leader

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feb. 20 (Asia Today) — People Power Party leader Jang Dong-hyuk rejected calls to sever ties with former President Yoon Suk-yeol on Thursday, intensifying internal divisions within South Korea’s main conservative party ahead of local elections.

At a press conference at the National Assembly, Jang said Yoon’s life sentence in a first-instance ruling does not negate the principle of presumption of innocence.

“This is still a first trial,” he said. “The presumption of innocence must apply to everyone without exception.”

Jang dismissed demands from within the party to formally break with what critics call the “Yoon Again” faction. He argued that forces seeking to distance the party from Yoon are instead fueling division.

“Division is the worst form of incompetence,” he said. “Those who exploit the president’s name for their own interests, and those who use calls for severance to split the party, are the ones we must decisively cut ties with.”

His remarks appeared aimed at the pro-Han Dong-hoon faction and a group of younger lawmakers who had urged the leadership to declare a clear break from Yoon following Wednesday’s verdict.

Rep. Lee Sung-kwon criticized Jang’s stance, saying it showed a refusal to accept the judiciary’s decision. “By shifting responsibility for unconstitutional emergency rule onto others, he cannot call himself the leader of a conservative party before the people,” Lee said.

Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon also weighed in on social media, warning that politics centered on the slogan “Yoon Again” would fail to persuade centrist voters and younger generations.

Former party leader Han Dong-hoon issued a sharper rebuke, writing online that Jang was “merely a host for the Yoon faction” and calling for him to be removed to save the conservative movement.

The controversy has exposed differences within the party leadership. Floor leader Song Eon-seok said a day earlier that the party “deeply regrets” the guilty verdict against a former president it produced and apologized to the public, reaffirming that no one stands above the law.

A party official said views appear to be divided even between the party leader and the floor leader, complicating efforts to present a unified message.

With tensions rising, lawmakers are expected to convene a general meeting as early as next week to discuss the party’s direction. Observers warn that continued infighting could weigh on the party ahead of the June 3 local elections.

— 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=20260220010006110

Rory McIlroy lies six shots off the lead after Jacob Bridgeman’s stunning seven-under-par 64 cemented his place at the top of leaderboard after round three of the Genesis Invitational.

Northern Ireland’s McIlroy started the day one shot behind America’s Bridgeman but carded a two-under-par 69 to lie in second place on 13 under in Los Angeles.

Bridgeman, who also shot a 64 in round two, holed seven birdies and one eagle, on the 11th hole, in a fine display as he took control at the Riviera Country Club.

The 26-year-old, ranked 52 in the world, is enjoying a good start to the year having had two top-10 finishes in his opening four events, including last week’s eighth place at Pebble Beach.

England’s Marco Penge, who started the day tied for the lead with Bridgeman, shot a three-over-par 74 as he slipped to joint-seventh on the leaderboard.

Penge’s compatriot Aaron Rai is fourth and eight shots off the lead on 11 under after carding a 66, with South Africa’s Aldrich Potgieter one shot ahead of him in third.

World number one Scottie Scheffler, who holed a seven-foot putt on Friday to make it to the weekend, is joint 22nd on five under after shooting a 66.

SAN FRANCISCO — Leaders of the California Democratic Party, along with liberal activists and loyal power brokers, are openly expressing fear that their crowded field of candidates running for governor may splinter the vote and open the door to a surprise Republican victory in November.

Because of those concerns, the Democrats lagging at the bottom of the pack are being urged to drop out of the race to ensure the party’s political dominance in statewide elections survives the 2026 election.

“California Democrats are prepared to do what’s required,” state party chairman Rusty Hicks told reporters at the California Democratic Party’s annual convention on Friday. “We are ready and willing and able to do what’s required … to ensure we have a strong candidate coming out of the primary to do what’s required in November.”

Nine prominent Democrats are running to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, compared to two top GOP candidates, and could divide the Democratic electorate enough that the two Republicans could receive the most votes in the June primary and advance to the November election. Under California’s “jungle primary” system, the top two vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation.

Hicks was deferential to the Democratic candidates who have long-served in public office, and have compelling personal tales and the experience to take the helm of the state. But he said there is the harsh political reality that a viable candidate needs to raise an enormous amount of money to have a winning campaign in a state of 23.1 million registered voters and some of the most expensive media markets in the nation.

The party, its allies and the candidates themselves have a “collective commitment to ensuring we do not see a Republican elected [for governor],” Hicks said.

While Hicks and other party leaders did not publicly name the candidates who ought to leave the race, among the candidates lagging in the polls are state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, former state Controller Betty Yee, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon.

Democratic voters vastly outnumber the number of registered Republicans in the state, and no Republican has been elected to statewide office since 2006.

But given the sprawling field of gubernatorial candidates, the lack of a clear front-runner and the state’s unique primary system, the race appears up for grabs. According to an average of the most recent opinion polls, conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco — both Republicans — are tied for first place, according to Real Clear Politics. Each received the support of 15.5% of voters. The top Democrat, Rep. Eric Swalwell of Dublin, Calif., was backed by 12.5%.

In 2012, Republicans finished in first and second place in the race for a San Bernardino County congressional district — despite Democrats having a solid edge in voter registration. The four Democrats running for the seat split the vote, opening the door for a victory by GOP Rep. Gary Miller. Pete Aguilar, one of the Democrats who lost in the primary, went on to win that seat in 2014 and has served in Congress ever since.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) on Friday pushed back at the fears that two Republicans will win the top two gubernatorial spots in June.

“That’s not going to happen,” she said in an interview after speaking at a young Democrats’ reception. “And everything that you should know about the Democrats this year is we are unified. As I say, our diversity is our strength, our unity is our power. And everybody knows that there’s too much at stake.”

However, the scenario has prompted a cross section of the typically fractious party to unite behind the belief the field must shrink, whether by candidates’ choice or through pressure.

Jodi Hicks, the leader of Planned Parenthood’s California operations, said that the organization is laser-focused on congressional races, but having two Republican gubernatorial candidates “would be nothing short of devastating.”

“We have not weighed in on the governor’s race but we are paying close attention to whether this comes to play, and whether or not we do decide to weigh in and make sure that doesn’t happen,” she said.

Newsom and legislative Democrats have tried to buffer the massive federal funding cuts to reproductive care. A November election with two Republicans on the gubernatorial ballot would eliminate a key partner in Sacramento, and could impact turnout in down-ballot congressional and legislative races.

“A top-two Republican [race] would certainly have dire consequences for the midterm battle and to the governor’s office,” Jodi Hicks said.

Lorena Gonzalez, the leader of California Federation of Labor Unions, noted that her organization’s endorsement process begins on Tuesday.

“I think we are going to have some pretty honest discussions with candidates about their individual paths and where they are,” she said. “They’re all great candidates, so many of them are really good folks. But it’s starting to get to be that time.”

She expects the field to begin to thin in the coming days and weeks.

The conversation went beyond party leaders, taking place among delegates such as Gregory Hutchins, an academic labor researcher from Riverside.

“My goal at the convention, it’s not necessarily that the party coalesces around one particular candidate, but more, this is a test to see what candidates have a level of support that they can mount a successful campaign,” said the 29-year-old, who said he hopes to see some candidates drop out after the weekend.

“Am I concerned long term that [a top-two Republican runoff] could be a thing? Yes and no,” he said “I’m not concerned that we’re not going to solve this problem before the primary, but I do think we need to start getting serious about, ‘We need to solve this problem soon.’”

Not everyone agreed.

Tim Paulson, a San Francisco Democrat who supports Yee, called efforts to push people out of the race “preemptive disqualification.”

“This is nothing but scare tactics to get people out of the race,” he said. “This is still a vibrant primary. Nobody knows who the front-runner is yet.”

Bob Galemmo, 71, countered that many people did not believe Donald Trump would be elected president in 2016 and fears two Republicans could advance to the general election.

“You should never say never,” he said. “If we could get down to like four or five [candidates], that would be helpful.”

The efforts had already began.

RL Miller, the chair of the state Democratic Party’s environmental caucus, said Yee ought to drop out.

Yee, “who is at the bottom of the polls, needs to be taking a good long look at whether she is serving the party or being selfish by staying in the race,” Miller said.

Yee, a former state party vice chair, pushed back forcefully, saying pressure to drop out of the race “would just be undemocratic.”

“First of all, I’ve served this party for a long time. I don’t do it out of selfishness, by any means,” she said at a Saturday gathering where she provided breakfast burritos to delegates. “But I’ll just say this — the race is wide open.”

Yee‘s campaign manager noted that 40% of voters are undecided, and the candidate said no one has asked her directly to exit the race, but that someone started a rumor a month or two ago that she was going to drop out and run for insurance commissioner instead.

“I’m not dropping out, and I don’t think any candidate should go out,” Yee said.

Calderon said Swalwell had urged him to get out of the race.

Calderon noted the largest group of voters is still undecided and defended staying in the race to try to reach those voters after speaking at a gubernatorial forum at the Commonwealth Club on Friday

“I stay very consistent in that 1 to 3% range,” he joked. “But my challenge is access to resources and visibility, which is something that could change within a day with the right backing and support.”

Swalwell and his campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

The most prestigious board ever put together.

That is how the president of the United States, a man convicted of fraud, described his new team focused on international relations. A team that does not include representatives from our closest neighbors — Mexico and Canada — but did save room for leaders accused of war crimes by the International Criminal Court.

Now, we do not know whether President Trump created his “Board of Peace,” which this week held its first meeting, specifically to undermine the authority of the United Nations. But we do know that the president has pledged $10 billion in tax dollars to the board’s mission while still owing the U.N. half that amount in back payments. We do not know whether Trump, who is indefinitely the leader of this peace board, intends to relinquish that power after he leaves the White House. But we do know he is still trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Whether the “Board of Peace” is the most prestigious panel ever assembled is debatable. What is not debatable is that it was conceived by an adjudicated sexual abuser who is referenced in the released Epstein files some 38,000 times.

That is not my take.

That is simply what is happening.

Which is why the president encourages his supporters to ban books and reject journalism. He doesn’t want voters to pay attention. He doesn’t want voters to understand his actions.

Ten years ago this month — after his Nevada caucus victory speech — Trump said, “I love the poorly educated.” And his reliance on this base is why, over the past decade, he and other conservatives have purposely misconstrued the term “woke” as a catch-all slur toward progressive and far-left policies. It used to mean “aware” and “informed.” The term was not born out of modern politics but rather the need to understand the history of the social economic systems we all are living in. The alternative is to be blindly led by an unscrupulous leader most concerned with his own well being.

Being “woke” is why the Boston Tea Party happened in 1773; it is why Thomas Paine published “Common Sense” in 1776; it is why Republicans formed the Wide Awakes to help get Abraham Lincoln elected in 1860. When voters understand the context in which decisions are made, we are better equipped to address shortcomings at the ballot box and in our daily lives.

Trump’s self-proclaimed love for the poorly educated has nothing to do with progressive policies or college degrees and everything to do with whom he can convince to believe him. And by making “woke” an insult, Trump and other conservatives have politicized the very tool necessary to help the country fulfill its promise: information.

This threat is the reason his administration attacks, and even arrests, journalists; the reason he refers to reports he doesn’t like as “fake news”; the reason he fired the labor statistics chief after an unflattering jobs report last year. He’s waging a war on information.

The reason 2025 marked the worst nonrecession year for job growth since 2003 isn’t that the country was “woke.” It’s because of shortcomings in leadership.

When Trump returned to the White House, he made lowering the U.S. trade deficit a key component to his economic policy. In 2024, the deficit was $903.5 billion. In 2025, it was $901.5 billion — and America’s families paid $230 billion more for goods because of his yo-yo tariff policies.

He told his supporters that other nations would be paying for the tariffs he enacted — obvious nonsense to anyone who attended a day of Econ 101. And we know that as a result of his reckless and ignorant policies, farmers in particular suffered. It’s not clear whether that financial burden was a consideration when the Supreme Court on Friday declared the president’s sweeping tariffs to be illegal. What we do know is before Trump entered politics, his businesses filed for bankruptcy six times — so perhaps he was never the economic savant he claimed to be.

Just as the saga of the Epstein files reveals he is not the protector of women and young girls that he claimed to be.

Just as his recent attacks on the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendments show he was never the defender of the Constitution he took an oath to be.

Acknowledging the laundry list of untruths tied to his promises and presidency is not political or a symptom of “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” It’s simply having information: the one thing that helps voters understand why things are the way they are. The one thing the president hopes his supporters never wake up to see for themselves.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

On the cusp of what promises to be a bitter showdown with major league owners, the players’ union has no leader. Tony Clark, the executive director of the Major League Baseball Players Assn., resigned under pressure Tuesday.

Why did Clark resign?

Clark and the union had engaged separate attorneys as federal authorities investigated alleged financial improprieties within the MLBPA, an affiliated licensing company and an affiliated youth sports venture.

The union also commissioned an investigation, initially focused on those allegations, that uncovered an “inappropriate relationship” between Clark and an employee, a person familiar with the matter confirmed to The Times, with the eight-man MLBPA player leadership team advising Clark that he should depart. The employee was his sister-in-law, the person confirmed.

The allegations remain under federal investigation, meaning that player leaders determined Clark could have been a liability on at least two fronts as players and owners head toward what is expected to be the most contentious collective bargaining in the sport in 31 years.

The Athletic first reported Clark had resigned; ESPN first reported on the relationship.

Who will replace Clark as the union leader?

The MLBPA issued a statement late Tuesday saying player leaders had met Tuesday. Players planned to canvass their peers scattered across spring training camps, then meet again Wednesday, with the possibility of voting on a new executive director then.

That could be either a permanent hire or an interim hire; the latter would reflect the urgency of the upcoming labor negotiation. Although the collective bargaining agreement does not expire until Dec. 1, Commissioner Rob Manfred said last week he expected talks on a new deal to start soon after opening day.

Bruce Meyer, the union’s deputy executive director and lead negotiator, would be the most logical successor. The MLBPA hired Meyer away from the NHLPA in 2018, one year into a bargaining agreement in which Clark and union negotiators were widely viewed as being badly beaten by Manfred and league negotiators.

No. It just acknowledged his resignation.

Is Meyer’s ascension a foregone conclusion?

Bruce Meyer in 2022

(Richard Drew / Associated Press)

Likely, yes, but not foregone. In 2021, with Meyer as lead negotiator and pushing for a better deal even as a 162-game season was threatened, players voted to accept the deal on the table. The union promoted Meyer into his current position in 2022.

In 2024, ESPN reported a majority of player representatives supported the replacement of Meyer with Harry Marino, who had unionized minor league players. Ultimately, Clark stuck with Meyer.

At this late date, however, internal bargaining preparations are underway, and Meyer is now a veteran of MLB negotiations. The goal is to “keep everything as stable as we can this year,” Angels pitcher Brent Suter told reporters. Suter is one of eight players on the union’s player leadership team.

Does this mean the players are divided and the owners are united?

No, and not that simple in any case.

On what looms as the core bargaining issue — the potential adoption of a salary cap — Clark and Meyer were aligned. Clark was the union voice calling a cap “institutionalized collusion,” with Meyer filling in the details of why the MLBPA believed a cap would not necessarily enhance parity and could leave players liable to receive a shrinking percentage of revenue over time.

Manfred has argued the current system helps elite players while squeezing the salaries and the jobs of the so-called middle class.

The owners currently appear united on pushing for a salary cap. If at some point they believe they have to do what the NHL did to get a cap — that is, lose an entire season — the interests of the large-market owners and the small-market owners could diverge.

What does this mean in terms of a potential lockout?

Nothing, really. Within the game, a lockout is considered all but inevitable.

Manfred has said he views a lockout as a negotiating tool. If MLB locks out players Dec. 1, no games are lost. If a lockout remains in place April 1, regular-season games could be lost.

In the last collective bargaining negotiation, owners locked out players in December, and a new deal was reached in March, preserving a 162-game season that started one week late.

In 1994, the Rev. Jesse Jackson declared war on Hollywood.

The civil rights leader, who died Tuesday, set his sights on the entertainment industry, accusing it of “institutional racism” and calling out what he called the lack of representation of people of color and women, an issue that reverberates today.

Jackson aimed his trademark fiery dynamism at studio and network executives, forming the Rainbow Coalition on Fairness in the Media — an offshoot of his Rainbow Coalition that focused on social justice and economic equality — and threatening boycotts against projects that excluded minorities.

Comparing his campaign to the historic march in Selma, Ala., and other civil rights demonstrations during a news conference, Jackson said, “They think they have the right to not include us in recruitment, hiring, promotion, projection, decision making. But we have consumer power, we have viewer power, we have the power to change dials. … The networks have time now to get their house in order. They can begin to change now.”

The pronouncement was a dramatic contrast to Jackson’s 1984 hosting gig on “Saturday Night Live” and his memorable reading of “Green Eggs and Ham” during a 1991 appearance on the sketch variety series.

But despite his characteristic command and media savvy, Jackson’s campaign never gained true momentum, scoring mixed results. Black actors and creators within Hollywood for the most part failed to rally around him, and leaders of some advocacy groups accused him of losing focus. Whoopi Goldberg made fun of him while hosting the 1996 Oscars.

By 1997, the battle had fizzled out and Jackson had moved on to more political concerns.

The clash with Hollywood was first sparked after several Black-oriented shows on Fox, including “South Central,” “Roc,” “In Living Color” and “The Sinbad Show” were canceled in the July 1994. Jackson felt there would not be much improvement in the diversity on the shows in the upcoming fall season.

“We know that significant shows were cut off from Fox this season, and that is of great concern to us,” Jackson said at a news conference at the African American Community Unity Center where he was accompanied by Brotherhood Crusade founder Danny Bakewell and comedian Sinbad, who starred in his own eponymous sitcom.

And Jackson said it wasn’t the only TV network with this problem. “We look at the data we have on NBC. It is substantial. It is ugly. We look at the projected format for CBS this fall. In the real sense, all of them are recycling racist practices. It is called institutional racism. It is manifest not only in their hiring, but in their priorities.”

He added that he was also concerned about what he claimed was poor representation of people of color and women among network news anchors and on writing staffs on prime-time network series. He criticized the prominence of Black actors having major roles that often involved criminal activity.

Jameel Hasan as Homey Jr., left, and Damon Wayans as Homey D. Clown on Fox’s “In Living Color,” which was canceled in 1994.

(Nicola Goode / Fox)

“We have written the networks letters, and the response, by and large, has been defensive as they attempt to justify what is unjustifiable,” Jackson said at the news conference. “While we’re willing to talk, we’re also willing to walk. It’s now time for aggressive direct action.”

In a separate interview, he targeted politically oriented Sunday news shows, saying they excluded Black journalists and news figures: “Those all-white hosts determine their guests and set the political agenda for public policy for Monday morning. That’s not America.”

His newly formed commission was researching network hiring practices and minority images. He vowed that boycotts and other actions would take place if there was not significant change.

But those demonstrations never materialized, and no boycotts were called. Roughly a year after his initial declaration, observers inside and outside the industry said networks had mostly ignored Jackson, and that little had changed.

Some leaders at the time questioned his commitment, saying he did not seem truly dedicated to aggressive action.

Sonny Skyhawk, founder and president of American Indians in Film, one of the organizations that had joined forces with Jackson, said the campaign against the networks should have been stronger.

“I would hate to criticize him for not being more diligent, but it is frustrating,” said Skyhawk in a 1995 interview about the initiative. “I don’t know where (the issue) is or why he is not continuing on this. But I think he got sidetracked on a lot of other things.”

Sherrie Mazingo, who was then head of broadcast journalism at USC, said she was not surprised that the Jackson campaign had lost steam: “What happened last season isn’t new, it’s perennial, and may even be cyclical. Protests and accusations and talk like this goes on all the time, and nothing ever happens. Nothing.”

Mazingo cited similar efforts by the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People in the early 1980s that had attacked Hollywood’s hiring practices. A boycott of films that failed to use Black artists in front of or behind the camera was proposed but never materialized.

“I believe what happens when these things start is that an individual in the organization who is pushing forward on these issues gets tired of banging their head against a brick wall,” Mazingo said. “They make an all-out assault, exhaust a lot of energy and money, and nothing ever significantly changes, except for a token gesture here and there.”

Sumi Haru, who was president of the Assn. of Asian Pacific Artists, said Jackson had been sidetracked by more topical issues such as a conservative power grab in Washington, D.C., and calls for abolishing affirmative action programs.

“He needed to focus his energy on the civil rights initiative, and affirmative action was a much bigger deal,” said Haru.

But Billie Green, president of the Beverly Hills/Hollywood branch of the NAACP, said Jackson’s campaign would have been more effective if it had joined forces with other organizations that had members within the television industry.

Jackson pushed back against the criticism, insisting that the fight against Hollywood “is still very high on our agenda.” He pointed out that he had worked to continue government funding for the Public Broadcasting Service, protested the cancellation of the Nickelodeon series about two Black brothers, “My Brother and Me,” picketed conservative “hate radio” programs and sent out a fax to 8,000 supporters asking them to rally CBS to bring back the family drama “Under One Roof.”

“It’s going to get more intense,” Jackson said.

In 1996, Jackson turned his attention to the Academy Awards, angered that there was only one Black nominee among the 166 artists nominated. He called for picketing in major cities and and said Black people attending the Oscar ceremony should wear a symbol expressing solidarity against what he called Hollywood’s “race exclusion and cultural violence.”

But during the Oscars, which was produced by Quincy Jones, Goldberg, who was hosting, took a swipe at the civil rights leader who was picketing across town.

“Jesse Jackson asked me to wear a ribbon. I got it,” Goldberg said during her opening. “But I had something I want to say to Jesse right here, but he’s not watching, so why bother?” The remark drew applause and laughter from the black-tie audience.

Some leaders, producers and directors were not amused by Goldberg, saying her remarks were insulting and dismissive of a serious fight to gain diversity within the motion picture industry. But others criticized Jackson, calling his action ill-timed and ill-advised. Several of the most prominent African Americans present, including Oprah Winfrey, Sidney Poitier and Laurence Fishburne, did not wear rainbow-colored ribbons as a sign of solidarity with Jackson and his Rainbow Coalition.

Even though he concentrated on other endeavors, Jackson was not totally done with Hollywood. He and the Rev. Al Sharpton spearheaded a protest in 2002 against the comedy “Barbershop” and its jokes about Jackson and ciivil rights icons Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. The two leaders also threatened a boycott against the 2004 comedy “Soul Plane.”

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, a child of Southern segregation who rose to national prominence as a powerful voice for Black economic and racial equality, has died.

Jackson, who had battled the neurodegenerative condition progressive supranuclear palsy for more than a decade, died at home surrounded by family. His daughter, Santita Jackson, confirmed his death with the Associated Press. He was 84. Jackson was originally diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in 2017 before the PSP diagnosis was confirmed in April.

Handsome and dynamic, an orator with a flair for memorable rhyme, Jackson was the first Black candidate for president to attract a major following, declaring in 1984 that “our time has come” and drawing about 3.5 million votes in Democratic primaries — roughly 1 in 5 of those cast.

Four years later, using the slogan “Keep hope alive,” he ran again, winning 7 million votes, second only to the eventual nominee, Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis. His hourlong speech at the 1988 Democratic National Convention brought many delegates to tears and provided the gathering’s emotional high point.

Rev. Jesse Jackson and his wife, Jacqueline, acknowledge the cheers of delegates and supporters before his emotional speech to the Democratic National Convention in Atlanta on July 20, 1988.

(John Duricka / Associated Press)

“Every one of these funny labels they put on you, those of you who are watching this broadcast tonight in the projects, on the corners — I understand,” he said. “Call you outcast, low down, you can’t make it, you’re nothing, you’re from nobody, subclass, underclass; when you see Jesse Jackson, when my name goes in nomination, your name goes in nomination.”

For nearly a generation, from the 1970s into the 1990s, that ability to absorb the insults and rejection suffered by Black Americans and transmute them into a defiant rhetoric of success made Jackson the most prominent Black figure in the country. Both beneficiary and victim of white America’s longstanding insistence on having one media-anointed leader serve as the spokesman for tens of millions of Black citizens, he drew adulation and jeers but consistently held the spotlight.

Supporters greeted his speeches with chants of “Run, Jesse, run.” Opponents tracked every misstep, from audits of his grants in the 1970s to his use of the anti-Jewish slur “Hymietown” to refer to New York City during the 1984 campaign, to the disclosure, in 2001, that he had fathered a daughter in an extramarital affair.

As he dominated center stage, the thundering chorus of his speeches — “I am … somebody” — inspired his followers even as it sometimes sounded like a painful plea.

Jackson’s thirst for attention began in childhood. Born out of wedlock on Oct. 8, 1941, he often stood at the gate of his father’s home in Greenville, S.C., watching with envy as his half-brothers played, before returning to the home he shared with his mother, Helen Burns, and grandmother, Mathilda.

During high school, his father, Noah Robinson, a former professional boxer, would sometimes go to the football field to watch Jesse play. If he played well, Noah would sometimes tell others, “That’s one of mine.” For the most part, however, until Jesse was famous, he shunned his son, who was later adopted by the man his mother married, Charles Jackson.

It was his grandmother, known as Tibby, who encouraged Jackson’s ambition. A domestic in stringently segregated Greenville, Tibby brought home books and magazines, such as National Geographic, that her white employers’ children had discarded.

“Couldn’t read a word herself but she’d bring them back for me, you know, these cultural things used by the wealthy and refined,” Jackson once said. “All she knew was, their sons read those books. So I ought to read them too. She never stopped dreaming for me.”

Her dreams propelled Jackson toward college — as did a need to avenge the childhood taunts that echoed in his head. An honors student, he turned down a contract to pitch for the Chicago White Sox to accept a football scholarship to the University of Illinois.

At Christmas break, he came home with a list of books. A librarian at the McBee Avenue Colored Branch referred him to the white library downtown and called ahead to clear the way. When he entered the main library, two police officers stood at the loan desk. A librarian told him it would take at least six days to get the books from the shelves. When he offered to get them himself, the officers told him to leave.

“I just stared up at that ‘Greenville Public Library’ and tears came to my eyes,” Jackson told a biographer, Marshall Frady.

That summer, 1960, Jackson came home and led a sit-in at the library, his arrest a first taste of civil disobedience. In the fall, he transferred to North Carolina A&T State University in Greensboro. There he became the star quarterback and participated in the beginnings of the sit-ins that became a signature part of the civil rights movement led by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

“It wasn’t a matter of Gandhi or Dr. King then,” he said of the library sit-in, “it was just my own private pride and self-respect.”

With his height and his oratorical flourishes, Jackson was a charismatic figure who led protests in Greensboro. Once, during a demonstration outside a cafeteria, as police were about to arrest the demonstrators, Jackson suggested they kneel and recite the Lord’s Prayer.

“Police all took off their caps and bowed their heads,” he said. “Can’t arrest folks prayin’.”

Then he led the demonstrators in “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

“They stopped, put their hands over their heart,” Jackson said. “Can’t arrest folks singing the national anthem.”

After half an hour, he recalled, “we got tired and let ’em arrest us.”

Elected student body president, Jackson graduated in 1963. A grant from the Rockefeller Fund for Theological Education brought him to the Chicago Theological Seminary, where he hoped to find a venue for social activism.

That summer, Jackson traveled to Washington, where he heard King deliver his famous “I Have a Dream” speech. Two years later, he and a group of college buddies piled into vans to drive south for King’s Selma-to-Montgomery march. He met King there, and early the next year, King asked Jackson to head his Southern Christian Leadership Conference’s Operation Breadbasket in Chicago. The goal was to win economic gains for Black people with a combination of consumer boycotts and negotiated settlements.

At 24, Jackson was the youngest of King’s aides. Operating out of a hole-in-the-wall office at SCLC’s South Side headquarters, he began by organizing preachers, arranging for them to urge their congregations on Easter to boycott products made by a local dairy that employed no Black workers.

During the following week, Country Delight lost more than half a million dollars in revenue. Within days, the company offered a deal: 44 jobs for Black workers. Without waiting for a boycott, other dairy companies called with offers, too.

King soon asked Jackson to be the national director of Operation Breadbasket. Jackson hesitated — the job required him to leave the seminary six months short of graduation. Jackson recounted in his autobiography that King told him, “Come with me full time and you’ll learn more theology in six months than you would in six years at the seminary.” He earned his ordination several years later.

In 1968, Jesse Jackson stands to the left of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tenn., where King was assassinated the next day.

(Charles Kelly / Associated Press )

In April 1968, Jackson joined King in Memphis, where the civil rights leader had decided to stand with striking Black sanitation workers. Few of King’s staff supported the effort, worrying that the strike — and the planned Poor People’s Campaign in Washington — distracted from the main goal of attaining voting and political rights for Black Americans.

During a planning meeting, King blew up at his aides, including Jackson. “If you’re so interested in doing your own thing, that you can’t do what this organization is structured to do, if you want to carve out your own niche in society, go ahead,” King yelled at Jackson, according to the latter’s account. “But for God’s sake, don’t bother me!”

The next day, standing below the balcony of the Lorraine Motel where the team was staying in Memphis, King yelled down at Jackson in joviality, as if to mitigate the outburst, inviting him to dinner.

Within moments, shots rang out. Jackson later said he ran upstairs and caught King’s head as he lay dying. Andrew Young, a King aide who later became U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told Frady that he doubted Jackson had cradled King’s head, but that they all had rushed to the scene and all had gotten blood on their clothes.

But if all of them were touched by King’s blood, only Jackson wore his gore-stained olive turtleneck for days, sleeping and grieving in it, wearing it on NBC’s “Today Show” and before the Chicago City Council. In dramatizing the moment to his own benefit, Jackson provoked hostility from King’s widow and others in the movement’s leadership that lasted decades.

Richard Hatcher, the first Black mayor of Gary, Ind., and a Jackson supporter, recalled that once Jackson decided to run for president, the campaign thought it had the backing of the Black leadership.

“Big mistake. Big mistake,” Hatcher said. “Over the following months, every time things seemed to get going, here would come a statement from Atlanta, from Andy [Young] or Joe Lowery or Mrs. King, ‘We don’t think this is a good idea at all.’“

As Jackson’s media prominence grew — including a cover photo on Time magazine in 1970 — tensions erupted between Jackson and SCLC, in part because of the sloppy bookkeeping that became a Jackson characteristic. In late 1971, SCLC’s board suspended Jackson for “administrative impropriety” and “repeated violation of organization discipline.” Jackson resigned, saying, “I need air. I must have room to grow.”

Rev. Jesse Jackson raises a clenched fist from a police van after he and 11 others from Operation Breadbasket were arrested during a sit-in at the Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., offices in New York City on Feb. 2, 1971. The organization, part of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, has been protesting A&P’s alleged discrimination against blacks.

(MARTY LEDERHANDLER / Associated Press)

Calling a dozen Black celebrities to New York’s Commodore Hotel, Jackson formed his own organization. Originally called People United to Save Humanity — the presumptuous title was soon changed to People United to Serve Humanity — PUSH became his pulpit. Like Operation Breadbasket, its goal was to boost minority employment and ownership.

Jackson traveled the country preaching self-esteem and self-discipline. Thousands of youngsters took pledges to say no to drugs, turn off their television sets, study. They became the core of his voter registration drives, the inspiration for the “I am somebody” chant that would define his public ministry.

As with Operation Breadbasket, Jackson used PUSH to hold corporate America to account. In 1982, for example, he launched a boycott of Anheuser-Busch with the slogan “this Bud’s a dud.”

“We spend approximately $800 million with them [annually]. Yet, out of 950 wholesale distributorships, only one is Black-owned,” Jackson said.

Shortly thereafter, Anheuser-Busch contributed $10,000 to Jackson’s Citizenship Education Fund, contributed more than $500,000 to the Rainbow PUSH coalition, and established a $10-million fund to help minorities buy distributorships.

In 1998, 16 years later, the River North beer distributorship in Chicago was purchased by two of Jackson’s sons, Yusef and Jonathan. (Jackson’s eldest son, Jesse Jackson Jr., won election to Congress from Chicago in 1995, but resigned and was convicted of fraud in 2013 for misuse of campaign funds. Jackson and his wife, Jacqueline, also had two daughters, Jacqueline and Santita. A third daughter, Ashley Laverne Jackson, was the child of his relationship with a PUSH staff member, Karin Stanford.)

Critics called the PUSH campaigns elaborate shakedowns. Others, like Jeffrey Campbell, president of Burger King when Jackson opened negotiations in 1983, found the encounter with Jackson and his rhetoric of economic empowerment inspiring.

“Before they came in, my view was that we ought to fight them, that this guy Jackson was a monster, and I had the backing of my bosses to walk out if necessary,” Campbell told the Los Angeles Times in 1987. But Campbell said he quickly changed his mind.

“He got to me very quickly, without me realizing it, when he started talking about fairness. He would say: What is fair? Blacks give you 15% of your business — isn’t it fair that you give 15% of your business, your jobs, your purchases back to the Black community, the Black businesses?

“That little seed began to grow in the back of my mind,” Campbell said. “It was the right question to ask me.”

How Jackson handled money gave critics additional openings. Between 1972 and 1988, PUSH and its affiliates attracted more than $17 million in federal grants and private contributions. After many audits, the Justice Department sought $1.2 million in repayments, citing poor recordkeeping and a lack of documentation.

Jackson gave little thought to such issues. “I am a tree-shaker, not a jelly-maker,” he would often say.

Management held little interest for him. But politics was a different matter.

From the moment he began urging and registering Black Americans to vote, Jackson found his milieu. He used PUSH resources to staff get-out-the-vote drives that helped elect Hatcher in Gary, Kenneth Gibson in Newark, N.J., and Carl Stokes in Cleveland.

In those days, he also advocated participating in both parties, what he called “a balance of power.” In 1972, he claimed he had registered 40,000 Black voters to support Illinois’ white Republican senator, Charles Percy.

That same year, at the Democratic convention in Miami, Jackson unseated Chicago Mayor Richard Daley’s 58-member Illinois delegation and replaced it with a “rainbow” of his own, even though he had never voted in a Democratic primary. Liberal Democrats who despised Daley as a corrupt big-city boss hailed Jackson as a hero.

In the decade to come, Jackson basked in celebrity and international travel, including a controversial meeting with Yasser Arafat. Jackson met the then-leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1979 when he traveled to Syria to free U.S. pilot Robert Goodman, who’d been shot down while on a bombing mission. By the time Jackson declared his 1984 presidential campaign, he had burnished his foreign policy credentials.

At the convention that year in San Francisco, he predicted that in an era of Reaganomics, a Rainbow Coalition of ethnic and religious identities could retake the White House.

“We must leave the racial battleground and come to economic common ground and moral higher ground,” he said in a memorable speech.

“America, our time has come. We come from disgrace to amazing grace. Our time has come,” he said. “Give me your tired, give me your poor, your huddled masses who yearn to breathe free and come November, there will be a change, because our time has come.” Delegates roared to their feet.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, a candidate for the democratic nomination for President, works the crowd from onstage following a speech at the Cincinnati Convention center, Friday, April 13, 1984.

(Al Behrman / Associated Press)

But they did not nominate him. Nor did the convention of 1988. Addressing Black ministers in Los Angeles in 1995, the hurt still showed as Jackson railed at the injustice of beating Al Gore in the presidential primaries, only to watch as he was tapped by Bill Clinton to be his running mate in 1992.

“In 1988, I beat him in Iowa, a state 98% white; he said it was ’cause of liberals and farmers. So I beat him in New Hampshire; he said it was ’cause he was off campaigning in the South. So I beat him in the South on Super Tuesday; he said Dukakis had split his support. I beat him then in Illinois, in Michigan; he said he wasn’t really trying. I beat him then in New York; said he ran out of money. But now, here I am this afternoon, talking to y’all in this church in South Central L.A. — and he’s vice president of the United States.”

To many of his Democratic opponents, however, Jackson’s “rainbow coalition” symbolized not common ground, but the party’s devolution into a collection of identity caucuses whose narrow causes doomed them to defeat. In 1992, many of those critics gathered around Clinton as he formulated his “New Democrat” campaign. Clinton soon used Jackson as a foil.

The occasion came when Jackson invited rap singer and activist Sister Souljah to a political event featuring the Arkansas governor. In an interview, Souljah had wondered why after all the animus of white people toward Black people, it was unacceptable for Black people to kill whites. Clinton, instead of delivering the usual liberal-candidate-seeks-Black-votes hominy, lashed out at her words.

The moment bought Clinton a priceless image of willingness to speak truth to the party’s interest groups but came at the price of Jackson’s rage.

“I can maybe work with him, but I know now who he is, what he is. There’s nothin’ he won’t do,” Jackson said to Frady. “He’s immune to shame.”

By then, however, Jackson’s prominence had already begun to wane. Indeed, the role of race leader, itself, had started to disappear. The civil rights revolution in which Jackson had figured so prominently had allowed a new and more diverse generation of Black elected officials, corporate executives and public figures to flourish. Their success eroded his singular platform.

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., right, laughs after saying goodbye to Rev. Jesse Jackson, reflected left, after Obama addressed the Rainbow PUSH Coalition’s annual conference breakfast in Rosemont, Ill. on June 4, 2007

(harles Rex Arbogast / Associated Press)

Jackson continued to travel, agitate, protest, but the spotlight had moved on. He dreamed that Jesse Jr. might one day win the office he had pursued. When, instead, another Black Democrat from Chicago, Barack Obama, headed toward the Democratic nomination in 2008, Jackson’s frustration spilled into public with a vulgar criticism of Obama caught on microphone.

In Obama’s White House, he suffered what for him might have been the severest penalty — being ignored.

Yet to those who had seen him in his prime, his image remained indelible.

“When they write the history of this campaign,” then-New York Gov. Mario Cuomo said after the 1984 contest, “the longest chapter will be on Jackson. The man didn’t have two cents. He didn’t have one television or radio ad. And look what he did.”

Jackson is survived by his wife, Jacqueline, and six children, Jesse Jr., Yusef, Jonathan, Jacqueline, Santita and Ashley.

the Rev. Jesse Jackson speaks at the League of United Latin American Citizens convention Friday, June 30, 2006, in Milwaukee. (AP Photo/Morry Gash)

(Morry Gash / Associated Press)

Lauter and Neuman are former Times staff writers.

‘Let the practice of democracy continue,’ said Yunus, who has overseen the country’s post-uprising transition since 2024.

Bangladesh’s interim leader Muhammad Yunus has announced he is resigning to pave way for a new government elected several days ago.

Speaking in a farewell broadcast to the nation on Monday, Yunus said the interim government he oversees “is stepping down”.

“But let the practice of democracy, freedom of speech, and fundamental rights that has begun not be halted,” he said.

An 85-year-old Nobel Peace Prize winner, Yunus returned from self-imposed exile in August 2024 to serve as Bangladesh’s chief adviser after a student-led uprising toppled the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

Bangladesh held its first general elections since that uprising on February 12, and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), led by Tarique Rahman, won a landslide victory.

Rahman, a scion of one of the country’s most powerful political dynasties, is set to serve as prime minister of the incoming government when it is sworn in on Tuesday, according to Bangladeshi media.

Yunus praised the recent elections, which European Union observers called “credible and competently managed” as a “benchmark for future elections”.

“The people, voters, political parties, and stakeholder institutions linked to the election have set a commendable example,” Yunus said.

‘We must remain united’

Rahman’s BNP-led alliance won at least 212 seats in the 300-seat parliament, giving it a strong mandate to lead. In second place was the Jamaat-e-Islami party, which won 77 seats, positioning it as the main opposition party. Hasina’s Awami League party was barred from participating.

Rahman appealed for unity in the wake of his party’s victory, saying “our paths and opinions may differ, but in the interest of the country, we must remain united”.

In addition to electing their new representatives, Bangladeshi voters also endorsed sweeping democratic reforms in a national referendum.

The lengthy document of reforms, known as the “July Charter” after the month when the uprising that toppled Hasina began, proposes term limits for prime ministers, the creation of an upper house of parliament, stronger presidential powers and greater judicial independence. It enshrines a key pillar of Yunus’s post-uprising transition agenda.

The referendum noted that approval would make the charter “binding on the parties that win” the election, obliging them to endorse it.

“Sweeping away the ruins, we rebuilt institutions and set the course for reforms,” said Yunus, praising the reforms.

However, several parties raised questions before the vote, and the reforms will still require ratification by the new parliament.

“The challenge now is to ensure good governance, law and order, and public safety, and to establish a rights-based state, which was at the heart of the aspirations of the 2024 mass uprising,” Rezaul Karim Rony, a Dhaka-based political analyst, told Al Jazeera.

Feb. 13 (UPI) — Peter Murrell, the former CEO of the Scottish National Party, has been accused of embezzling more than $626,000 over a 12-year period, an indictment made public Friday indicates.

Murrell, 61, is expected to appear in a preliminary hearing at Glasgow’s High Court in Edinburgh on May 25. He is accused of embezzling the funds from the political party’s accounts Aug. 12, 2010, through Jan. 13, 2023.

He initially had a preliminary hearing scheduled on Feb. 20 in Glasgow, but the court and date were changed.

A police investigation dubbed Operation Branchform led to Murrell’s arrest in 2023, and he was charged in April 2024.

Prosecutors allege that Murrell used the funds to buy a motorhome, two vehicles, jewelry, luxury items and cosmetics, as initially reported by The Scottish Sun.

He faces eight charges that accuse him of embezzlement and falsifying documents to hide the alleged theft.

Police say the largest expenditure was $169,911 on the motorhome for his personal use. He allegedly created false documents that indicated the purchase was for the political party.

He also is accused of using party funds to buy a Jaguar I-PACE car in 2019, for which prosecutors say he submitted a false invoice to hide the purchase.

Investigators said Murrell sold the vehicle in 2021 and deposited the proceeds into his personal bank account.

Murrell’s ex-wife, Nicola Sturgeon, is not accused of any wrongdoing. The former first minister and SNP party leader announced their divorce on Jan. 13, 2025, ending their 15-year marriage.

Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said a “deep rift” has opened between Europe and the United States and called to “repair and revive transatlantic trust”.

Dhaka, Bangladesh – On Wednesday evening in Dhaka, Shafiqur Rahman, the emir (chief) of the Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, unveiled an ambitious election manifesto. A key promise: If his party wins the country’s February 12 election, it would lay the ground for Bangladesh to quadruple its gross domestic product (GDP) to $2 trillion by 2040.

Addressing politicians and diplomats, the 67-year-old Rahman pledged investment in technology-driven agriculture, manufacturing, information technology, education and healthcare, alongside higher foreign investment and increased public spending.

Economists in Dhaka have cast doubt on whether sweeping promises can be financed, describing the manifesto as heavy on slogans but short on detail. But for Jamaat’s leadership, the manifesto is less about fiscal arithmetic than signalling intent, say analysts.

For years, critics have tried to portray Jamaat, Bangladesh’s largest Islamist party, as driven too much by religious doctrine to be able to govern a young, diverse, forward-looking population. The manifesto, by contrast, presents a party long excluded from power as a credible alternative – and as a force that sees no contradiction between its religious foundations and the modern future that Bangladeshis aspire to.

His audience was telling too.

Until recently, Bangladesh’s business elites and foreign diplomats either kept their distance from Jamaat or engaged with it discreetly. Now, they are doing so openly.

Over the past few months, European, Western, and even Indian diplomats have sought meetings with Rahman, a figure who, until not long ago, was seen by many internationally as almost politically untouchable.

For a leader whose party has been banned twice, including by ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s administration, the coming election is raising a question few would have dared to ask even a year ago: Could Shafiqur Rahman become Bangladesh’s next prime minister?

‘I will fight for the people’

The shift in how Jamaat and its leader are being viewed is at least partly to do with a political vacuum that has opened up in Bangladesh.

The July 2024 uprising that ousted Sheikh Hasina did more than end her long rule. It upended the country’s political order, hollowing out the familiar duopoly that for decades defined Bangladeshi politics – the rivalry between Hasina’s Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).

With the Awami League effectively barred from the political field and the BNP the only big party left standing, a vacuum emerged. Many initially assumed it would be filled by the student-led National Citizen Party (NCP). Instead, Jamaat – long pushed to the margins – moved to occupy the space.

As Bangladesh heads towards a high-stakes election in less than two weeks, Jamaat has now emerged as one of the country’s two most prominent political forces. Some pre-election polls now place it in direct competition with the BNP.

At the centre of that transformation is Rahman, according to Ahsanul Mahboob Zubair, Jamaat’s assistant secretary-general and a longtime associate of the party chief.

Zubair, who worked closely with Rahman when he led Jamaat in the country’s Sylhet region, said the resurgence is the result of years of grassroots social work and political survival under repression.

Rahman, a soft-spoken former government doctor, took over as Jamaat’s chief in 2019, at a time when the party was banned under Hasina. In December 2022, he was arrested in the middle of the night on charges of supporting militancy and was released only after 15 months when he secured bail.

In March 2025, months after the student-led protest had overthrown Hasina and an interim government under Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus had taken office, Rahman’s name was dropped from the list of accused in the case.

Since then, his carefully calibrated, emotional public appearances have drawn wide attention.

At a massive rally in Dhaka last July, Rahman collapsed twice on stage due to heat-related illness but returned to finish his speech, defying doctors’ advice.

“As long as Allah grants me life, I will fight for the people,” he told the crowd, barely sitting on the stage, supported by the doctors. “If Jamaat is elected, we will be servants, not owners. No minister will take plots or tax-free cars. There will be no extortion, no corruption. I want to tell the youth clearly – we are with you.”

Reinventing Jamaat’s image

Supporters describe Shafiqur Rahman as approachable and morally grounded – a leader who prefers disaster zones to drawing rooms, and projects calm in a country exhausted by confrontation.

Now in his third term as chief, Rahman commands firm authority inside the party.

“He is a good and pious man. Everyone in the party trusts him,” said Lokman Hossain, a Jamaat supporter in Dhaka. He said that over the past year and a half, the party has reached far more people than before, with Rahman’s appeal beyond Jamaat’s traditional base playing a central role.

Rahman’s challenge, however, is no longer purely electoral – it is reputational.

As new supporters drift towards Jamaat, he is attempting to reframe how the party is seen: less as an Islamic force defined by doctrine and history, and more as a vehicle for clean governance, discipline and change.

Whether this reinvention is substantive or merely cosmetic will define both Rahman’s leadership and Jamaat’s future, say analysts.

Any attempt to recast Jamaat’s public image, however, runs up against the unresolved legacy of 1971. For decades, the party’s role during Bangladesh’s war of independence – when it sided with Pakistan – and the subsequent trials and executions of several senior leaders have shaped perceptions of Jamaat at home and abroad.

Rahman has approached that history with caution. He has avoided detailed admissions but has recently acknowledged what he calls Jamaat’s “past mistakes”, asking forgiveness if the party caused harm.

The language marks a subtle shift from outright denial, while stopping short of naming specific actions or responsibilities. Supporters say this reflects political realism rather than evasion – an attempt to move the party beyond its dark chapter. Critics, by contrast, see the ambiguity as deliberate, arguing it softens Jamaat’s image without confronting the substance of its past.

“He knows what those mistakes were,” said Saleh Uddin Ahmed, a United States-based Bangladeshi academic and political analyst. “But stating them explicitly would destabilise his leadership inside the party.”

Ahmed nonetheless considers Rahman more moderate than Jamaat’s previous leaders, noting his relative willingness to discuss unresolved historical questions and address issues such as women’s rights – topics the party long avoided. “This opening up is also happening because of increased public and media scrutiny,” Ahmed said. “People are asking questions now, and Jamaat has to respond.”

Jamaat’s effort to reach voters beyond its traditional base and reassure foreign audiences, while retaining the loyalty of its conservative supporters, has created a persistent tension – one that has often resulted in dual messaging.

That balancing act has been evident in public statements by senior leaders. Abdullah Md Taher, one of Rahman’s closest aides, in an interview with Al Jazeera, said Jamaat is a moderate party, adding that it would not impose or strictly adhere to Islamic law.

The party has also, for the first time in its history, nominated a Hindu candidate.

Yet when addressing conservative supporters, the party continues to emphasise its Islamic identity, with some backers encouraging votes for Jamaat as an act of religious merit – a practice the rival BNP has criticised as the misuse of religious sentiment.

The strategy appears to have helped Jamaat re-enter political conversations that were once closed to it. At the same time, it has sharpened doubts about how far Rahman is willing – or able – to go in reinterpreting the party’s past and ideology as he courts a broader electorate.

Those limits are most visible in Jamaat’s stance on women and leadership. They came into sharp focus during his Al Jazeera interview in which Shafiqur Rahman said it was not possible for a woman to hold the party’s top position – a remark that reignited longstanding criticism of Jamaat’s gender politics, despite its attempts to project a more inclusive image.

“Allah has made everyone with a distinct nature. A man cannot bear a child or breastfeed,” Rahman said. “There are physical limitations that cannot be denied. When a mother gives birth, how will she carry out these responsibilities? It is not possible.”

Critics argue that the stance exposes the limits of Jamaat’s claims of moderation.

Mubashar Hasan, an adjunct researcher at the Humanitarian and Development Research Initiative at Western Sydney University in Australia and author of Narratives of Bangladesh, also questioned Jamaat’s internal culture, noting that even female leaders who publicly endorse such views operate within a male-dominated hierarchy. He was referring to the party’s large number of female supporters and members, including women within its Majlis-e-Shura, the highest decision-making body. “It reflects a structure where women follow what men say in that party,” he said.

The criticism carries particular weight given the movement that helped reopen political space for Jamaat itself. The July 2024 uprising against Hasina, analysts note, saw extensive participation by women, often at the front lines of protest. “Women were part of that movement as much as men, if not more,” Hasan said. “Undermining them now gives Jamaat a deeply problematic outlook.”

Political historians argue this is not a new contradiction but a longstanding one. Since contesting elections under its own symbol in 1986, Jamaat has never fielded a woman candidate for a general parliamentary seat, relying instead on reserved quotas.

“This isn’t a temporary position or a tactical lapse,” said political historian and author Mohiuddin Ahmad.“It reflects the party’s ideological structure, and that structure has not fundamentally changed.”

The ‘grandfather’ expanding Jamaat’s reach

Yet among Jamaat supporters – particularly younger ones – the issue is often filtered through loyalty to Rahman himself rather than doctrine.

During his recent nationwide campaign, young supporters can frequently be heard calling Shafiqur Rahman “dadu” – grandfather. White-bearded, soft-spoken and visibly attentive to supporters, Rahman fits the image.

“He connects with young people through his words,” said Abdullah Al Maruf, a Gen Z law student from Chattogram and a Jamaat supporter. “There is something about his recent work that feels like the relationship between a grandfather and his grandchildren. Where BNP leaders often belittle young people, Shafiqur speaks to them with respect.”

Maruf added that Rahman’s appeal extends beyond Jamaat’s traditional base. “Outside the usual Jamaat circle, he is more popular than previous Jamaat leaders,” he said.

Zubair, Jamaat’s assistant secretary-general, described the party’s outreach beyond traditional voters – such as the decision to nominate a Hindu candidate – not as a tactical move but one rooted in Jamaat’s constitutional framework rather than political expediency.

“Our constitution allows any Bangladeshi, regardless of religion, to be part of the party if they support our political, economic and social policies,” he said. “Supporting our religious doctrine is not a requirement for political participation.”

Jamaat leaders argue the move reflects a broader effort to shift the party’s public image – from one defined primarily by theology to one centred on governance and accountability. “We are emphasising corruption-free politics, discipline and public service,” Zubair said. “People have seen our leaders stand with them during floods, during COVID, and during the July uprising. That is why support is growing.”

Krishna Nandi, the party’s Hindu candidate from the city of Khulna, agrees. “When families fall into poverty, Jamaat-linked welfare networks step in without asking about religion or political loyalty. This culture of service explains why many citizens see Jamaat not as a party of slogans but as a party of discipline, structure and responsibility,” Nandi wrote for Al Jazeera.

The Jamaat’s outreach has also extended well beyond domestic audiences. Zubair said the party’s leadership has held meetings with Indian diplomats in Dhaka who paid a courtesy visit to Shafiqur when he was ill. Jamaat figures were invited to India’s 77th Republic Day reception at the Indian High Commission last month – an unprecedented step.

European and Western diplomats, he added, have also sought engagements with Rahman in recent months. That shift has been mirrored in Washington. In a leaked audio recording reported by The Washington Post, a US diplomat was quoted as saying American officials wanted to “be friends” with the Jamaat, asking journalists whether members of the party’s influential student wing might be willing to appear in their programmes.

As Jamaat’s international engagement expands – and as it emerges as a serious electoral force alongside frontrunner BNP – many general supporters express confidence in Rahman’s leadership.

“He is a patriot,” said Abul Kalam, a voter in Rahman’s Dhaka constituency. “Whether as prime minister or opposition leader, he will lead us well.”

What lies next for the party is unclear. But analysts say that irrespective of the outcome of the elections, Rahman’s stature within Jamaat – and beyond, in Bangladesh – appears resolute.

“Shafiqur Rahman is an experienced politician and is frequently in the headlines,” Ahmad, the political historian, said. “His political thinking is not yet fully clear, but his grip over the party is evident.”

California Democrats have assumed leading roles in their party’s counter-offensive to the Trump administration’s massive immigration crackdown — seizing on a growing sense, shared by some Republicans, that the campaign has gotten so out of hand that the political winds have shifted heavily in their favor.

They stalled Department of Homeland Security funding in the Senate and pushed the impeachment of Secretary Kristi Noem in the House. They strategized against a threatened move by President Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act and challenged administration policies and street tactics in federal court. And they have shown up in Minneapolis to express outrage and demanded Department of Justice records following two fatal shootings of U.S. citizens there.

The push comes at an extremely tense moment, as Minneapolis and the nation reel from the fatal weekend shooting of Alex Pretti, and served as an impetus for a spending deal reached late Thursday between Senate Democrats and the White House to avert another partial government shutdown. The compromise would allow lawmakers to fund large parts of the federal government while giving them more time to negotiate new restrictions for immigration agents.

“This is probably one of the few windows on immigration specifically where Democrats find themselves on offense,” said Mike Madrid, a California Republican political consultant. “It is a rare and extraordinary moment.”

Both of the state’s Democratic senators, Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, came out in staunch opposition to the latest Homeland Security funding measure in Congress, vowing to block it unless the administration scales back its street operations and reins in masked agents who have killed Americans in multiple shootings, clashed with protestors and provoked communities with aggressive tactics.

Under the agreement reached Thursday, the Department of Homeland Security will be funded for two weeks — a period of time that in theory will allow lawmakers to negotiate guardrails for the federal agency. The measure still will need to be approved by the House, though it is not clear when they will hold a vote — meaning a short shutdown still could occur even if the Senate deal is accepted.

Padilla negotiated with the White House to separate the controversial measures in question — to provide $64.4 billion for Homeland Security and $10 billion specifically for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — from a broader spending package that also funds the Pentagon, the State Department and health, education and transportation agencies.

Senate Democrats vowed to not give more money to federal immigration agencies, including ICE and Customs and Border Protection, unless Republicans agree to require agents to wear body cameras, take off masks during operations and stop making arrests and searching homes without judicial warrants. All Senate Democrats and seven Senate Republicans blocked passage of the broader spending package earlier Thursday.

“Anything short of meaningful, enforceable reforms for Trump’s out-of-control ICE and CBP is a non-starter,” Padilla said in a statement after the earlier vote. “We need real oversight, accountability and enforcement for both the agents on the ground and the leaders giving them their orders. I will not vote for anything less.”

Neither Padilla nor Schiff immediately responded to requests for comment on the deal late Thursday.

Even if Democrats block Homeland Security funding after the two-week deal expires, immigration operations would not stop. That’s because ICE received $75 billion under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year — part of an unprecedented $178 billion provided to Homeland Security through the mega-bill.

Trump said Thursday he was working “in a very bipartisan way” to reach a compromise on the funding package. “Hopefully we won’t have a shutdown, we are working on that right now,” he said. “I think we are getting close. I don’t think Democrats want to see it either.”

The administration has eased its tone and admitted mistakes in its immigration enforcement campaign since Pretti’s killing, but hasn’t backed down completely or paused operations in Minneapolis, as critics demanded.

This week Padilla and Schiff joined other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee in calling on the Justice Department to open a civil rights investigation into the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by immigration agents in Minneapolis. In a letter addressed to Assistant Atty. Gen. for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon, they questioned her office’s decision to forgo an investigation, saying it reflected a trend of “ignoring the enforcement of civil rights laws in favor of carrying out President Trump’s political agenda.”

Dhillon did not respond to a request for comment. Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said there is “currently no basis” for such an investigation.

Schiff also has been busy preparing his party for any move by Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would give the president broad authority to deploy military troops into American cities. Trump has threatened to take that move, which would mark a dramatic escalation of his immigration campaign.

A spokesperson confirmed to The Times that Schiff briefed fellow Democrats during a caucus lunch Wednesday on potential strategies for combating such a move.

“President Trump and his allies have been clear and intentional in laying the groundwork to invoke the Insurrection Act without justification and could exploit the very chaos that he has fueled in places like Minneapolis as the pretext to do so,” Schiff said in a statement. “Whether he does so in connection with immigration enforcement or to intimidate voters during the midterm elections, we must not be caught flat-footed if he takes such an extreme step to deploy troops to police our streets.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Robert Garcia of Long Beach, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, announced he will serve as one of three Democrats leading an impeachment inquiry into Noem, whom Democrats have blasted for allowing and excusing violence by agents in Minneapolis and other cities.

Garcia called the shootings of Good and Pretti “horrific and shocking,” so much so that even some Republicans are acknowledging the “severity of what happened” — creating an opening for Noem’s impeachment.

“It’s unacceptable what’s happening right now, and Noem is at the top of this agency that’s completely rogue,” he said Thursday. “People are being killed on the streets.”

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) went to Minneapolis this week to talk to residents and protesters about the administration’s presence in their city, which he denounced as unconstitutional and violent.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has gone after a slew of Trump immigration policies both in California and across the country — including by backing a lawsuit challenging immigration deployments in the Twin Cities, and joining in a letter to U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi denouncing the administration’s attempts to “exploit the situation in Minnesota” by demanding local leaders turn over state voter data in exchange for federal agents leaving.

California’s leaders are far from alone in pressing hard for big changes.

Cardinal Joseph Tobin, the head of the Archdiocese of Newark (N.J.) and a top ally of Pope Leo XIV, sharply criticized immigration enforcement this week, calling ICE a “lawless organization” and backing the interruption of funding to the agency. On Thursday the NAACP and other prominent civil rights organizations sent a letter to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) arguing that ICE should be “fully dissolved” and that Homeland Security funding should be blocked until a slate of “immediate and enforceable restrictions” are placed on its operations.

Madrid, the Republican consultant, said California’s leaders have a clear reason to push for policies that protect immigrants, given the state is home to 1 in 4 foreign-born Americans and immigration is “tied into the fabric of California.”

And at a moment when Trump and other administration officials clearly realize “how far out of touch and how damaging” their immigration policies have become politically, he said, California’s leaders have a real opportunity to push their own agenda forward — especially if it includes clear, concrete solutions to end the recent “egregious, extra-constitutional violation of rights” that many Americans find so objectionable.

However, Madrid warned that Democrats wasted a similar opportunity after the unrest around the killing of George Floyd by calling to “defund the police,” which was politically unpopular, and could fall into a similar pitfall if they push for abolishing ICE.

“You’ve got a moment here where you can either fix [ICE], or lean into the political moment and say ‘abolish it,’” he said. “The question becomes, can Democrats run offense? Or will they do what they too often have done with this issue, which is snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?”

Ousted premier says the exclusion of her Awami League party “deepens resentment” on Muhammad Yunus’s interim government.

Bangladesh’s toppled leader Sheikh Hasina has denounced her country’s election next month after her party was barred from participating in the polls, raising fears of wider political division and possible unrest.

In a message published by The Associated Press news agency on Thursday, Hasina said “a government born of exclusion cannot unite a divided nation.”

Hasina, who was sentenced to death in absentia for her crackdown on a student uprising in 2024 that killed hundreds of people and led to the fall of her 15-year government, has been sharpening her critique of the interim government of Nobel Peace winner Muhammad Yunus in recent days, as the election that will shape the nation’s next chapter looms.

“Each time political participation is denied to a significant portion of the population, it deepens resentment, delegitimises institutions and creates the conditions for future instability,” the former leader, who is living in exile in India, warned in her email to the AP.

She also claimed that the current Bangladesh government deliberately disenfranchised millions of her supporters by excluding her party – the former governing Awami League – from the election.

More than 127 million people in Bangladesh are eligible to vote in the February 12 election, widely seen as the country’s most consequential in decades and the first since Hasina’s removal from power after the mass uprising.

Yunus’s government is overseeing the process, with voters also weighing a proposed constitutional referendum on sweeping political reforms.

Campaigning started last week, with rallies in the capital, Dhaka, and elsewhere.

Yunus returned to Bangladesh and took over three days after Hasina fled to India on August 5, 2024, following weeks of violent unrest.

He has promised a free and fair election, but critics question whether the process will meet democratic standards and whether it will be genuinely inclusive after the ban on Hasina’s Awami League.

There are also concerns over security and uncertainty surrounding the referendum, which could bring about major changes to the constitution.

Yunus’s office said in a statement to the AP that security forces will ensure an orderly election and will not allow anyone to influence the outcome through coercion or violence. International observers and human rights groups have been invited to monitor the process, the statement added.

Tarique Rahman, the son of former prime minister and Hasina rival, Khaleda Zia, returned to Bangladesh after his mother’s death in December.

Rahman, the acting chairman of Khaleda’s Bangladesh Nationalist Party, is a strong candidate to win the forthcoming election.

On Friday, Hasina made her first public speech since her ouster, telling a packed press club in Delhi that Bangladesh “will never experience free and fair elections” under Yunus’s watch.

Her remarks on Friday were broadcast online and streamed live to more than 100,000 of her supporters.

The statement was criticised by Bangladesh’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which issued a statement saying it was “surprised” and “shocked” that India had allowed her to make a public address.

Bangladesh has been asking India to extradite Hasina, but New Delhi has yet to comment on the request.

India’s past support for Hasina has frayed relations between the South Asian neighbours since her overthrow.

Jan. 26 (Asia Today) — People Power Party leader Jang Dong-hyuk was discharged from a hospital Monday after four days of treatment following an eight-day hunger strike, but party officials said the timing of major pending decisions, including a motion to expel former party leader Han Dong-hoon, remains uncertain.

The conservative People Power Party said Jang has expressed a strong desire to return to party duties soon, but medical staff advised he needs rest and recovery. The party said Jang will continue examinations and outpatient treatment after leaving the hospital.

Jang was taken from the National Assembly hunger strike site on a stretcher Thursday and hospitalized. He had staged the hunger strike from Jan. 15 to Jan. 22, urging the Democratic Party to accept what the party calls “dual special prosecutors” to investigate allegations tied to the Unification Church and a separate nomination-related bribery case.

At a general meeting of lawmakers Monday, People Power Party floor leader Song Eon-seok called for unity as the party prepares to resume its campaign as the main opposition force. Song said the special prosecutor bills are needed to ensure “black money” does not take root, arguing no one should be exempt from scrutiny.

Even if Jang returns to party work as early as Wednesday, party leaders said it is unclear when the expulsion motion involving Han will be submitted as an agenda item. Chief spokesperson Park Sung-hoon told reporters that the motion was not on Monday’s agenda and said its timing has not been decided.

Park said the period to request a retrial in Han’s disciplinary case has passed and that Han did not submit a defense during that window, leaving the next step dependent on Jang’s decision.

Park added that Jang’s condition appears more serious than initially expected, citing cardiopulmonary symptoms and low oxygen saturation. He said further examinations, including cardiac testing, were scheduled Monday and that the disciplinary motion could be handled as early as Monday.

— 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=20260127010012299