura and proceeds deposited in accounts run by the US Treasury. US authorities so far have only returned US $500 million, out of a reported $2 billion agreement, to the Caribbean nation.

The White House has also issued a number of licenses in an effort to boost US involvement in the Venezuelan energy sector, including limited waivers to export inputs and technology. In addition, Washington has allowed several corporations to negotiate agreements with Caracas while mandating that contracts be subject to US jurisdiction and that all royalty, tax and dividend payments be made to US Treasury-run accounts.

Alongside Chevron and Shell, the other companies with early access to the Venezuelan energy sector are BP, Eni, Maurel & Prom, and Repsol. The latter two held meetings with Rodríguez in February to discuss investment opportunities, while ExxonMobil has announced plans to send a delegation to the country in the coming weeks.

Venezuela’s oil production rebounded in February, with OPEC secondary sources registering an output of 903,000 bpd, up from 823,000 bpd in January. A US naval blockade since December had forced PDVSA to cut back production before exports began to flow again under Washington’s control. The oil sector remains under US financial sanctions.

For its part, PDVSA reported a February output of 1.02 million bpd, up from 924,000 bpd the prior month. The direct and secondary measurements have differed over time due to disagreements over the inclusion of natural gas liquids and condensates.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Fusagasugá, Colombia.

The California State Bar has charged a founding partner of Downtown LA Law Group, a law firm at the center of a scandal that has embroiled Los Angeles County’s historic sex abuse settlement, with signing up dozens of clients in states where none of the firm’s lawyers were licensed to practice.

The bar charged Salar Hendizadeh, who left the firm this fall, on March 5 with helping one of Southern California’s largest personal injury law firms sign accident victims across the country, despite lacking attorneys who could litigate the cases in other states. Hendizadeh was charged with eleven counts, including deceptive advertising and charging illegal fees.

State Bar Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona said in a statement the allegations, if proved, “represent dishonest and illegal conduct.”

Hendizadeh and a spokesperson for Downtown LA Law Group did not provide a comment Monday.

The firm had roughly 40 clients in Texas, where it operated under the name “Lone Star Injury Law Firm” and branded itself “Texas’s #1 Injury Law Firm,” according to the complaint.

The firm had one L.A.-based attorney licensed to practice in Texas, Darren McBratney, but he left the firm in early 2022. The bar claims the firm refused to remove the attorney’s name from its website for years, ignoring a cease and desist letter from McBratney’s new employer.

Typically, attorneys can take cases in states where they’re not licensed, but they need to partner with local counsel or get permission from the court. In many cases, the bar alleged, DTLA made no effort to do so and left their out-of-state clients in the lurch.

The firm told a Maryland car crash victim her case was worth $1 million and encouraged her to see a California spinal surgeon who charged roughly $300,000 for surgery, according to the complaint. She fired the firm after she got a settlement offer of $160,000 — not enough, she believed, to cover her medical fees, the complaint said.

Attorneys signed up a Tennessee client who was injured at a Nashville rental car business, but the one-year statute of limitations ran out before they filed the case, the bar complaint said. The firm offered to pay for all of his medical bills and one year of physical therapy “as a form of restitution,” according to the complaint.

The charges come as DTLA faces another pending investigation from the State Bar in connection with thousands of sexual abuse lawsuits the firm filed against Los Angeles County, along with a probe from the district attorney’s office. Both have said they are looking into allegations surfaced by The Times last fall that DTLA paid clients to file claims, some of which were allegedly fabricated, that became part of a $4-billion settlement, the largest of its kind in U.S. history. The firm has repeatedly denied all wrongdoing.

The firm was founded by three longtime friends: Daniel Azizi and Farid Yaghoubtil, who are cousins, and Hendizadeh, a friend from elementary school. They began working together in August 2013, the month Hendizadeh got his California bar license, according to the complaint.

The bar complaint charges only Hendizadeh, though it also mentions Yaghoubtil, who shared the responsibility for marketing and client intake, according to the complaint.

The bar says Yaghoubtil repeatedly asked for a referral fee from a woman injured in a Michigan drugstore after she dropped the firm for allegedly taking too long to file her lawsuit. The client had to find her own attorney, the bar said, eliminating the need for a referral fee.

“Why would you tell the lawyers to not pay us a referral fee? That makes no sense.” Yaghoubtil texted the woman on Aug. 16, 2022. “But why not let us get the referral fee? Very sad. Have a nice night.”

March 8 (Asia Today) — A senior labor official said South Korea’s revised labor law should be implemented carefully, emphasizing precise enforcement rather than rapid expansion when it takes effect Monday.

Ryu Je-gang, head of Policy Division 2 at the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, said the success of the legislation will depend largely on how enforcement decrees and interpretation guidelines function in practice.

“The success of the system depends less on the articles themselves and more on how enforcement rules work in the field,” Ryu said in an interview with Asia Today. “Refining the scope of application, criteria and support systems should take priority over expanding the law too quickly.”

The legislation, commonly known as the “Yellow Envelope Law,” revises Articles 2 and 3 of South Korea’s Trade Union Act and will take effect Monday.

Supporters say the amendment expands the concept of employer responsibility, allowing subcontracted workers to demand negotiations with a principal contractor even without a direct employment contract.

Ryu described the change as opening “the door for negotiations with the primary employer.”

Previously, restructuring measures such as mergers, divisions or asset transfers were often excluded from collective bargaining on the grounds they were management decisions, he said. The new framework could help address disputes related to layoffs and restructuring.

Business groups have warned the legislation could increase labor disputes by limiting corporate claims for damages or asset seizures against unions during strikes.

Ryu rejected those concerns, saying the provisions largely reflect existing court precedents rather than introducing entirely new rules.

“I do not expect a dramatic increase in labor disputes simply because of this change,” he said.

However, he acknowledged the law may face practical limitations. Workers will still need to prove employer responsibility, and procedures such as unified bargaining channels and requests to separate bargaining units could make negotiations difficult.

“The procedural barriers remain high,” he said. “If negotiations themselves are difficult, expanding labor disputes will not be easy.”

Ryu also warned the amendment may not fully protect some categories of workers, including special employment and platform workers who often lack traditional labor contracts.

In the short term, he said the law could lead to increased demands for negotiations with companies previously seen as responsible but not directly engaged in collective bargaining.

Over the longer term, however, the changes could help ease tensions created by complex subcontracting systems.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260309010002098

WASHINGTON — Visitors to the Capitol will now have a visible reminder of the violent attack against the building on Jan. 6, 2021, and the officers who fought and were injured defending it that day.

Steps from the Capitol’s West Front, where the worst of the violence occurred, workers quietly have installed a plaque honoring the officers, three years after it was required by law to be erected. The plaque was placed on the Senate side of the hallway because the Senate voted unanimously in January to install it after House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) had delayed putting it up. Many Republicans had balked at installing the plaque.

“On behalf of a grateful Congress, this plaque honors the extraordinary individuals who bravely protected and defended this symbol of democracy on January 6, 2021,” the plaque says. “Their heroism will never be forgotten.”

The Washington Post first reported the installation of the plaque, which was witnessed by a reporter about 4 a.m. Saturday.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) led the effort to install it as he commemorated the fifth anniversary of the attack and insurrection and described his memories of hearing people break into the building. “We owe them eternal gratitude, and this nation is stronger because of them,” he said of the officers who were overwhelmed by thousands of President Trump’s supporters before eventually pushing them out of the building.

The mob of rioters who violently pushed past police and broke in were echoing Trump’s false claims of a stolen election after the Republican was defeated by Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election. The crowd stopped the congressional certification of Biden’s victory for several hours, sent lawmakers running for safety and vandalized the building before police regained control.

Five police officers and four protesters died as a consequence of the violence. More than 140 officers from the U.S. Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police Department and other agencies were injured.

The fight to have the plaque installed came as Trump returned to office last year and the Republican Congress has remained loyal to him. The president, who has called Jan. 6 a “day of love,” on his first day of his new term granted pardons or commutations to nearly 1,600 people convicted or charged in the rioting.

Trump was impeached and criminally indicted for his role in the insurrection. The Senate did not convict him, and the felony charges were dropped after he was reelected in November 2024.

Congress passed a law in 2022 that set out instructions for the honorific plaque listing the names of officers “who responded to the violence that occurred.” It gave a one-year deadline for installation, but the plaque never went up.

After more than a year of silence — and a lawsuit by two of the officers who fought at the Capitol that day — Johnson said at the beginning of the year that there were technical problems with the statute and the plaque could not be erected.

Tillis went to the Senate floor shortly afterward and passed a resolution, with no objections, to place the plaque on the Senate side.

One of the officers who sued, Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges, said the lawsuit would continue. Hodges, who was crushed by the rioters in the heavy doors steps away from where the plaque is now displayed, said Saturday that the overnight installation was a “fine stopgap” but that it was not in full compliance of the law. The original statute said that all of the officers’ names should be listed, among other technical specifications.

“The weight of a judicial ruling would help secure the memorial against future tampering,” Hodges said. “Our lawsuit persists.”

Jalonick and Mascaro write for the Associated Press. AP writer Allison Robbert contributed to this report.