leaders

One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.

Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.

“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”

The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.

While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.

The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.

And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.

That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.

It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.

That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.

That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

That is true in the streets of America today.

Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

WASHINGTON — In a remarkable rebuke of Republican leadership, the House passed legislation Thursday, in a 230-196 vote, that would extend expired healthcare subsidies for those who get coverage through the Affordable Care Act as renegade GOP lawmakers joined essentially all Democrats in voting for the measure.

Forcing the issue to a vote came about after a handful of Republicans signed on to a so-called “discharge petition” to unlock debate, bypassing objections from House Speaker Mike Johnson. The bill now goes to the Senate, where pressure is building for a similar bipartisan compromise.

Together, the rare political coalitions are rushing to resolve the standoff over the enhanced tax credits that were put in place during the COVID-19 crisis but expired late last year after no agreement was reached during the government shutdown.

“The affordability crisis is not a ‘hoax,’ it is very real — despite what Donald Trump has had to say,” said House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, invoking the president’s remarks.

“Democrats made clear before the government was shut down that we were in this affordability fight until we win this affordability fight,” he said. “Today we have an opportunity to take a meaningful step forward.”

Ahead of voting, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill, which would provide a three-year extension of the subsidy, would increase the nation’s deficit by about $80.6 billion over the decade. It would increase the number of people with health insurance by 100,000 this year, 3 million in 2027, 4 million in 2028 and 1.1 million in 2029, the CBO said.

Growing support for extending ACA subsidies

Johnson (R-La.) worked for months to prevent this situation. His office argued Thursday that federal healthcare funding from the COVID-19 era is ripe with fraud, pointing to an investigation in Minnesota, and urged a no vote.

On the floor, Republicans argued that the subsidies as structured have contributed to fraud and that the chamber should be focused on lowering health insurance costs for the broader population.

“Only 7% of the population relies on Obamacare marketplace plans. This chamber should be about helping 100% of Americans,” said Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.), chair of the House Ways and Means Committee.

While the momentum from the vote shows the growing support for the tax breaks that have helped some 22 million Americans have access to health insurance, the Senate would be under no requirement to take up the House bill.

Instead, a small group of senators from both parties has been working on an alternative plan that could find support in both chambers and become law. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said that for any plan to find support in his chamber, it will need to have income limits to ensure that the financial aid is focused on those who most need the help. He and other Republicans also want to ensure that beneficiaries would have to at least pay a nominal amount for their coverage.

Finally, Thune said there would need to be some expansion of health savings accounts, which allow people to save money and withdraw it tax-free as long as the money is spent on qualified medical expenses.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), who is part of the negotiations on reforms and subsidies for the Affordable Care Act, said there is agreement on addressing fraud in healthcare.

“We recognize that we have millions of people in this country who are going to lose — are losing, have lost — their health insurance because they can’t afford the premiums,” Shaheen said. “And so we’re trying to see if we can’t get to some agreement that’s going to help, and the sooner we can do that, the better.”

Trump has pushed Republicans to send money directly to Americans for health savings accounts so they can bypass the federal government and handle insurance on their own. Democrats largely reject this idea as insufficient for covering the high costs of healthcare.

Republicans bypass their leaders

The action by Republicans to force a vote has been an affront to Johnson and his leadership team, who essentially lost control of what comes to the House floor as the Republican lawmakers joined Democrats for the workaround.

After last year’s government shutdown failed to resolve the issue, Johnson had discussed allowing more politically vulnerable GOP lawmakers a chance to vote on another healthcare bill that would temporarily extend the subsidies while also adding changes.

But after days of discussions, Johnson and the GOP leadership sided with the more conservative wing, which has assailed the subsidies as propping up ACA, which they consider a failed government program. He offered a modest proposal of healthcare reforms that was approved, but has stalled.

It was then that rank-and-file lawmakers took matters into their own hands, as many of their constituents faced soaring health insurance premiums beginning this month.

Republican Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, Robert Bresnahan and Ryan Mackenzie, all from Pennsylvania, and Mike Lawler of New York, signed the Democrats’ petition, pushing it to the magic number of 218 needed to force a House vote. All four represent key swing districts whose races will help determine which party takes charge of the House next year.

Trump encourages GOP to take on healthcare issue

What started as a long shot effort by Democrats to offer a discharge petition has become a political vindication of the Democrats’ government shutdown strategy as they fought to preserve the healthcare funds.

Democrats are making clear that the higher health insurance costs many Americans are facing will be a political centerpiece of their efforts to retake the majority in the House and Senate in the fall elections.

Trump, during a lengthy speech this week to House GOP lawmakers, encouraged his party to take control of the healthcare debate — an issue that has stymied Republicans since he tried, and failed, to repeal Obamacare during his first term.

Mascaro and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP writer Matt Brown contributed to this report.

Army chief hits out at foreign ‘rhetoric’ targeting Iran, threatens decisive action to ‘cut off hand of any aggressor’.

Iran’s top judge warned protesters who have taken to the streets during a spiralling economic crisis there will be “no leniency for those who help the enemy against the Islamic Republic”, accusing the US and Israel of sowing chaos.

“Following announcements by Israel and the US president, there is no excuse for those coming to the streets for riots and unrest,” said Chief Justice Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei on Wednesday in comments on the deadly protests carried by Fars news agency.

Amid growing unrest, Iran is under international pressure after US President Donald Trump threatened last week that if Tehran “violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue”.

His threat – accompanied by an assertion that the US is “locked and loaded and ready to go” – came seven months after Israeli and US forces bombed Iranian nuclear sites in a 12-day war.

Additionally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu backed the protesters on Sunday, telling ministers, “It is quite possible that we are at a moment when the Iranian people are taking their fate into their own hands.”

Following Ejei’s warning, Iran’s army chief threatened preemptive military action over the “rhetoric” targeting Iran.

Speaking to military academy students, Major-General Amir Hatami – who took over as commander-in-chief of Iran’s army after a slew of top military commanders were killed in Israel’s 12-day war – said the country would “cut off the hand of any aggressor”.

“I can say with confidence that today the readiness of Iran’s armed forces is far greater than before the war. If the enemy commits an error, it will face a more decisive response,” said Hatami.

‘Longstanding anger’

The nationwide demonstrations, which have seen dozens of people killed so far, ignited at the end of last month when shopkeepers in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar shuttered their businesses in anger over the collapse of Iran’s rial currency, against a backdrop of deepening economic woes driven by mismanagement and punishing Western sanctions.

The Iranian state has not announced casualty figures. HRANA, a network of human rights activists, reported a death toll of at least 36 people as well as the arrest of at least 2,076 people. Al Jazeera has been unable to verify any figures.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei promised not to “yield to the enemy” following Trump’s comments, which acquired added significance after the US military raid that seized Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, a longtime ally of Tehran, over the weekend.

Seeking to halt the anger, Iran’s government began on Wednesday paying the equivalent of $7 a month to subsidise rising costs for dinner-table essentials such as rice, meat and pasta – a measure widely deemed to be a meagre response.

“More than a week of protests in Iran reflects not only worsening economic conditions, but longstanding anger at government repression and regime policies that have led to Iran’s global isolation,” the New York-based Soufan Center think tank said.

Leaders around the world have responded with a mix of condemnation and support to the US capture of Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro.

Following a large-scale strike on Venezuela on Saturday, Maduro and his wife were captured by US forces and removed from the country. The pair have been indicted on drug charges in New York.

In an initial response, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said his government would “shed no tears” for the end of Maduro’s regime.

Neighbouring Latin American countries condemned the actions, as did Venezuela’s long-term allies, Russia and China. China said it was “deeply shocked and strongly condemns” the use of force against a sovereign country and its president.

Russia accused the US of committing “an act of armed aggression”.

Iran, which is locked in its own dispute with Trump over his promise of intervention in its country, called the strikes a “flagrant violation of the country’s national sovereignty”.

Trump said the US will “run” Venezuela “until we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition”.

Many Latin American leaders condemned the US actions.

President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva in Brazil wrote on X that the actions “cross an unacceptable line”, adding “attacking countries in flagrant violation of international law is the first step toward a world of violence, chaos, and instability”.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro called the strikes an “assault on the sovereignty” of Latin America, while Cuba’s President Miguel Diaz-Canel described it as a “criminal attack”.

Chile’s President Gabriel Boric expressed “concern and condemnation” on X and called for “a peaceful solution to the serious crisis affecting the country”.

Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Cane accused the US of a “criminal attack”, while Uruguay said in an official statement it was monitoring developments “with attention and serious concern” and “rejects, as it always has, military intervention”.

Trump has indicated that Cuba could become part of a broader US policy in the region, calling it a failing nation. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Cuba was a disaster run by incompetent leaders who supported Maduro’s administration. He said the government in Havana should be concerned

The Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello urged citizens to remain calm and to trust the country’s leadership and military, saying, “The world needs to speak out about this attack,” according to the Reuters news agency.

But Argentinian President Javier Milei – who Trump has described as his “favourite president” – wrote “Freedom moves forward” and “Long live freedom” on social media.

Meanwhile UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer refused to be drawn into whether or not the military action may have broken international law.

In an interview with the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme on Saturday morning, the prime minister did not condemn the US strikes.

He said he was waiting to establish all the facts but would not “shy away from this”, adding he was a “lifelong advocate of international law”.

The UK was not involved in the strikes and Sir Keir said he had not spoken to Trump about the operation.

Later on Saturday, Sir Keir posted on X that the UK “regarded Maduro as an illegitimate president and we shed no tears about the end of his regime”.

“The UK government will discuss the evolving situation with US counterparts in the days ahead as we seek a safe and peaceful transition to a legitimate government that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people,” he added.

The EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas reiterated the bloc’s position that Maduro lacks legitimacy, that there should be a peaceful transition of power, and that the principles of international law must be respected.

French President Emmanuel Macron said the transition of power “must be peaceful, democratic, and respectful of the will of the Venezuelan people” in a post on X.

He added he hoped González – the opposition’s 2024 presidential candidate – could ensure the transition.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the legality of the US operation was “complex” and international law in general must apply.

He warned that “political instability must not be allowed to arise in Venezuela”.

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said he was “deeply concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected”, his spokesperson said. He was “deeply alarmed” by the strikes, which set a “dangerous precedent”.

He called on all actors in Venezuela to engage in inclusive dialogue, in full respect of human rights and the rule of law”.

In the US, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, said, “Let me be clear, Maduro is an illegitimate dictator, but launching military action without congressional authorization, without a federal plan for what comes next, is reckless”

Pacific Palisades had been burning for less than two hours when word raced through the ranks of the Los Angeles Fire Department that the agency’s leaders had failed to pre-deploy any extra engines and crews to the area, despite warnings of life-threatening winds.

In the days after the fire broke out, and as thousands of homes and business continued to go up in flames, then-Fire Chief Kristin Crowley said little about the lack of pre-deployment, which was first disclosed by The Times, instead blaming those high winds, along with a shortage of working engines and money, for her agency’s failure to quickly knock down the blaze.

Crowley’s comments did not stand up to scrutiny. To several former LAFD chief officers as well as to people who lost everything in the disaster, her focus on equipment and City Hall finances marked the beginning of an ongoing campaign of secrecy and deflection by the department — all designed to avoid taking full responsibility for what went wrong in the preparations for and response to the Jan. 7 fire, which killed 12 people and leveled much of the Palisades and surrounding areas.

“I don’t think they’ve acknowledged that they’ve made mistakes yet, and that’s really a problem,” said Sue Pascoe, editor of the local publication Circling the News, who lost her home of 30 years. “They’re still trying to cover up … It’s not the regular firefighters. It’s coming from higher up.”

With the first anniversary of the fire a week away, questions about missteps in the firefight remained largely unanswered by the LAFD and Mayor Karen Bass. Among them: Why were crews ordered to leave the still-smoldering scar of an earlier blaze that would reignite into the Palisades inferno? Why did the LAFD alter its after-action report on the fire in a way that appeared intended to shield it from criticism?

The city also has yet to release the mayor’s communications about the after-action report. The Times requested the communications last month, and the report — which was meant to pinpoint failures and enumerate lessons learned, to avoid repeating mistakes — was issued in early October. Nor has the city fulfilled a records request from The Times about the whereabouts of fire engines in the Palisades when the first 911 call came in. It took the first crews about 20 minutes to reach the scene, by which time the fierce winds were driving the flames toward homes.

A Bass spokesperson has said that the mayor did not demand changes to the after-action report, noting that she pushed for its creation and that it was written and edited by the LAFD.

“This administration is only interested in the full truth about what happened before, during, and after the fire,” the spokesperson, Clara Karger, said earlier this month.

The LAFD has stopped granting interviews or answering questions from The Times about the matter, vaguely citing federal court proceedings. David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, said that the federal prosecution of a man accused of starting the earlier blaze does not preclude the department from discussing its actions surrounding both fires.

In a December television interview, Fire Chief Jaime Moore acknowledged that some residents don’t trust his agency and said his mandate from Bass was to “help guide and rebuild the Los Angeles Fire Department to the credibility that we’ve always had.”

The Lachman fire

Shortly after midnight on New Year’s Day, a man watched flames spread in the distant hills and called 911.

“Very top of Lachman, is where we are,” he told the dispatcher. “It’s pretty small but it’s still at the very top and it’s growing.”

“Help is on the way,” the dispatcher said.

A few hours later, at 4:46 a.m., the LAFD announced that the blaze, which later became known as the Lachman fire, was fully contained at eight acres.

Top fire commanders soon made plans to finish mopping up the scene and to leave with their equipment, according to text messages obtained by The Times through a state Public Records Act request.

“I imagine it might take all day to get that hose off the hill,” LAFD Chief Deputy Phillip Fligiel said in a group chat. “Make sure that plan is coordinated.”

Firefighters who returned the next day complained to Battalion Chief Mario Garcia that the ground was still smoldering and rocks still felt hot to the touch, according to private text messages from three firefighters to a third party that were reviewed by The Times. But Garcia ordered them to roll up their hoses and leave.

At 1:35 p.m., Garcia texted Fligiel and Chief Deputy Joseph Everett: “All hose and equipment has been picked up.”

Five days after that, on the morning of Jan. 7, an LAFD captain called Fire Station 23 with an urgent message: The Lachman fire had started up again.

LAFD officials were emphatic early on that the Lachman fire was fully extinguished. But both inside and outside the department, many were certain it had rekindled.

“We won’t leave a fire that has any hot spots,” Crowley said at a community meeting in mid-January.

“That fire was dead out,” Everett said at the same meeting, adding that he was out of town but communicating with the incident commander. “If it is determined that was the cause, it would be a phenomenon.”

The department kept under wraps the complaints of the firefighters who were ordered to leave the burn site. The Times disclosed them in a story in late October. In June, LAFD Battalion Chief Nick Ferrari had told a high-ranking fire official who works for a different agency in the L.A. region that LAFD officials knew about the firefighters’ complaints, The Times also reported.

Bass has directed Moore, an LAFD veteran who took charge of the department in November, to commission an “independent” investigation of the Lachman fire mop-up. The after-action report contained only a brief mention of the earlier fire.

No pre-deployment

The afternoon before hazardous weather is expected, LAFD officials are typically briefed by the National Weather Service, using that information to decide where to position firefighters and engines the following morning.

The weather service had been sounding the alarm about critical fire weather for days. “HEADS UP!!!” NWS Los Angeles posted on X the morning of Jan. 6. “A LIFE-THREATENING, DESTRUCTIVE” windstorm was coming.

It hadn’t rained much in months, and wind gusts were expected to reach 80 mph. The so-called burning index — a measure of the wildfire threat — was off the charts. Anything beyond 162 is considered “extreme,” and the figure for that Tuesday was 268.

In the past, the LAFD readied for powerful windstorms by pre-deploying large numbers of engines and crews to the areas most at risk for wildfires and, in some cases, requiring a previous shift of hundreds of firefighters to stay for a second shift — incurring large overtime costs — to ensure there were enough personnel positioned to attack a major blaze.

None of that happened in the Palisades, with its hilly terrain covered in bone-dry brush, even though the weather service had flagged it as one of the regions at “extreme risk.”

Without pre-deployment, just 18 firefighters are typically on duty in the Palisades.

LAFD commanders decided to staff only five of the more than 40 engines available to supplement the regular firefighting force citywide. Because they didn’t hold over the outgoing shift, they staffed the extra engines with firefighters who volunteered for the job — only enough to operate three of the five engines.

On Jan. 6, officials decided to pre-deploy just nine engines to high-risk areas, adding eight more the following morning. None of them were sent to the Palisades.

The Times learned from sources of the decision to forgo a pre-deployment operation in the Palisades. LAFD officials were mum about the inadequate staffing until after The Times obtained internal records from a source in January that described the department’s pre-deployment roll-out.

The officials then defended their actions in interviews. Bass cited the LAFD’s failure to hold over the previous shift of firefighters as a reason she removed Crowley as chief less than two months after the fire.

The after-action report

In March, a working group was formed inside the LAFD to prepare the Palisades fire after-action report. A fire captain who was recommended for the group sought to make sure its members would have the freedom to follow the facts wherever they led, according to internal emails the city released in response to a records request by an unidentified party.

“I am concerned about interference from outside entities that may attempt to influence the direction our report takes,” Capt. Harold Kim wrote to Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook, who was leading the review. “I would like to ensure that the report that we painstakingly generate be published as is, to as reasonable an extent as possible.”

He worried about revisions, saying that once LAFD labor unions and others “are done with many publications, they become unrecognizable to the authors.”

Cook, who had been involved with review teams for more than a decade and written numerous reports, replied: “I can assure you that I have never allowed for any of our documents to be altered in any way by the organization.”

Other emails suggest that Kim ultimately remained in the group.

As the report got closer to completion, LAFD officials, worried about how it would be received, privately formed a second group for “crisis management” — a decision that surfaced through internal emails released through another records request by an unidentified party.

“The primary goal of this workgroup is to collaboratively manage communications for any critical public relations issue that may arise. The immediate and most pressing crisis is the Palisades After Action Report,” LAFD Asst. Chief Kairi Brown wrote in an email to eight others, including interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva.

“With significant interest from media, politicians, and the community, it is crucial that we present a unified response to anticipated questions and concerns,” Brown wrote. “By doing so, we can ensure our messaging is clear and consistent, allowing us to create our own narrative rather than reactive responses.”

Cook emailed a PDF of his report to Villanueva in early August, asking the chief to select a couple of people to provide edits so he could make the changes in his Word document.

The following week, Cook emailed the chief his final draft.

“Thank you for all your hard work,” Villanueva responded. “I’ll let you know how we’re going to move forward.”

Over the next two months, the report went through a series of edits — behind closed doors and without Cook’s involvement. The revised report was released publicly on Oct. 8.

That same day, Cook emailed Villanueva, declining to endorse the public version because of changes that altered his findings and made the report “highly unprofessional and inconsistent with our established standards.”

“Having reviewed the revised version submitted by your office, I must respectfully decline to endorse it in its current form,” Cook wrote in the email obtained by The Times. “The document has undergone substantial modifications and contains significant deletions of information that, in some instances, alter the conclusions originally presented.”

Cook’s version highlighted the failure to recall the outgoing shift and fully pre-deploy as a major mistake, noting that it was an attempt to be “fiscally responsible” that went against the department’s policy and procedures.

The department’s final report stated that the pre-deployment measures for the Palisades and other fire-prone locations went “above and beyond” the LAFD’s standard practice. The Times analyzed seven drafts of the report obtained through a records request and disclosed the significant deletions and revisions.

Cook’s email withdrawing his endorsement of the report was not included in the city’s response to one of the records requests filed by an unknown party in October. Nearly 180 of Cook’s emails were posted on the city’s records portal on Dec. 9, but the one that expressed his concerns about the report was missing. That email was posted on the portal, which allows the public to view documents provided in response to records requests, after The Times asked about it.

The LAFD did not respond to a query about why the email was not released with Cook’s other emails. Karger, the Bass spokesperson, said the link to the document was broken and the city fixed it after learning the email wasn’t posted correctly. The Times has inquired about how and why the link didn’t work.

Former LAFD Asst. Chief Patrick Butler, who worked for the agency for 32 years and now heads the Redondo Beach Fire Department, said the city’s silence on such inquiries is tantamount to deceiving the public.

“When deception is normalized within a public agency,” he said, “it also normalizes operational failure and puts people at risk.”

Pringle is a former Times staff writer.

For faith leaders supporting and ministering to anxious immigrants across the United States, 2025 was fraught with challenges and setbacks. For many in these religious circles, the coming year could be worse.

The essence of their fears: President Trump has become harsher with his contemptuous rhetoric and policy proposals, blaming immigrants for problems from crime to housing shortages and, in a social media post, demanding “REVERSE MIGRATION.”

Haitians who fled gang violence in their homeland, as well as Afghans allowed entry after assisting the U.S. in Afghanistan before the Taliban takeover, now fear that their refuge in America may end due to get-tough policy changes. Somali Americans, notably in Minnesota’s Twin Cities, worry about their future after Trump referred to them as “garbage.”

After Trump’s slurs, the chair of the Catholic bishops conference’s subcommittee on racial justice urged public officials to refrain from dehumanizing language.

“Each child of God has value and dignity,” said the bishop of Austin, Texas, Daniel Garcia. “Language that denigrates a person or community based on his or her ethnicity or country of origin is incompatible with this truth.”

Here’s a look at what lies ahead for these targeted immigrant communities, and the faith leaders supporting them.

Haitians in limbo

In 2024, Trump falsely accused Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, of eating their neighbors’ cats and dogs. It worsened fears about anti-immigrant sentiment in the mostly white, blue-collar city of about 59,000, where more than 15,000 Haitians live and work.

Thousands of them settled in Springfield in recent years under the Temporary Protected Status program.

Their prospects now seem dire. The TPS program, allowing many Haitians to remain legally in Springfield and elsewhere, expires in early February.

“It’s going to be an economic and humanitarian disaster,” said the Rev. Carl Ruby, pastor of Central Christian Church — one of several Springfield churches supporting the Haitians.

Ruby and Viles Dorsainvil, a leader of Springfield’s Haitian community, traveled recently to Washington to seek help from members of Congress.

“Every single legislator we’ve talked to has said nothing is going to happen legislatively. Trump’s rhetoric keeps getting harsher,” Ruby said. “It just doesn’t feel like anything is going our way.”

Many Haitians fear for their lives if they return to their gang-plagued homeland.

Faith communities have come together to support immigrants in the face of Trump’s crackdown, Ruby said.

“It’s increasing our resolve to oppose this,” he said. “There are more and more churches in Springfield saying we will provide sanctuary. … We will do whatever it takes to protect our members.”

Afghan refugees

Trump suspended the U.S. refugee program on the first day of his second term. Halting the program and its federal funding affected hundreds of faith-based organizations assisting refugees.

Among them was Lutheran Social Services of the National Capital Area, which serves the region around Washington, D.C., and lost 68% of its budget this year. The organization laid off two-thirds of its staff, shrinking from nearly 300 employees to 100.

Many of its employees and nearly two-thirds of its clients are Afghans. Many worked with the U.S. in Afghanistan and fled after the Taliban’s takeover from a U.S.-backed government in 2021.

The Trump administration announced new immigration restrictions after an Afghan national became the suspect in the Nov. 26 shooting of two National Guard members in Washington.

“It shook up our team. It was awful,” said Kristyn Peck, CEO of LSSNCA.

Peck said there is increased fear among Afghans on her staff and a false public narrative that Afghan immigrants are a threat.

“A whole group of people have now been targeted and blamed for this senseless act of violence,” she said.

She still finds reasons for hope.

“We continue to do the good work,” Peck said. “Even in challenging moments, we just continue to see people putting their faith into action.”

Volunteers have stepped up to provide services that employees no longer have funding to provide, including a program that helps Afghan women with English-language and job-skills training.

U.S.-based World Relief, a global Christian humanitarian organization overseen by the National Association of Evangelicals, has joined left-of-center religious groups decrying the new crackdown on Afghan refugees.

“When President Trump announces his intention to ‘permanently halt’ all migration from ‘Third World countries,’ he’s insulting the majority of the global Church,” declared World Relief CEO Myal Greene. “When his administration halts processing for all Afghans on account of the evil actions of one person, he risks abandoning tens of thousands of others who risked their lives alongside the U.S. military.”

Somalis targeted by Trump

In mid-December, imams and other leaders of Minnesota’s Somali community established a task force to tackle the fallout from major fraud scandals, a surge in immigration enforcement, and Trump’s contemptuous words toward the largest group of Somali refugees in the U.S.

“We’re not minimizing the crime, but we’re amplifying the successes,” said imam Yusuf Abdulle.

He directs the Islamic Association of North America, a network of more than three dozen mostly East African mosques. About half are in Minnesota, which, since the late 1990s, has been home to growing numbers of Somali refugees who are increasingly visible in local and U.S. politics.

“For unfortunate things like fraud or youth violence, every immigrant community has been through tough times,” Abdulle said. “For the number of years here, Somali is a very resilient, very successful community.”

Even though most Somalis in Minnesota are U.S. citizens or lawfully present, Abdulle said, many deserted local businesses and mosques when immigration enforcement surged.

The new task force includes more than two dozen faith and business leaders, as well as community organizers. Addressing their community’s fears is the first challenge, followed by increased advocacy ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

“Every election year the rhetoric goes up. And so we want to push back against these hateful rhetorics, but also bring our community together,” said community leader Abdullahi Farah.

Faith leaders respond

In mid-November, U.S. Catholic bishops voted overwhelmingly to issue a “special message” decrying developments causing fear and anxiety among immigrants. It marked the first time in 12 years that the bishops invoked this urgent way of speaking collectively.

“We are concerned about the conditions in detention centers and the lack of access to pastoral care,” said the message. “We oppose the indiscriminate mass deportation of people. We pray for an end to dehumanizing rhetoric and violence, whether directed at immigrants or at law enforcement.”

The bishops thanked priests, nuns and lay Catholics accompanying and assisting immigrants.

“We urge all people of goodwill to continue and expand such efforts,” the message said.

The presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Yehiel Curry, issued a similar pastoral message last month thanking ELCA congregations for supporting immigrants amid “aggressive and indiscriminate immigration enforcement.”

“The racial profiling and harm to our immigrant neighbors show no signs of diminishing, so we will heed God’s call to show up alongside these neighbors,” Curry wrote.

HIAS, an international Jewish nonprofit serving refugees and asylum-seekers, has condemned recent Trump administration moves.

“As a Jewish organization, we also know all too well what it means for an entire community to be targeted because of the actions of one person,” HIAS said.

“We will always stand in solidarity with people seeking the opportunity to rebuild their lives in safety, including those being targeted now by harmful policies and hateful rhetoric in the Afghan American and Somali American communities.”

Crary, Dell’Orto, Henao and Stanley write for the Associated Press.

The world of college football may be awash in uncertainty, but the last several weeks have proven one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Nobody runs like Notre Dame.

When the Irish got jobbed by the College Football Playoff committee and insanely were left out of the CFP, they refused to play another game this season.

Notre Dame ran from the Pop Tarts Bowl.

Then came Monday’s announcement that Notre Dame no longer will regularly play USC, essentially ending a 100-year-old rivalry because the Irish didn’t want to change the dates of the game.

Notre Dame ran from the Trojans.

Call them the Fightin’ Chickens, a once-proud Irish program that demands acquiescence or it will take its ball and go home.

The Irish could have played USC at the beginning of the season, but refused. The Irish could have kept the rivalry alive with a scheduling tweak that would have helped both teams, but refused.

Lots of folks are going to blame USC and coach Lincoln Riley for butchering a Knute Rockne-born tradition that accounted for 78 straight games, not counting 2020, the COVID-19 year. That’s wrong. Nobody has been more critical of Riley than this space, but he’s not the bad guy here.

Anybody who felt the buzz around the CFP first-round games last weekend would attest, this is where USC needs to be playing. If the Trojans truly want to return to greatness, being selected for the CFP is the goal. Not beating Notre Dame. Not even beating UCLA. It’s all about the tournament.

USC needs to put itself in the best possible position to be playing on a mid-December weekend, and that means no longer being the only Big Ten school to play a major nonconference game in the middle of the season or later.

The schedule has become tough enough. The Trojans don’t need to make it tougher with the kind of game nobody else in their conference is playing.

They need Notre Dame in August, not in late October or mid-November.

But, as it turns out, Notre Dame believes it doesn’t need USC at all.

The Irish signed a deal with the CFP that stipulates, beginning next year, if they are ranked in the top 12, they are guaranteed a playoff berth. They can get in the playoffs without risking a loss to the Trojans. They can play it safe and schedule easy and back right in.

USC doesn’t have that luxury. USC isn’t guaranteed squat. USC has a 2026 schedule that even without Notre Dame is a nightmare.

USC and Notre Dame prepare to play in a packed Notre Dame Stadium in October 2023.

(Michael Caterina / Associated Press)

Home games against Ohio State and Oregon. Road games at Indiana and Penn State.

USC doesn’t need a midseason game against Notre Dame making that road even harder.

Jennifer Cohen, the USC athletic director, said as much in a recently posted open letter to the Trojans community.

“USC is the only team in the Big Ten to play a nonconference road game after Week 4 in either of the past two seasons,” she wrote. “USC is also the only team to play a nonconference game after Week 4 in both seasons.”

Trojans fans love the rivalry. The college football world loves the rivalry. It’s Anthony Davis, it’s Carson Palmer, it’s the Bush Push, it has won Heismans and cemented championships.

But times have changed. The landscape is evolving. Everything that college football once represented is up for debate. Even the most venerable of traditions is subject to adjustments.

That’s what the Trojans wanted to do. Not eliminate, but adjust. But Notre Dame football adjusts for no one.

It was indeed a travesty that the two-loss Irish, winners of their last 10 games by double digits, did not get a spot in the national tournament. By the end of the season they were arguably one of the four best teams in the country. They easily could have captured the crown.

Tulane? James Madison? Are you kidding me? As the opening games revealed — the two AAA teams were outscored 92-44 — there is no place for Cinderellas in the CFP.

But that was no reason for Notre Dame to back out of the bowls completely, sacrificing the final game in the careers of the Irish players who will not be going to the NFL just to make a whining point that resonated with nobody.

And, besides, there’s another way Notre Dame could have been a lock for the playoffs.

Join a conference, fool!

By keeping the football team out of the otherwise Irish-infected Atlantic Coast Conference, Notre Dame is raking in big TV bucks that it doesn’t have to share. But this means the Irish are subject to the whims of a committee that could, and did, unconscionably leave them out.

Notre Dame always wants it both ways. It wants its independence, but also wants to dictate a schedule filled with conference-affiliated teams.

In demanding that their game be played in August or not at all, USC finally called Notre Dame’s bluff.

And the Irish did what they recently have done best.

They ran.

The team that initially will replace USC on the Notre Dame schedule?

It’s Brigham Young, the same team that Notre Dame snubbed in the Pop Tarts Bowl.

Put that in your toaster and cook it.

Dec. 18 (UPI) — European leaders have agreed to continue funding Ukraine in its fight against Russia with a two-year, $105 billion loan to provide the embattled nation with munitions and other material in the ongoing war, the latest battle of which has dragged on since 2022.

European leaders failed to agree on the first choice to arm Ukraine, using frozen Russian state assets as backing for the loan.

The plan to use frozen Russian assets to back the loan fell apart in the final moments, a schism that risked making the EU appear indecisive at a critical moment in negotiations.

European leaders announced Thursday that they will instead use money from the EU budget to fund Ukraine’s defense effort. As a result, the backup plan could be more costly and difficult to mobilize than the original plan to leverage the stash of Russian money currently frozen in Europe.

European leaders said since the end result is the same, getting funds to Kyiv, they celebrated it as a victory.

“This will address the urgent financial needs of Ukraine,” Antonio Costa, the president of the European Council, said at a media briefing in Brussels.

Partly because of a cut in funding from the United States, Ukraine is facing a $160 billion shortfall over the next two years, according to forecasts by the International Monetary Fund. The EU sought to fill about $105 billion of that gap.

Costa added that the EU will reserve its right to use frozen Russian assets for continued funding in the future.

Dec. 18 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s largest Buddhist order held a Christmas tree lighting ceremony Thursday at Jogyesa Temple in central Seoul, bringing together religious leaders from multiple faiths in an annual event organizers described as a symbol of interfaith harmony and peace.

The ceremony took place at Jogyesa, the head temple of the Jogye Order of Korean Buddhism, in Seoul’s Jongno district.

Venerable Jinwoo, the Jogye Order’s chief administrator, delivered a Christmas message at the event, saying, “We sincerely celebrate the birth of the baby Jesus, who came to illuminate this dark world.”

“Though we walk different paths, we share the same heart to alleviate human suffering and bring light to the world,” he said, adding that participants were renewing a commitment to “unity in diversity.”

Jinwoo said interfaith harmony is a powerful social force for reducing conflict and building peace and urged religious communities to work together toward mutual prosperity.

Among those attending were Jinwoo, Jogyesa abbot Venerable Damhwa and other Jogye Order monks, along with Choi Jong-soo, president of the Korean Conference of Religious Leaders for Peace, and leaders representing Cheondogyo, Catholic, Won Buddhist and Protestant organizations, according to organizers.

– Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Australia’s government is fending off political attacks from inside and outside the country after the Bondi massacre. Israeli leaders and interest groups have been condemned for trying to politicise the killings, as Soraya Lennie explains.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday announced a new California-led public health initiative, tapping former U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials who publicly clashed with the Trump administration, including the former agency chief who warned that the nation’s public health system was headed to “a very dangerous place.”

Newsom said the initiative will be led by Dr. Susan Monarez, the former CDC director, and Dr. Debra Houry, the CDC’s former chief medical officer. The pair will lead the Public Health Network Innovation Exchange, or PHNIX, which the governor’s office said will “modernize public health infrastructure and maintain trust in science-driven decision-making.”

The initiative was created to improve the systems that detect and investigate public health trends and build a modern public-health backbone that connects data, technology and funding across states.

“The Public Health Network Innovation Exchange is expected to bring together the best science, the best tools, and the best minds to advance public health,” Newsom said in a statement Monday. “By bringing on expert scientific leaders to partner in this launch, we’re strengthening collaboration and laying the groundwork for a modern public health infrastructure that will offer trust and stability in scientific data not just across California, but nationally and globally.”

Monarez will serve as strategic health technology and funding advisor for the initiative, helping advance private sector partnerships to better integrate healthcare data systems and enable faster disease surveillance.

“I am deeply excited to bring my experience in health technology and innovation to support PHNIX,” Monarez said in a statement shared by Newsom’s office. “California has an extraordinary concentration of talent, technology, and investment, and this effort is about putting those strengths to work for the public good — modernizing how public health operates, accelerating innovation, and building a healthier, more resilient future for all Californians.”

Houry was named senior regional and global public health medical advisor for PHNIX. Newsom’s office also announced it will work with Dr. Katelyn Jetelina, founder and chief executive of Your Local Epidemiologist. Jetelina will advise the California Department of Public Health on building trust in public health.

Monarez and Houry both described extraordinary turmoil inside the nation’s health agencies during congressional hearings, telling senators in September that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and political advisors rebuffed data supporting the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Monarez was fired after just 29 days on the job. She said Kennedy told her to resign if she did not sign off on new unsupported vaccine recommendations. Kennedy has described Monarez as admitting to him that she is “untrustworthy,” a claim Monarez has denied through her attorney.

“Dramatic and unfounded changes in federal policy, funding, and scientific practice have created uncertainty and instability in public health and health care,” Dr. Erica Pan, CDPH director and state public health officer, said in a statement. “I am thrilled to work with these advisors to catalyze our efforts to lead a sustainable future for public health. California is stepping up to coordinate and build the scaffolding we need to navigate this moment.”

The salaries of the new positions were not immediately known.

Newsom’s office said the California initiative would build on previously announced public health partnerships, such as the West Coast Health Alliance.

Dec. 15 (UPI) — British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz were set to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. officials in Berlin on Monday in an effort to reach a consensus on what any peace deal with Russia should look like.

The European leaders, along with French President Emmanuel Macron, who has yet to confirm his attendance, will seek to negotiate an alternative to the U.S.-Russia plan currently on the table with a stronger deal for Ukraine with better protections for its security.

The talks will also attempt to keep afloat an EU-brokered agreement to loan Ukraine some of the $246.7 billion of Russia’s assets frozen in European banks and other institutions to help it defend itself and take “forward peace talks from a position of strength,” amid mounting opposition to the plan.

The meeting follows five hours of talks on Sunday between Zelensky and U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and President Donald Trump‘s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, at the Federal Chancellery that Witkoff said were productive and would resume on Monday.

“Representatives held in-depth discussions regarding the 20-point plan for peace, economic agendas, and more. A lot of progress was made, and they will meet again tomorrow morning,” Witkoff posted on X on Sunday evening.

Zelensky was reported to have dropped demands for NATO membership, if it was what was required to end the war, in exchange for a bilateral defense agreement with the United States similar to an Article 5-like guarantee, along with other guarantees from Ukraine’s European partners.

Article 5 is a cast-iron guarantee, a collective defense principle enshrined in NATO’s constitution under which an armed attack on one member is considered an attack on all members and triggers an obligation for each member to come to its defense.

Following the initial discussions on Monday, Merz’s spokesman confirmed the group would be widened to include “numerous European heads of state and government, as well as the leaders of the EU and NATO.”

The diplomatic focus will shift to Brussels on Thursday when the leaders of all 27 EU nations converge on the Belgian capital for a meeting of the European Council with Ukraine and European security topping the agenda.

Council President Antonio Costa said the summit would address how best to continue defending Europe’s interests and how to “strengthen Ukraine’s negotiating position,” a key element of which necessitated “increased pressure on Russia.”

Costa said that having already committed to providing for Ukraine’s urgent financial needs for 2026-2027, including funding for its military and defense, it was now time to decide how to implement it and that leaders must keep talking on Thursday until an agreement was reached.

Earlier this month, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen unveiled two options — both controversial — to provide Ukraine with $105.8 billion of the $158.6 it is estimated it will need in the two years through 2027 to keep the country running and being able to continue fighting Russia.

The so-called “reparations loan” option involving using frozen Russian assets only requires a two-thirds majority of EU states to vote for it. The second option under which the EU would use its budget to go borrow on the international capital markets is more problematic because it could be blocked by a single state.

Hungary and Slovakia have indicated they are opposed to either route, while Belgium, home to Euroclear, the clearing house where the majority of Russia’s frozen assets are held, has expressed strong worries that it could be taken to court by Russia were the frozen assets tapped or that it may scare off foreign investors.

Russia has protested that appropriating its assets amounts to theft but the EU says that is not the case because there was nothing to preclude Russia from reclaiming the funds in future — after it has paid war reparations to Ukraine.

Ukraine is set to run out of money early in the New Year.