month

WASHINGTON — President Trump has tapped Bill Pulte, head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, to be the acting director of national intelligence — putting a real estate scion and fierce Trump loyalist in a key national security post as the U.S. remains at war with Iran.

Trump made the surprise announcement Tuesday on social media that Pulte would be replacing Tulsi Gabbard, the former Hawaii congresswoman who served as the director of national intelligence.

The Republican president cited Pulte’s work at the FHFA and his role as chair of the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying that the 38 year-old “has deep experience managing the most sensitive matters in America, the safety and soundness of the Markets, and over 10 Trillion Dollars at Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, a substantial increase from where it was just 12 months ago.”

Pulte’s sudden elevation to a role coordinating sensitive national security matters is a sign of how Trump is putting a priority on loyalty over a traditional resume full of previous military and intelligence assignments. It’s unclear what national security expertise Pulte has, but he has been a frequent guest on Air Force One as Trump has traveled to Mar-a-Lago, his home and club in Palm Beach, Florida.

As the grandson of the founder of PulteGroup, one of the country’s largest homebuilders, Pulte has cut a combative streak on social media and used his post at the FHFA to attack perceived opponents of the Trump administration.

His time overseeing mortgage finance has been linked with criminal referrals for mortgage fraud by public officials Trump sought to punish, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat; Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.; and Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve, who was nominated by a Democratic president, Joe Biden.

Pulte has famously gone after then-Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell for not cutting the central bank’s benchmark interest rates as aggressively as the president wanted. He has also been linked to ideas such as the 50-year mortgage and efforts to lower mortgage rates through the purchase of home loan debt that have not paid off as promised.

Trump said Pulte will keep his other positions even as he fills in for Gabbard, who resigned last month after revealing her husband’s cancer diagnosis.

If formally nominated, Pulte would need to be confirmed by the Senate to hold the position full time.

Boak writes for the Associated Press.

Daniel Patterson, the chef behind San Francisco’s Coi, who once helmed Alta Adams alongside chef Keith Corbin, has opened a new tasting restaurant in Hollywood, alongside his wife and former music journalist and producer Sarah Lewitinn. Jacaranda challenges stereotypes of stuffy or restrained fine dining restaurants with a Gen X playlist, casual service and lively conversations among guests. This approach, as Patterson told reporter Stephanie Breijo, better reflects the ethos of Los Angeles, where your next great meal is just as likely to come from a street vendor as it is from a 10-course dinner. The restaurant holds only one seating per night, to allow diners the opportunity to linger as you would at a friend’s dinner party, as well as a multi-course lunch on Sunday.

WASHINGTON — Democrats have spent nearly two years trying to move past the 2024 presidential election. Now, Jill Biden’s new memoir is forcing them to relive it.

Her new book, “View from the East Wing,” which comes out Tuesday, is already drawing sharp rebukes from top Democrats, some of whom say it is a poorly timed and misleading account of the events that led to the demise of her husband’s presidency.

“Unhelpful … Ripping open a healing scab is never helpful,” John Morgan, a Florida trial attorney who was a major fundraiser for Biden’s 2024 campaign, told The Times. “In my opinion, she was the main problem. She loved the life and didn’t want it to end.”

Those type of frustrations erupted last week as the former first lady began promoting her book, including in a sit-down interview with CBS News airing Sunday, in which she said she thought the sitting president was having a stroke as she watched the 2024 presidential debate.

“I was frightened, because I had never ever seen Joe like that before or since. Never,” Biden said. The moment “scared me to death,” she added.

For Democrats who had a similar reaction in real time, but who spent months being told by the Biden campaign that their concerns were overblown, her remarks landed like a gut punch. With the midterms around the corner, some bemoaned that Biden was relitigating a sore subject — particularly the question of who knew what about Biden’s aging and cognitive decline.

“What I care about is what happens going forward,” Dan Pfeiffer, a host of “Pod Save America,” a popular progressive podcast, said on the show Thursday. “What bothers me the most is not the timeline of events, but whether Democratic leaders now will ever reckon with the massive breach of trust that came because of how all of that was handled.”

Meghan Hays, a former White House aide to Joe Biden, said on C-SPAN’s “Ceasefire” that although she understands that Jill Biden is trying to sell books, her efforts are not helping the party ahead of the midterm elections.

“We have a lot of momentum in our favor … and when we get pulled back into conversations about age and the election in ‘24, it’s never gonna be a good place for Democrats,” Hays said. “I think it is a tough place to be.”

The Democratic Party found itself trapped in a similar dynamic earlier this month, when the Democratic National Committee released a long-awaited, 192-page report dissecting the 2024 loss. The committee’s chairman, Ken Martin, shared the postelection autopsy after coming under intense pressure from Democratic operatives, and apologized for how he handled its release.

The report faulted Kamala Harris and Democrats’ focus on “identity politics” but did not address Biden’s decision to seek reelection amid health concerns and the rushed selection of Harris to replace him on the ticket.

In her book, the former first lady writes that her goal is to be able to “set the record straight” about what happened during the debate and the months that followed that led to President Trump’s return to the White House, according to the Atlantic, which obtained a copy of the book ahead of its release.

At one point, she writes that she even suspected her husband may have been inadvertently impaired after taking cough syrup. In the CBS interview, Biden maintained that she never saw any signs of cognitive decline while he was the sitting president.

“He was the same, the essence of the same Joe Biden, but yeah, he was slowing down. He was getting older,” she said. “You know, it’s a very intense job. I think it ages you — quickly.”

Morgan, the former Biden fundraiser, said he does not believe the first lady is telling the truth in her memoir.

“If you like fiction it’s good,” Morgan said. He added that her claim that she had never witnessed her husband act in a similar way since the debate “defies the smell test.”

“His keys should have been taken long before that night,” Morgan said.

Michael LaRosa, a former press secretary for the first lady, called Democrats’ reaction to the new memoir “pretty grim.”

“There is a deep reservoir of frustration among ‘formers’ who believe she enables the culture around her and the President rather than challenging it,” LaRosa wrote. “So now they seem to be challenging her.”

Although many Democrats are publicly expressing their annoyance at the conversation Biden has resurfaced, others do not see the former first lady’s comments having an effect on the upcoming elections.

“This is not going to be part of a conversation in the election. It’s going to be part of a conversation in Washington because that is what Washington does, but this is not going to move the needle in New Hampshire or other states where it matters,” said Steve Schale, a Democratic strategist who ran a pro-Biden super PAC during the 2020 election cycle.

Schale was blunt: “She is selling books.”

Even if that is the case, Republicans are taking notice.

In a Truth Social post on Friday, President Trump appeared gleeful to note that Biden was “finally admitting” that she did not know what was wrong with her husband during “our spectacular, and highly rated, 2024 Presidential Debate.”

The president lamented that the former first lady did not compliment his performance.

“In other words, as many have asked, did my strong performance in that debate cause him to plain and simple ‘choke,’ leading to his ignominious defeat, or were other reasons the cause? Nobody else knows the answer to that, BUT I DO!!!” Trump wrote.

MIAMI — The Trump administration has extended protections shielding about 11,000 Lebanese from deportation, allowing them to stay and work in the United States for another six months.

The decision, announced Thursday by the Department of Homeland Security, marked a rare reprieve for people protected by temporary measures that have been harshly criticized by Republicans. The extension comes amid ongoing fighting in southern Lebanon between Israeli troops and Hezbollah fighters.

The decision was automatic, meaning that the administration missed the deadline by which it was supposed to decide on whether to extend the measure called Temporary Protected Status for Lebanese people living in the U.S. who are covered by the program. By statute, the status automatically extends for six months if the department misses the deadline.

It was an unusual outcome for an administration that has canceled the protections that had covered people from 13 countries, including Venezuela, Haiti, Nicaragua and Syria from deportation.

TPS was created by Congress in 1990 to prevent deportations to countries suffering from natural disasters or civil strife, giving people authorization to work in increments of up to 18 months. More than 1 million immigrants from 17 countries were protected by TPS at the beginning of the Trump administration, after the Biden administration greatly expanded its use.

The program has been at the center of a controversy.

Republicans and critics of TPS argue that the program and its protections deviate from their original temporary intent, taking on a quasi-permanent character when extended. Its defenders assert that it is a fundamental humanitarian program that prevents vulnerable individuals from being forced to return to dangerous conditions.

The DHS notice said that former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and current Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who has led the department for the last two months, “were unable to make an informed determination on Lebanon’s TPS designation.”

The extension allows existing beneficiaries to keep their protections through Nov. 27, “if they still meet the eligibility requirements for TPS,” according to the notice. The work permits that were already issued for Lebanese TPS holders will be valid until the same day.

This is the second time the Trump administration has automatically extended a TPS designation. The first happened nearly a year ago with South Sudan, but the protections were terminated in November 2025, after the six-month extension period.

There are dozens of lawsuits challenging the termination of TPS at federal courts in different states. The Supreme Court is set to make a decision on TPS that protected Haitians and Syrians during the summer, and the result is expected to have an impact on all the other cases.

Advocates welcomed the extension.

“Extending Temporary Protected Status means Lebanese nationals in the United States will not be forced back into dangerous conditions but allowed to stay and continue supporting their families and contributing to their local communities,” said Kelly Razzouk, vice president of policy and advocacy at the International Rescue Committee.

José Palma, national coordinator of the National TPS Alliance — an advocacy group that has fought in federal courts against the cancellation of TPS for several countries—welcomed the extension of protections for the Lebanese.

“But we need to find a permanent solution for all TPS beneficiaries,” he warned.

Salomon writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Rebecca Santana contributed to this report.

A GRAND new multi-million hotel is opening in Cornwall right by the beach and it will transport you straight to Italy.

Officially opening on June 15, The Nici in Newquay is “inspired by the sun-soaked glamour of the Amalfi Coast” and has the “indulgence of a Mediterranean escape”.

The clifftop heated pool is the star of the show, with amazing views over the ocean as well as a poolside bar.

But the hotel will also have a spa described as a “coastal cocoon” with a heated indoor pool, hot tub, an aromatherapy sauna, a steam room and a hydrotherapy suite.

A cinema room and kids club will also be on-site to both adults and kids occupied.

In the restaurant – aptly named Amalfi’s – guests will be able to enjoy Italian-inspired such as handmade pizzas and salads.

A second restaurant is planned for 2027, called Tucker Rocks – a more casual dining spot meant to resemble a “clifftop Italian cafe” with live music and even a gelato counter.

And a unique feature at the hotel is the rare Victorian bathing lift that has been restored, so guests can get to Great Western Beach directly from the clifftop hotel.

Inside the hotel there will be 82 refurbished bedrooms and suites, some of which will have sea views.

Otherwise they will all be kitted out with the extras from Nespresso machines, Bluetooth speakers and fancy toiletries in the bathroom.

For those who like to keep fit, the hotel has a fully-equipped gym and fitness studios and juice bar for post-workout refreshments.

Guests can sign up to The Nici Club and get unlimited access to the spa, as well as exclusive events, too.

Rooms at The Nici Newquay cost from £155 per night.

The destination used to be called Hotel Victoria before The Nici took it over and spent £20 million on transforming it.

The hotel is just a five-minute walk from Newquay train station, as well as a five minute walk from Great Western Beach.

If you want to head to one of the most popular beaches in the area – Fistral Beach – then it is just a six minute walk away.

There’s plenty to do in the surrounding area as well, with the hotel just steps away from Great Western Beach – a golden cove which is great for both surfing and rock pooling.

And if you fancy a cheap £1.99 pint, right by the hotel is The Towan Blystra, a Wetherspoons pub.

The Nici Newquay isn’t the only one to open in June, as The Nici New Forest will also open on June 15.

Sitting at the edge of the New Forest in the historic town of Lymington, the hotel is “inspired by the laidback sophistication of the Hamptons”.

Around the hotel, guests can explore woodland trails as well as heading down to the beach.

The Nici already has one hotel open in Bournemouth, which Sun Reporter Catherine Bennion-Pedley recently stayed at.

She said: “Its chic-as interiors are super-Instagrammable – rooms are fresh white with bold, palm-print textiles and brass lighting, while ice-cream pastels, glitterballs and eye-catching artwork adorn the communal areas.

“But really, it’s the outdoor heated pool that steals the show.

“As well as the beautiful pool, there’s a dinky cinema showing four films each day and a petite playroom with table football, giant Jenga and board games.

“Some rooms come with hot tubs, while others have freestanding baths – bag one with a sea view and you’ll wake up thinking you’re in the South of France!”

WASHINGTON — Former Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi is scheduled to meet with the House Oversight Committee on Friday to discuss the Justice Department’s investigations into deceased sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and its release of files related to that investigation.

But the circumstances surrounding her meeting with the committee raise questions about how much the committee will actually learn about either.

For one, the former attorney general will not be under oath in a sworn deposition but will provide a transcribed interview, which is voluntary. Bondi’s interview with the committee will happen behind closed doors with members of the committee and staff and will not be filmed. The committee says it plans to release a transcript soon after the hearing.

And Bondi will be represented at her interview by Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, which legal experts say raises the prospects that the Department of Justice could direct Bondi to not answer some questions posed by the committee.

Former Atty. Gen. William Barr, former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton all gave sworn depositions.

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), the chair of the committee, rejected the Clintons’ offer to provide a transcribed interview, rather than sit for a deposition, out of concern that someone giving a transcribed interview could “refuse to answer whatever questions he wanted for whatever reasons he wanted.”

Comer’s spokesperson said Bondi was allowed to sit for a transcribed interview, rather than a deposition, because the former attorney general was “cooperative.”

“Unlike the Clintons who defied subpoenas for seven months, former Attorney General Pam Bondi voluntarily and quickly cooperated with the Committee to identify a mutually agreeable date,” spokesperson Austin Hacker said in a statement.

Bondi had, in fact, refused to comply with the committee’s subpoena while she was still in office, and the ranking Democrat on the committee, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), filed a resolution on April 29 to hold Bondi in contempt for not complying with the committee’s subpoena a month earlier. Bondi’s agreement to provide a transcribed interview was announced the same day.

The committee subpoenaed Bondi in March to learn more about the department’s long-running investigations into Epstein — the financier accused of abusing more than 1,000 women and girls and directing some of them to have sex with his high-powered friends — and the department’s release of files in response to the 2025 Epstein Files Transparency Act, which mandated disclosure of the investigative records.

Asked whether Dhillon’s participation indicated that the department planned to invoke privilege and bar Bondi from sharing some information, the department said in a statement that Dhillon and other agency officials would attend Bondi’s interview “solely to ensure accurate representation of Department processes, facilitate any necessary clarifications, and support a complete factual record for the Committee.”

The department added that it “routinely provides staff” to assist with “congressional engagement involving past Department staff actions.”

But a former DOJ ethics official, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, said that Dhillon’s participation in the proceedings was anything but routine.

Typically, this type of work would be handled by a less senior attorney at the department who had more direct involvement with the subject matter at hand, the former official said. Dhillon oversees the department’s civil rights division, while the investigations into Epstein were criminal matters.

“I don’t see where Harmeet Dhillon has the experience or the normal level of authority that this would be delegated to,” the official said. “Everything about this seems unusual.”

Bondi would also need to have submitted a formal request for representation from the department.

“It doesn’t just happen willy-nilly,” the former ethics official said.

The department didn’t say how Bondi came to be represented by the agency’s attorneys. Bondi, who said this week she is being treated for thyroid cancer, didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The presence of Dhillon — a San Francisco attorney and Republican party insider who has been talked about as a potential pick for attorney general — could also present a conflict of interest, experts said.

“It’s unclear if she is representing the interests of Bondi, the department, or herself,” said Dave Rapallo, a former staff director of the House Oversight Committee.

He said that Dhillon would not have been able to represent Bondi if her testimony was provided in a deposition because the committee’s rules prevent agency lawyers from attending depositions.

Bondi was fired by President Trump on April 2. She was dogged by questions about her handling of the Epstein investigation throughout her time in office.

Trump campaigned on the promise of releasing information about the government’s investigation into Epstein in 2024 and in February 2025, Bondi told Fox News that she had on her desk a list of clients of Epstein — who died in federal custody in 2019.

But months later, as questions swirled about Trump’s relationship with Epstein, the Justice Department announced that it was closing its investigation into Epstein and said that, in fact, no such client list existed.

Soon after, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act, requiring the Justice Department to release all of the records from its investigation into Epstein. Trump initially opposed the legislation but ultimately signed it into law.

The department has released millions of pages of records in response to the law. While Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said in January that there are millions of additional pages of records that are not yet public, the department has indicated that it doesn’t plan to release these additional files.

The Dodgers’ recent string of injuries continued Wednesday when left fielder Teoscar Hernández pulled up limping after trying to beat out a grounder to shortstop.

Once he was thrown out in the second inning of the Dodgers’ 4-1 win against the Rockies, Hernández took his time walking across the field back to the dugout.

The Dodgers announced that he sustained a left hamstring strain. Utility player Hyeseong Kim replaced Hernández in left field.

This series, as results went, was a success for the Dodgers. They swept the Rockies, outscoring Colorado 24-10 over the course of three games. But the injury losses dealt a blow.

Earlier this month, the Dodgers’ rotation bore the brunt of the injury bug. But recently, it has spread to the position players. Over the last week, three Dodgers position players have left games with injuries.

Last Friday in Milwaukee, third baseman Max Muncy was hit in the wrist by a pitch and sidelined for three games.

Utility player Kiké Hernández made his season debut Monday, after starting the season on the injured list while recovering from offseason surgery on his left elbow, and helped fill in for Muncy’s temporary absence. But Hernández logged just four at-bats before landing on the IL again, lifted from Tuesday’s game with a strained left oblique.

Even after tweaking his oblique in batting practice Monday, Kiké Hernández went four for four with two doubles and a home run as he played through the injury.

Teoscar Hernández’s hamstring strain came in the midst of a hot offensive stretch. Entering Wednesday, he had a 1.072 OPS in his last 13 games.

Manager Dave Roberts also pulled Shohei Ohtani from the Dodgers’ blowout win Tuesday, after he was hit on the right hand by a changeup. But that had more to do with the score, an opportunity to get Dalton Rushing more at-bats, and getting Ohtani ready for his start on the mound Wednesday.

For the second week in a row, Ohtani was in the batting order while also pitching. And for the second pitching start in a row, he gave himself run support with a leadoff home run.

This jumped off his bat at an exit velocity of 111.3 mph, according to Statcast, landing on the netting beyond the center field wall.

His pitching performance was less straightforward. He held the Rockies hitless through six innings. But he still gave up a run, thanks to a total of five free passes (four walks and a hit batter).

Two of them set up the Rockies’ scoring opportunity. With runners on first and third in the fourth inning, the Rockies’ Willi Castro hit a grounder to the right side of the infield, pulling first baseman Freddie Freeman away from the base.

But second baseman Alex Freeeland, recalled Wednesday as the corresponding move as Kiké Hernández went on the IL, ranged to his left and dove to first base with the ball, beating Castro to the bag for the second out of the inning. Ohtani acknowledged Freeland with a point.

A run scored, but Freeland’s hustle set up Ohtani to get out of the inning without further damage.

The Dodgers held the Rockies hitless until the eighth inning, when Tyler Freeman hit a ground-ball single through the right side of the field off reliever Tanner Scott, in the midst of a scoreless inning.

Meanwhile, the Dodgers scored almost all their runs on homers, with Freddie Freeman and Andy Pages adding their own solo blasts after Ohtani, and Alex Call contributing an RBI single.

THREE of Greece’s most popular islands are getting new cheap flights next month – so you can live out your Mamma Mia dreams.

So here are some of our top tips for each island, according to the Sun Travel team.

Follow The Sun’s award-winning travel team on Instagram and Tiktok for top holiday tips and inspiration @thesuntravel.

The first destination that Wizz Air is flying to this summer is Mykonos which is known for its beautiful whitewashed buildings and windmills.

Flights there might be cheap, but Mykonos is one of the most expensive islands in the Cyclades – but Travel Reporter Alice Penwill, has some top tips have recently visited the island said:

She said: “Chora Town is beautiful and has lots of boutique shops selling elegant dresses, designer handbags and it is fun to window shop – or splash out if you wish.

“There are 16 windmills on Mykonos and seven are on the hill in Chora which at sunset makes for an incredible photo.

“If you’re lucky, you might spot several of the island’s pelicans walking about too.

“They’re a mascot of the island, starting with the original, Petros who roamed the island for 30 years.”

Flights to Mykonos are direct from London Luton and will operate three times a week from June 7 – fares start from £38.

Brits can also hop onto a flight to Chania in Crete, which is the largest island in Greece.

It’s got everything from beaches, to mountain backdrops, quaint villages and plenty of history.

Its Venetian harbour is where you’ll find waterfront cafes and restaurants with shops being just a few streets behind within maze-like alleyways.

Deputy Travel Editor Kara Godfrey told us what she loved about Crete, saying: “As an anti-fly-and-flopper, you know a hotel is good when even I’m tempted to just stay there the whole time.

“Over on the west side of Crete, I spent a blissful few days at the family-friendly Royal Senses Resort & Spa.

“The sprawling resort had me sold instantly with the massively long heated swimming pool, as well as the adult-only spa section with day beds and hot tubs.

If you really do want to explore, this side of the island has some beautiful little spots, such as Margarites – a small village known for its ceramics – or Rethimno, a coastal city perfect for market shopping and cocktails.”

Meanwhile Assistant Travel Editor, Sophie Swietochowski suggested heading to Gioma Meze for classic mezze dishes bfeore catching a boat to the Spinalonga, a UNESCO World Heritage site.

Flights to Chania are direct from London Luton operating twice a week from June 8 – fares start from £44.99.

And the third route is to Rhodes, which is the largest of the Dodecanese islands and is well-known for being sunny.

In fact it gets over 300 days of sunshine every year so it’s perfect for a summer break.

The island’s UNESCO listed Old Town is one of the best preserved medieval cities in Europe.

And another popular spot is the village of Lindos which has incredible hilltop views looking out to sea.

The island has plenty of beaches too from shallow family-friendly bays to secret coves and ones with plenty of sand for sun-bathing.

Flights to Rhodes are direct from London Luton operating twice a week from June 7 – fares start from £31.

After their work permits expired, an immigration attorney near San Diego was fired and a nurse in the East Bay area was placed on unpaid leave.

Both depend on work permits and legal protection afforded under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, a program created by President Obama in 2012 for immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children. But recent processing delays at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services are leaving many DACA recipients vulnerable to arrest and deportation as their two-year work permits expire.

“It’s definitely an attack on the program,” said the lawyer, Maria Fernanda Madrigal. “My first thought was, ‘Oh, they’re so clever. They weren’t able to end the program through the courts, so this is what they’re doing.’”

Over the last several years, median processing times for DACA renewals remained under two months. Now, most cases are finished within 3.5 months, according to Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The agency did not explain what’s causing the processing delays. Spokesperson Zach Kahler wrote in a statement that “under the leadership of President Trump, USCIS is safeguarding the American people by more thoroughly screening and vetting all aliens.”

DACA does not confer any form of legal status in this country, he said.

During his first term in office, Trump tried unsuccessfully to rescind DACA.

This time around, his administration has simply weakened its benefits.

Last year, Department of Homeland Security officials started urging DACA recipients to self-deport. The Department of Health and Human Services made DACA recipients ineligible for health insurance through Obamacare.

And last month, a precedent-setting decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals, which will apply to immigration judges across the country, said having DACA is not enough to protect someone from deportation.

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said ICE arrested 650 DACA recipients between Jan. 20, 2025, and April 30, nearly 90% of whom had been charged with or convicted of a crime. The spokesperson did not say how many have been deported.

But in a February letter to U.S. senators, then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the agency had deported 86 DACA recipients between Jan. 1 and Nov. 19, 2025. Federal judges have ordered the agency to return some, including Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez, a Sacramento mother who was deported a day after her green card interview.

Lawmakers are expressing alarm that DACA’s promise of protection is being undermined.

Last month, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee held a forum on the Trump administration’s “all-out assault on DACA.” The forum featured Santa Ana Police Chief Robert Rodriguez, who testified that he had been forced to fire a police officer because their work permit renewal was not processed on time.

Last week, members of the House from California’s Central Valley, including Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford), sent a letter to Homeland Security and Citizenship and Immigration Services leaders, urging them to expedite DACA processing.

“Our offices have seen a substantial increase in constituent cases involving pending renewals, with many remaining unresolved for more than six months,” the letter continued. “These extended processing times are creating avoidable hardships for our communities and our economy.”

California has more than a quarter of the nation’s approximately 500,000 DACA recipients, according to Citizenship and Immigration Services figures. On average, they are 31 years old.

To qualify for DACA, applicants had to pass background checks and meet certain educational or work requirements.

During a news conference ahead of the DACA forum last month, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) reflected on the day in June 2012 when DACA applications first opened. He said parents of young immigrants asked him if it was safe for their children to sign up for the program, which required admitting their lack of legal status and home address.

“Are you sure that the government won’t use that information against us at some time?” he remembered them saying. “I said, ‘Follow the law exactly as it is written and announced in the executive order, and we’ll stand by you. Just believe in us to do that.’”

“Well, I didn’t anticipate the current president and what he is now doing,” Durbin continued.

Sarah Krieger, a former Citizenship and Immigration Services official who is now senior policy counsel at the National Immigration Law Center, said processing delays were caused, in part, by the agency temporarily pausing an automated system for processing DACA and other applications.

Krieger said that “streamlined case processing” was turned off about a month after Trump took office last year, in order to audit whether each process had sufficient security checks. The automated system was turned back on a couple of months later but was modified to include more manual security checks. Krieger left the agency last July.

Turning off the automated system was “a purposeful choice that doesn’t increase national security,” she said. “All it does is slow things down.”

Citizenship and Immigration Services recommends that applicants submit their paperwork and pay the $555 fee between 120 and 150 days before their benefits expire.

Among those who did so are two nurses who work for Kaiser Permanente in the Bay Area. Both requested anonymity out of concern over their immigration status.

One of the nurses, who came to the U.S. from the Philippines as a toddler, said she applied for renewal on Dec. 1. Her work authorization expired April 15.

Kaiser placed her on a 30-day unpaid leave of absence, after which she would be fired. Eventually, her work permit was renewed, but only after Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and two other members of Congress lobbied the federal government on her behalf.

Padilla said his office has fielded requests from hundreds of DACA recipients this year.

Another Kaiser nurse, who also submitted her renewal paperwork in December, is still waiting. She has been on unpaid leave for nearly a month.

The nurse, who is from South America, said one Citizenship and Immigration Services officer told her it could take up to 10 months for her renewal to be processed.

The nurse is pregnant and she and her husband just bought a house. Losing her job would mean losing her healthcare and maternity leave benefits.

“I’ve spent years caring for others in my community, paying taxes, contributing to a healthcare system,” she said. “I worked through COVID and it’s heartbreaking to feel like you’re so easily discarded.”

Another DACA recipient, Elsa Sanchez, 35, of Georgia has maintained DACA status since 2012 and says she always follows the recommendation to submit the renewal application at least 120 days before the expiration date.

For the last three renewals, she said, she was approved within a week or two. This time, her work permit and DACA expired on April 1, more than four months after she submitted her application.

The healthcare IT company where Sanchez works as a senior customer success manager allowed her to take a 60-day unpaid leave of absence but said it would have to terminate her employment afterward.

Sanchez’s unpaid leave was set to run out on June 1. On May 20, she got notice that her DACA renewal had finally been approved. But by then Sanchez, a single mom, had had to pull funds out of the college savings account for her 19-year-old daughter, who is attending a local university. She put the money toward her nearly $2,000 rent and food.

“I feel so relieved and grateful,” she said in an Instagram video announcing the news. “I know that a lot of us are still being affected by these delays. I wish that I could share my approval with all of you and that we would all be celebrating today.”

Others have also turned to social media to share their experiences and swap resources. Madrigal, the fired attorney, pivoted to making daily videos. On Tuesday, she shared “day 35 of unemployment.”

“Some days look like big emotions and uncertainty,” she wrote. “Other days look like walks, toddler activities, cooking dinner and ending the night with tostadas. Trying to find joy and normalcy in the middle of it all.”

Pop crooner and “Real Housewives of Beverly Hills” star Erika Girardi quietly put an end to a long and splashy legal battle over her ex-husband’s now-defunct law firm on Thursday, settling a $25-million bankruptcy lawsuit in Los Angeles federal court.

The suit alleged the singer should have known she was profiting off embezzled funds linked to the sprawling case against her ex-husband, former L.A. legal heavyweight Tom Girardi, and his firm Girardi Keese. The couple was accused of funneling millions from the law firm to prop up Erika’s music career.

Performing as Erika Jayne, she topped the charts in the 2010s with a series of raunchy dance club hits. But court records show she spent millions more than she made as a musician.

Larry W. Gabriel, an attorney for the plaintiffs in the case, wrote in a pretrial filing Monday that Erika and a company associated with her “received the benefit of [Tom] Girardi’s massive fraudulent scheme.”

Tom Girardi is currently serving a seven-year sentence in federal prison after he was convicted of wire fraud for bilking his personal-injury clients in 2024. The disgraced former attorney was found to have stolen tens of millions from his firm.

His wife’s pop hits mixed boasts about luxury brands and explicit sex acts with pulsing dance beats and a bratty falsetto, a tone actress Lake Bell famously dubbed “sexy baby voice.”

In depositions taken as part of the suit, Erika said she had no knowledge of her husband’s crimes. She claimed to be ignorant about where the millions she spent on recording, merchandise, tours and “fun, playful, and sparkly outfits” were drawn from.

“I did not know how much I spent per month or per year,” she said in one exchange. “Girardi Keese paid my Amex credit card bill every month.”

Monday’s filings show Girardi Keese paid at least $14 million in charges to her American Express account between 2008 and 2020.

The payouts began in the late 2000s when Erika, then a stay-at-home mom, sought to relaunch herself as a performer. In 2016, near the height of her pop fame, her husband began to complain she was charging too much on the credit card account. After repeated entreaties to tamp down her spending, Girardi tried for the first time to look at her balance.

Soon after, Girardi grew suspicious of charges being made to her card by a Hollywood costumer — worries she reported to one of Girardi Keese’s clients, an agent in the Secret Service, records show.

On the advice of the agent’s Secret Service colleagues, she said she disputed the AMEX charges and was ultimately refunded more than half a million dollars to her personal account, despite the original payments having come from the law firm.

Erika Girardi’s attorney did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.

California is facing a major vote in the days ahead — and no, it’s not who will be the next governor.

Regulators at the California Air Resources Board are set to decide on May 28 whether to approve the latest blueprint for limits on greenhouse gas emissions from major polluters through 2045, a program known as cap-and-invest. The update to the state’s signature climate program has Sacramento in a tizzy and seemingly no one is pleased with the proposal on the table.

California is one of a handful of states, and the first, to have an an enforceable annual limit on the emissions that change the climate.

After a January draft was criticized by both industry and lawmakers over concerns that capping emissions too much and too quickly would drive up already soaring energy costs, CARB went back to the drawing board and came up with the latest iteration, unveiled in April. But opponents now say the plan kowtows to oil and gas interests who are lobbying hard for concessions, citing an already unstable state and international energy market.

The program works by setting a limit on the greenhouse gases that industries can emit in California. Companies must obtain credits, or allowances, for every ton they release, with the total number of allowances declining over time, consistent with what scientists say actually addresses climate change. The auctions for unused allowances generate billions of dollars in revenue for the state each year that fund clean energy, clean water and other key climate programs.

This year’s original draft sought to remove 118 million allowances from the market by 2030, which it identified as the minimum that must be retired to meet the state’s ambitious climate goals. But the April revision upends that, instead creating a new pool of 118 million “compliance instruments” — defined as allowances or offset credits — above the cap that companies can earn if they invest in decarbonization projects.

Critics argue this first-of-its-kind mechanism, called the Manufacturing Decarbonization Incentive, effectively dismantles the program.

“The whole goal of the cap is to lower emissions over time,” said Mary Creasman, chief executive of the nonprofit California Environmental Voters. “To then allow pollution above the cap is kind of blowing up the program.”

CARB maintains that this change still cuts the emissions coming from California, because the new instruments enter the market only “if they’re applied for, are approved, and deliver verified greenhouse gas emissions reductions.” And the proposal still results in an 11% cap decline year over year through 2030, and 7% from 2031 to 2045, said spokeswoman Lindsay Buckley.

The move would also significantly reduce cap-and-invest’s revenue, according to an analysis from the Legislative Analyst’s Office. It found that the new plan would result in a loss of $2 billion, or roughly 50% less money per year for the state’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, than it has received through the program in recent years.

Many of the lawmakers who voted to reauthorize the program last year are also concerned. Nearly 30 Democrats signed a recent letter urging the air board to “push back on pressure from an oil industry that is making hundreds of billions in wartime profits.”

The fossil fuel industry has indeed lobbied heavily against requirements that it pollute less, spending a record $10.3 million in the first quarter of this year to influence state policy around cap-and-invest and other climate and energy issues, state records show. Among them are the Western States Petroleum Assn., Chevron and Phillips 66, which have argued that lowering the pollution cap will drive up gasoline prices and push more refineries out of the state.

But even they are not thrilled with the latest iteration of the cap-and-invest plan.

“We need to continue to be competitive with other refineries throughout the world, and while there are some very short-term changes within the [revised package], it still doesn’t have the long-term certainty that will drive investment,” said Jodie Muller, WSPA’s chief executive. Muller said she’d like to see the new decarbonization incentive program extended beyond 2030 and eligibility expanded to include additional activities, such as refinery maintenance programs.

“It’s important that we get this right,” she said.

More California climate news

Gov. Gavin Newsom recently unveiled his revised $350-billion budget proposal, which came with an unexpected $16.8-billion increase in tax revenue largely attributed to the success of artificial intelligence companies. Among the plan’s big wins and losses are boosted funding for public schools and higher health premiums for undocumented immigrants.

On the environment, the plan broadly maintains funding and policy support for climate commitments, such as a $200-million incentive program for passenger electric vehicles designed to make up for federal tax credits canceled by the Trump administration. It also includes a new $100-million disaster rebuilding fund to help wildfire survivors rebuild their homes.

But the plan does not include major new spending on the environment, in part due to the ongoing restructuring of cap-and-invest, the state’s main climate funding source. Some environmental groups said the revised budget doesn’t do enough to support California’s clean energy transition or hold oil and gas companies accountable for their role in the climate crisis.

Katelyn Roedner Sutter of the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund urged lawmakers to prioritize proven climate investments in the final budget agreement, such as virtual power plants and incentives for zero-emission delivery trucks. “The actions we take over the next decade are vital to preventing the worst possible scenarios for our kids’ future,” she said.

A few more things

Speaking of the governor’s race, California Resources Corp., one of the state’s top oil producers, just made a hefty $500,000 contribution to an independent campaign committee supporting leading Democratic candidate Xavier Becerra, Politico reported. Becerra has already been criticized for accepting a $39,200 donation from Chevron, while opponents Tom Steyer and Katie Porter have both pledged not to accept contributions from fossil fuel companies.

Fervo Energy, a Houston-based geothermal developer with a major Google project in Utah, raised $1.89 billion in an initial public offering this month. The company’s $7.7-billion valuation signals growing investor appetite for energy companies amid soaring demand for electricity fueled by the growth of AI, the Wall Street Journal said. Geothermal technology taps into pockets of steam and hot water rising from the center of the earth, which is then used to spin turbines to generate power.

Los Angeles is gearing up for its role as a host city of the 2026 World Cup, which will be held in 16 stadiums across Canada, the U.S. and Mexico beginning in mid-June. But experts told my colleague Blanca Begert that the tournament’s expansion will make it “the most emissions-intensive World Cup that we’ve ever seen,” in part because fans and players will have to traverse the three countries to watch the games. Jet exhaust is a major contributor to climate change, representing 3% to 4% of all warming. It is the second of our stories examining the environmental implications of the coming World Cup.

President Trump, it’s well known, is into gold. Every day brings new evidence that he’s thoroughly enjoying the “golden age” he pronounced in his inaugural address — as few other Americans are — with stock trades, crypto profiteering and much more, even a new taxpayer-financed slush fund to reward his allies.

As for me, I’ve gone into silver. That is, I constantly look for the silver linings in Trump’s heinous acts.

One silver lining, of course, is his cratering job-approval numbers in the polls, especially among the young and Latino voters who made his reelection possible. But here’s another: By his humiliating failure to bring Iran to heel, nearly three months after starting a war that he said would last weeks at most, Trump has brought new, more positive attention to what he again this week derided as “Barack Hussein Obama’s Iran nuclear deal.” (The emphasis on “Hussein” is Trump’s, always.)

The president, along with his Republican cheerleaders, counts his first-term abrogation of the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as a signature achievement. This week, yet again, he falsely claimed that had he not done so, Iran would have a nuclear weapon. In fact, his action in 2018 taking the United States out of the multinational deal subsequently led to Iran’s rebuilding of its nuclear program, the emboldening of the Iranian hard-liners now in power and the Middle East morass in which the United States is now mired.

That quagmire has left Trump seeming desperate for a deal — almost certainly a worse deal than the one Obama struck. Call it JCPOA Lite.

If he were able to get Iran’s sign-off on the sort of detailed, restrictive agreement that Obama and other world leaders won 11 years ago, he’d be trumpeting himself as the world’s greatest dealmaker. (He does that anyway, but his record proves otherwise.) Instead, by his own failure to date, Trump has invited reconsideration of the very agreement he decried as the “worst deal ever” on his march to election and reelection.

No sooner was the 2015 deal signed than Trump and Republicans succeeded in defining it as a giveaway to Iran that assured, not hindered, its development of a nuclear weapon to threaten Israel and the world. Opponents condemned the agreement for not addressing Iran’s other threats, notably its support for militant proxies throughout the Mideast. Some Democrats, notably Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, were among the foes. Other Democrats, cowed by opposition to the agreement by Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli government and pro-Israel lobbyists, were all but mute in the pact’s defense.

Now some Democrats are belatedly finding their voice (and, post-Gaza, some willingness to defy Israel). Along with nonpartisan experts, those Democrats are drawing comparisons between the 2015 agreement, flawed yet successful, and Trump’s promised yet ever-elusive alternative. What’s ironic for Israel and Netanyahu, still implacably against negotiating with Tehran, is that they could end up, under Trump, with a nuclear deal that gives Iran more leeway than the hated JCPOA did.

As Americans are being reminded, the 2015 deal wasn’t just between Iran and Obama, as Trump has long suggested; other signatories were China, Russia, Britain, France, Germany and the 27-nation European Union. Reconstituting that group would be all but impossible today.

The pact’s 159 highly technical pages and five appendices — a far cry from the short-lived one-pager that Trump officials teased earlier this month — required Iran for 15 years to limit its nuclear program to civilian purposes, forfeit more than 97% of its enriched uranium and submit to intrusive monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure compliance. In return, Iran gradually got relief from some, but not all, international economic sanctions and access to Iranian funds that were frozen after the 1979 Islamic revolution. Presumably, after 15 years, the agreement would have been extended somehow.

By all accounts, including those of Trump’s first-term intelligence and national security officials, Iran was complying when he abandoned the deal. Its “breakout time” for building a nuclear weapon was about a year — time enough for the world to intervene — instead of two to three months. Now, though the president boasts he barred Iran from having that weapon by breaking the Iran nuclear deal, he incessantly tells Americans that he went to war against Iran on Feb. 28 because it was on the brink of a bomb — never mind that he also said he had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program last summer, a program that was in a well-monitored box until he first took office.

If you’re confused, you’re paying attention.

A month ago, Trump posted online that he was close to a deal “FAR BETTER” than the 2015 accord. “I am under no pressure whatsoever, ⁠although, it will all happen, relatively quickly!” To several reporters, he suggested he in fact had a deal and that Iran had agreed both to suspend its nuclear activities and to forfeit all of its enriched, near-weapons-grade uranium.

Preposterous claims, given Iran’s current government, and Tehran promptly denied them. It was a sign of Trump’s squandered credibility that few, if anyone, believed him in the first place. Nor have folks believed his more recent talk of imminent success; oil markets, too, have learned not to trust the president, as prices at the pumps attest.

On Tuesday at the White House, amid a noisy tour of the billion-dollar-ballroom construction site, Trump told reporters he’d been “an hour away” from striking Iran again that very day but Mideast leaders asked for more time for negotiations.

Don’t hold your breath.

But for the tragic consequences, Obama might be enjoying some justifiable schadenfreude about Trump’s travails.

“We pulled it off without firing a missile. We got 97% of the enriched uranium out,” he told Stephen Colbert in an interview last week. Both U.S. and Israeli intelligence agreed that Iran was abiding by the nuclear limits, Obama added, “and we didn’t have to kill a whole bunch of people or shut down the Strait of Hormuz.”

That sure doesn’t sound like the “worst deal ever.” It wasn’t.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

HAVING racked up nearly 60 countries in just a couple of decades, it’s fair to say I’ve been on a LOT of flights.

But at the same time, I’ve been cursed with the double whammy of being unable to sleep on public transport, and old knee injuries that swell up on planes. Not ideal for a Travel Editor.

So when it comes to choosing a seat on a plane, I think I’ve got it down to a fine art.

(Sadly the days of constantly flying business class everywhere are over).

When faced with spending 11 hours in economy, there is actually a great seat that I found I slept better in, even compared to premium economy.

Not all planes have this seat, so it is worth using something like SeatMap when you know what kind of plane you are flying with.

But my favourite seat is the one behind the bulkhead row on either the left or the right side of the plane.

Some of the bulkhead rows only have two seats on either side of the centre, due to the layout of the aircraft door.

That means the seat behind these by the window has a crazy amount of legroom, but is more tucked away than the bulkhead.

Bulkhead seats, while often the best for legroom in economy, also come with the downside of lots of passenger traffic of people using the toilet or stretching their legs.

But this tucked away seat is a gem when it comes to economy.

In fact, I think it can be even better than premium economy, especially when you factor in the price.

I paid around £65 to pick this seat, whereas Premium Economy seats can be hundreds of pounds more expensive.

Not only that, but a lot of Premium Economy seats have built in arm rests you can’t lift.

If I lucked out with no one next to me on this seat, I could even lift the arm rests and have a double set to myself.

As a non-sleeper, I managed to get about five hours on and off of sleep, something unheard of for me normally on planes.

Not all planes will have this seat, so if it doesn’t I still recommend paying for the bulkhead seat if they are still available.

Here’s a plane hack you should NEVER try for better seats – unless you want to annoy other passengers.

TWO major English train stations are set to close as they undergo renovations.

The commuter hubs will be unavailable to the public for 22 days next month as part of the regeneration works.

Both Charing Cross Station and Waterloo East Station in London will not allow travel for a number of weeks over the summer.

The stations’ decades-old tracks and platforms will be given a revamp.

The closures will take place between Sunday, July 26, and Sunday, August 16, as well as on Sunday, May 31, and Sunday, June 7.

There will also be a full weekend closure from Saturday, August 22, to Sunday, August 23, – and again from Saturday, October 10, to Sunday, October 11.

On these dates, no trains will stop at Charing Cross or Waterloo East, although the Southeastern services will continue throughout the closures.

Trains that usually terminate at Charing Cross will be diverted to London Victoria, London Blackfriars, London Cannon Street or London Bridge. Tickets will be accepted on these alternative routes.

Meanwhile the London Underground service from Charing Cross will run as normal.

The closures will allow a £20million engineering project to be completed, with almost two kilometres of 36-year-old track set to be replaced.

Sections of Charing Cross’s platforms will undergo repairs along with updates to the drainage systems on the tracks.

Structural repairs to the Waterloo East to London Waterloo pedestrian link bridge and the Hungerford Bridge are also required.

Scott Brightwell, train services director at Southeastern Railway, said: “The £20 million investment we are delivering will see 1990s track and platforms upgraded to make journeys safer and more reliable, and Victorian era structures strengthened to remain fit for the future.  

“By consolidating the work into 22‑day closure, supported by preparation and follow‑up weekends, we can complete the work more quickly and with less disruption overall than the alternative options of 60 weekend closures or four to five 9-day closures.”

Urging passengers to “plan ahead and check before they travel”, he added: “We have planned the closure for the summer, when passenger numbers are around 20 per cent lower and schools are closed, to help manage the impact on customers.”

May 19 (UPI) — The Trump administration has issued temporary Russia sanctions relief for a third straight month, extending a waiver allowing the delivery and sale of Russian oil already loaded onto tankers at sea amid the ongoing energy crisis cause by the U.S. war with Iran.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the 30-day reprieve on social media, saying it will “provide the most vulnerable nations with the ability to temporarily access Russian oil currently stranded at sea.”

“This extension will provide additional flexibility, and we will work with these nations to provide specific licenses as needed. This general license will help stabilize the physical crude market and ensure oil reaches the most energy-vulnerable countries,” he said in a statement.

The United States has imposed thousands of sanctions on Russia since it invaded Ukraine in February 2022, in an effort to cut it off from a lucrative revenue source to fund its war.

The sanctions relief — first issued on March 5 to permit the sale of Russian crude to India before being broadened March 12 — may have helped Russia generate ab additional $150 million per day in oil revenue, or $3.3 billion to $5 billion in the month of March alone, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in mid-April that about $10 billion worth of Russian oil was at sea, condemning the sanctions relief by stating “every dollar paid for Russian oil is money for the war.”

Democrats and Ukrainians have been sharply critical about the sanctions relief, describing it as undercutting their years of work to try to hobble Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ability to make war.

Following the announcement of the extension on Monday, Democratic Sens. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts described the waiver as “delivering another dangerous and indefensible gift” to Putin.

“Every additional dollar the Kremlin earns from this license helps Putin finance his illegal war against Ukraine and kill innocent Ukrainians,” the Democratic pair said in a joint statement.

The Trump administration initially issued the waiver as oil prices surged in response to the war in the Middle East, which began Feb. 28 when the United States and Israel launched joint attacks on Iran.

Shaheen, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Warren, ranking member of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, criticized the Trump administration over its reasoning that the waiver is to support vulnerable countries, stating that justification “would be more credible had it not launched this war, or if it had used policy tools to limit the prices Russia could push on those countries.”

“Instead, the Trump administration has helped Russia charge more for its oil cargoes by removing the risk of sanctions,” they said.

“Continuing to show weakness like this will only invite more aggression and put a just end to the war in Ukraine further away.”

Anderson Cooper has signed off from “60 Minutes” for the last time.

After two decades as a correspondent on the CBS’ news magazine, he officially ended his run Sunday night.

Cooper, who also hosts a news program on CNN, announced in February his plans to leave CBS, months after an internal shake-up that followed the arrival of editor-in-chief, Bari Weiss.

“Things can always evolve and change, and I think that’s awesome, and things should evolve and change, but I hope the core of what ’60 Minutes’ is always remains,” Anderson said on-air. “I think the independence of ’60 Minutes’ has been critical.”

Throughout the farewell segment, the 58-year-old journalist, who was hired in 2007, reminisced about some career highlights, like speaking with Holocaust survivors and people battling malnutrition in Niger, as well as interviewing A-listers like Lady Gaga and Prince Harry. He also said he hopes the show continues to be a reliable source of investigative journalism.

“I think the trust it has with viewers is critical to the success of ’60 Minutes.’ When you see a ’60 Minutes’ story, and you’re like, ‘That was a really good story.’ It was a good story because it requires time, it requires patience, it requires money,” he said. “I hope that’s known and honored and valued and continues.”

His departure comes at an uncharted time for CBS, as the company undergoes several leadership changes. Last year, billionaire David Ellison successfully merged his company, Skydance Media, with Paramount, CBS’s parent company. Soon after, Ellison hired Bari Weiss as CBS News editor-in-chief.

Two months after taking on the new role, Weiss made the widely panned decision to pull a “60 Minutes” episode that examined the alleged abuse of deportees sent from the U.S. to an El Salvador prison. The decision earned Weiss heavy criticism and accusations that the move was politically motivated, which CBS has denied.

Cooper said that he’s leaving the program to spend more time with his young children. He will remain as an anchor for CNN.

He added, “I hope ’60 Minutes’ is around for when my kids grow up and have kids of their own, and they can watch it with their kids.”

The Hollywood sign is ablaze as Spencer Pratt, the reality TV star now running for mayor of Los Angeles, suits up as Batman, enters City Hall and leads the people to overthrow a cabal of corrupt, out-of-touch progressives intent on destroying the city.

Then he is Luke Skywalker. Dressed in a Jedi robe, he swoops through the city on an Imperial speeder bike, as California Gov. Gavin Newsom (Emperor Palpatine) rebukes incumbent Mayor Karen Bass (Darth Vader) for not burning the city down to the ground in her first term.

“Make sure you finish the job in your second,” Newsom tells Bass with a tilt of the head and a smirk.

“The only thing that can stop us is someone telling the truth,” Bass replies. “As long as they don’t have any hope, the city’s ours.”

Pratt’s fan-generated AI election campaign videos have been praised and mocked, but heavily shared. And some see them as a harbinger of how artificial intelligence could reshape political messaging across the country.

His supporters are far from the first to create AI-generated ads. But political experts say it’s remarkable the degree to which they have used new technology to churn out a stream of outlandish, hyper-cinematic memes, creating buzz around his campaign and his message.

Some warn, however, that as the technology becomes more sophisticated, it will become harder for many people to distinguish between AI and real videos.

“When you’re creating content that is not based in reality, and then platforms are amplifying it in order to attract more eyeballs, you are putting a burden on the public for figuring out what is real and what is factual, and what is fake and misleading,” said Mark Jablonowski, the chief executive of DSPolitical, a progressive advertising firm.

Pratt’s campaign did not create the viral AI videos depicting him as a superhero taking on a cast of California Democratic villains. But he has shared the ads crafted by AI filmmaker Charlie Curran, founder of L.A.’s Menace Studio.

Supercharged and Hollywood inspired, the videos represent a brazen new era of fan-generated AI in political campaign advertising. Deploying generative AI tools to clone human voices and images, they bolster a hyperbolic and ultra-conspiratorial political narrative that depicts L.A. under Democratic rule as a hellscape in which Newsom and Bass deliberately conspire to harm the people.

Bass has condemned the ads, describing them as “very scary” and “absolutely 150% fiction.”

“His social media is now taking on a violent turn,” Bass told CNN, citing the Batman ad that depicts Angelenos pelting her with tomatoes.

Some political experts dismiss such fears of AI campaign ads as overblown. Most AI videos shared by political campaigns and their fans, they note, are more comedic than deliberately misleading.

“Spencer Pratt is using AI the way it should be used, which is to sharpen reality,” said Matt Klink, an L.A.-based Republican political consultant. “His whole shtick is that Los Angeles is broken, the insiders have failed, and the political class wants to explain away what voters are seeing with their own eyes.”

“Obviously, you don’t run an AI ad where you have someone saying something that they didn’t say, and you should disclose that they’re generated by AI,” Klink noted. But when it comes to ads that depict Pratt as Batman or Luke Skywalker, he said, “if you don’t know that they’re AI generated, you’re pretty clueless to begin with.”

For as long as political candidates and their supporters have experimented with new technology — from the pamphlets of the 1600s to the memes of the 21st century — they have faced complaints that they mislead the public.

As large language models ushered in a new era of AI, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) warned in 2024 that “a deluge of deception, disinformation and deepfakes are about to descend on the American public.”

The term “deepfake” was first coined in 2017 by a Reddit user who used open-source face-swapping technology to splice celebrity faces onto porn performers’ bodies. Within months, it entered the mainstream lexicon as a way to describe any AI-generated synthetic media that realistically clones a person’s image or voice.

Blumenthal cited a “chilling example.” In January 2024, Republicans placed robo calls using an AI “deepfake” voice mimicking President Biden to New Hampshire residents to discourage Democrats from voting in the presidential primaries.

New Hampshire authorities said the message violated the state’s voter suppression laws. A month later, the Federal Communications Commission outlawed robocalls that use voices generated by AI. The company that sent the messages agreed to pay a $1-million fine.

But others kept pushing the boundaries of AI — mostly as overt parody or satire, an arena that offers greater 1st Amendment protection.

In July 2024, an AI content creator created a mock campaign ad of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris with a computer-generated voiceover to make it seem she was describing herself as the ultimate “diversity hire” and “deep state puppet.” The post was titled ‘Kamala Harris Campaign Ad PARODY.’

Newsom slammed the post, saying on X, “Manipulating a voice in an ‘ad’ like this one should be illegal.” Two months later, he signed into law a series of bills that clamped down on AI in politics.

But a federal judge blocked one of the new laws that regulated election-related content that is “materially deceptive,” saying it probably violated the 1st Amendment.

No comprehensive federal rules govern the use of AI content in political ads or messaging. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 29 states have passed laws restricting the use of deepfakes in political campaigns: Some states, such as Texas and Minnesota, prohibit the use of deepfakes  a certain number of days before an election; the other 27 states require a media disclosure if content contains a deepfake.

Some political advertising experts call for more federal regulation. The state-by-state patchwork of regulations, they argue, makes it very difficult for social media platforms to be compliant.

“At the end of the day, we really need to see platforms being more responsible with the content that they’re sharing,” Jablonowski said. “We need to have clear guidelines and a level playing field across the country, so we’re not in a position where what’s OK in one state is not OK in another.”

Pratt’s embrace of AI is part of a larger 2026 political trend.

In January, Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton released an ad depicting two of his opponents for a Senate seat — Republican Sen. John Cornyn and Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett — waltzing and swinging. A few months later, the National Republican Senatorial Committee shared a video that used a manipulated image of James Talarico, the Democratic nominee for the Texas Senate seat, mouthing his own tweets.

But Pratt has been particularly successful in using fan-based AI to help garner attention, pulling in a number of content creators to craft AI videos for his campaign.

One posted a video parody of the 2004 Downfall film, portraying Bass as Hitler. Another created an animated video, geared to a Latino audience, showing Angelenos lining the streets to cheer as Pratt wheels a garbage can piled with trash and the incumbent mayor. The slogan “SPENCER, SACA LA BASSURA” [Spencer, take out the trash] flashes atop the screen.

A recent survey from the American Assn. of Political Consultants shows that AI adoption is growing rapidly among political consultants — and Republicans are more likely to use it than Democrats.

But political observers in L.A. note that leading Democrats in the mayoral race are unlikely to follow Pratt in using AI. Bass, they note, is a more cautious political figure than Pratt, a brash online influencer who relished playing the role of villain on MTV’s “The Hills.”

While Pratt’s user-generated AI ads have inspired giddy delight from out-of-state Republicans — conservative radio host Buck Sexton praised the Batman video for ushering in “a new era of online persuasion” — it’s still not clear if they will convince Angelenos to vote for him.

Certainly, the ads have helped Pratt gain recognition. They have also given voice to a groundswell of frustration with L.A.’s Democratic establishment and created space for more pressing debate on the future direction of the city.

But there is little evidence that the AI ads, in themselves, are persuading new voters.

So far, none of the AI ads that Pratt has shared have received as many views on his X account as a non-AI ad his campaign produced that has racked up more than 14 million views.

In it, Pratt stands outside Bass’ city-owned Hancock Park mansion and Nithya Raman’s home in leafy Silver Lake, then pans to an Airstream on the charred ruins of his own home, which burnt down during the Palisades fire.

“They don’t have to live in the mess they’ve created,” Pratt says as he walks down an L.A. street littered with homeless tents.

Meghan Daum, a former Los Angeles Times columnist who has endorsed Pratt and dubs herself a self-appointed “liberal elite whisperer for Pratt,” said she thought Pratt’s Airstream ad was more effective than the AI superhero ads. She voiced concern his sharing of AI videos could actively undermine his campaign.

“They will be repellent to the undecided voters Pratt needs to catch, most of whom will think they’re coming directly from the campaign,” she said on X. “Get smarter, guys.”

Using AI, she told The Times, could turn off voters in a town where so many film workers have lost jobs to AI. She also worried about the legality of ads — such as one video purporting to be a Bass campaign ad — that put words in the mouth of computer-generated politicians.

But Daum noted that others told her this was the aesthetic of the new world and a way of getting people who have not voted in the past excited about something.

“That may be true,” she said.

So far, there is little evidence that AI in U.S. political campaigns has affected elections.

“There’s a lot more fear about the effects of AI in politics than evidence of the effects of AI in politics,” said Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth College who co-authored a recent report on AI and persuasion.

During the 2024 election, Nyhan noted, AI was frequently used to create “obviously false” images of attention-grabbing, funny or raging content. “It seems to be more of a mechanism for reaching your base,” he said, “rather than persuading voters who haven’t made up their mind or might stay home.”

Ultimately, Pratt’s personal story of loss — and more specific complaints about L.A.’s systemic failures in preparedness and emergency response during the 2025 firestorms and spending on unsuccessful programs to house the homeless — may resonate more than simplistic AI stories of evil Democrats hellbent on razing their city.

Some L.A. political observers admit they were surprised by Pratt’s performance in a May 6 televised debate with Bass and Raman.

”Spencer Pratt was kind of a laughingstock when he first announced that he was going to run, and he has dramatically exceeded expectations,” said Klink, the GOP strategist. “I think that he surprised people in his ability to come up with solutions. … That’s what’s going to convince people to vote, not the Batman or Star Wars ad.”

As millions of people click on Pratt videos — in some cases more than the 3.8 million people living in L.A. — Klick said there was one question Pratt needs to be asking: “Do views of his ads translate into votes?”

THE UK isn’t short of lidos but a new ‘floating’ swimming pool is opening right by the River Thames next month.

Sea Lanes in Canary Wharf’s Eden Dock will be opening on June 19 and will be a year-round swimming attraction.

The venue is billing itself as “London’s leading destination for open water swimming, health and wellbeing”.

Visitors will be able to dive into a 50-metre-long and 1.3-metre-deep floating swimming pool, with six lanes and then – for after a refreshing dip – there will also be two saunas.

The attraction will feature a clubhouse as well, with year-round wellness events such as talks and members’ socials and a place to grab food and drink.

The first event will be on June 25 and will be an Open Water Masterclass with Olympian Katy Sexton, who will coach swimmers and share pro tips.

If visitors want to rent a wetsuit, they can do so at a small store too.

The pool will be open from 6am to 9pm Monday to Friday and from 7am to 7pm at the weekends.

Visitors can opt for different memberships including the Founder Membership for the first 500 members which costs £75 a month and includes swim and sauna access.

Alternatively, visitors can pay-per-swim, which will cost £10 for a swim session, £10 for a sauna session or £18 for both.

The pool hopes to be able to help swimmers transition from pools to open water.

Joe McNulty, director at Sea Lanes previously said: “Sea Lanes Canary Wharf will be more than just a swimming pool – it will be an urban oasis for health and wellbeing all set within the green and biodiverse waterfront of Eden Dock.”

May 15 (Asia Today) — South Korea may announce a basic plan for acquiring nuclear-powered submarines as early as this month, officials and diplomatic sources said Friday.

According to foreign policy and security sources, the government is preparing a “Korean nuclear-powered submarine basic plan” that would outline its core principles and a timeline for acquisition.

A Defense Ministry official said the plan is being developed in coordination with relevant agencies but said the exact schedule could not be confirmed.

The official also said it has not been decided whether the Defense Ministry will lead the announcement.

Although no specific date has been set, some observers expect the plan could be released before the Shangri-La Dialogue, an Asian security forum scheduled to take place in Singapore later this month.

The plan is expected to include the defensive nature of the submarines, their missions and roles, a detailed timeline, fuel procurement and financing plans and South Korea’s commitment to complying with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

If announced, the plan would mark a formal declaration of the government’s intention to pursue nuclear-powered submarines.

A joint fact sheet released after a recent South Korea-U.S. summit said the United States had approved South Korea’s construction of nuclear-powered submarines and would work closely with Seoul, including on fuel procurement.

Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back recently visited the United States and discussed cooperation on nuclear-powered submarine construction with U.S. defense officials.

— 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=20260515010004184

Earnings Call Insights: United States Antimony Corporation (UAMY) Q1 2026

Management View

• CEO Gary Evans said, “This is no longer just an antimony company” and pointed investors to a portfolio spanning “antimony, cobalt, gold, tungsten, and zeolite,” alongside ramping processing capacity and government-linked demand.

Seeking Alpha’s Disclaimer: This article was automatically generated by an AI tool based on content available on the Seeking Alpha website, and has not been curated or reviewed by humans. Due to inherent limitations in using AI-based tools, the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of such articles cannot be guaranteed. This article is intended for informational purposes only. Seeking Alpha does not take account of your objectives or your financial situation and does not offer any personalized investment advice. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank.

SACRAMENTO — Dana Williamson, one of the political heavyweights at the center of a financial scandal involving gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, looked shell-shocked Thursday morning in a federal courtroom in downtown Sacramento, as most folks do when bad choices collide with the hard realities of the justice system.

A thousand-yard stare in her eyes, Williamson responded “guilty” three times in a voice that required a microphone to be heard as the judge walked her through a plea deal reached days before with the U.S. Department of Justice. She likely won’t be sentenced until fall (possibly close to the general election) but will — again, just a likely here — at best face home confinement and at worst upward of three years in prison.

It’s a colossal fall for a woman who wasn’t so much a consultant as a political operative to Becerra, Gov. Gavin Newsom, former Gov. Jerry Brown and a slew of companies including Meta and PG&E. She was known at the Capitol as a woman who got things done, sometimes with finesse, sometimes not.

It was her savvy and ability to deliver whatever was needed through her deep connections and knowledge of the complicated structures — official and cultural — that govern the California halls of power that make her predicament all the more confounding. Especially because, far from stealing money for self-enrichment, she actually paid money to be part of this scheme.

That alone, to me, raises questions.

Though Williamson’s guilty plea may seem like an ending to the saga, it shouldn’t be, because there’s still a lot lurking in the dark corners of this deal.

If Becerra makes it past the primary, which seems (I’ll use that word again) likely, voters have a right to know.

Here’s the simple backstory, according to court documents. Becerra’s close aide, Sean McCluskie, took a pay cut to remain with his boss when he moved to Washington to become President Biden’s secretary of Health and Human Services.

Strapped for cash, McCluskie asked Williamson to receive money from Becerra’s dormant campaign account — which Becerra was legally not allowed to manage while holding federal office — and pass it through a bunch of other accounts before giving it to McCluskie’s wife as payment for a nonexistent job.

Williamson’s attorney, McGregor Scott, said Thursday that Williamson received $7,500 each month from the Becerra account and added $2,500 from her own funds before sending it on to ultimately reach McCluskie — for a total of $10,000 a month.

McCluskie was “living on a government salary,” Scott said Thursday after court. “Wife is home with the kids. They didn’t have enough money, and that’s where this all originated. [Williamson] was simply trying to help a friend in a pinch as best she could.”

Scott, a former Bush and Trump United States attorney, managed to get Williamson’s original 23-count indictment knocked down to the Becerra account issue, along with lying to the FBI and filing a false tax return.

McCluskie entered his own guilty plea in the case last November and is scheduled to be sentenced, along with the third lobbyist, in June.

Becerra, who is a slim-margin front-runner for governor, was the victim in this case — or more precisely, his state campaign bank account was, according to court documents.

There has never been any indication that Becerra was investigated as a participant, and he has forcefully denied wrongdoing, calling it a “gut punch” that his advisers allegedly betrayed him.

That, of course, hasn’t stopped the other candidates from using the case against him.

“My opponents have spent millions spreading lies to purposefully mislead voters,” he wrote Thursday on social media. “Today confirms what I have said from day one: I did nothing wrong. Case closed.”

Meanwhile, Scott, the attorney, also said Thursday that Williamson assumed, based on her conversations with McCluskie, that McCluskie had spoken to Becerra about the concept of the money transfer. Text messages in court records show a brief and ambiguous exchange between McCluskie and Williamson that backs that up.

Scott said that Williamson never spoke directly with Becerra about the scheme.

That leaves the distinct possibility that Williamson believed Becerra knew what was happening — but never asked him. Dumb? Maybe. But Williamson isn’t usually dumb.

“The understanding that McCluskie conveyed to my client was it was OK to proceed,” Scott said.

Becerra has repeatedly said he believed the $10,000 a month was a legitimate fee being paid to manage the funds in the dormant account while he could not — though that is an amount above what is usual for such work, as my colleague Dakota Smith has reported.

Becerra has also repeatedly used some variation of the “case closed” line, seemingly hoping to move past this scandal without further answers.

But at the very least, it deserves some kind of mea culpa from Becerra or lessons learned, a more robust conversation than the brush-off it’s been getting. Because either McCluskie is one heck of a con man who rolled both Becerra and Williamson, making both believe what was happening was kosher with entirely different tales, or someone isn’t being entirely honest.

Did Becerra never question why an account with almost no activity was costing so much to manage? Did he never wonder what Williamson was doing to earn all that money? Should he, with his decades of legal and political experience, have seen red flags, even with a trusted adviser? Or is Williamson, facing sentencing, just trying to paint herself in a sympathetic light?

“I’m not trying to paint my client as a victim,” McGregor said. “She’s accepted responsibility today for what she did by pleading guilty. She’s now a felon. So you know, we’re not trying to do anything to dance away from that.”

Williamson may be done dancing, but the music’s still playing, and the fancy footwork of politics continues.

WASHINGTON — The head of U.S. Border Patrol, the agency tasked with securing the nation’s frontiers and increasingly tapped by the Trump administration for immigration operations in American cities, announced his resignation Thursday.

Michael Banks’ decision, announced in a Fox News interview and later confirmed by the Department of Homeland Security, is the latest leadership shake-up of officials implementing President Trump’s immigration crackdown and comes as the Republican administration appears to be recalibrating its approach.

“It’s just time,” Banks was quoted as saying in a report on the Fox News website. “I feel like I got the ship back on course from the least secure disastrous chaotic border to the most secure border this country has ever seen,” he said.

In a statement, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection commissioner, Rodney Scott, thanked Banks for his service “during one of the most challenging periods for border security.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

It was not immediately clear who will replace Banks. He led an agency at the forefront of Trump’s high-profile immigration enforcement efforts but kept a lower profile than some other officials such as Gregory Bovino, a now-retired commander who became a public face of the city operations.

CBP is one of the federal agencies that participated since last year in a series of immigration enforcement operations, carried out primarily in cities governed by Democrats —an effort that triggered a spike in arrests and led to the fatal shooting of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis this year at the hands of federal immigration officers.

Banks’ resignation takes place two months after Markwayne Mullin, a former Republican senator from Oklahoma, became homeland security secretary. DHS oversees CBP and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE.

Banks is stepping down at the same time that ICE is also going through a leadership transition. Todd Lyons, the acting ICE director, is leaving later this month and will be replaced by David Venturella, who worked for years for private contractors before returning to government service.

CBP was established in 2003 and handles customs, immigration, and agricultural regulations to secure U.S. borders.

Banks returned to the Border Patrol last year after a long agency career that had never landed him in its senior ranks. His star had risen as border czar to Gov. Greg Abbott, R-Texas, during a period when illegal crossings reached record highs and the state launched a multibillion-dollar enforcement surge that led to turf battles with the Biden administration.

Banks kept a relatively low public profile as arrests for illegal crossings that have plunged to their lowest levels since the mid-1960s, a trend that began toward the end of that Democratic administration.

Banks did not appear publicly at the Border Security Expo this month in Phoenix, an annual conference at which government officials update contractors on the state of the border. Scott, who was Banks’ supervisor, is a close ally of Trump border czar Tom Homan and has acted more as the agency’s public face.

In the interview with Fox News, Banks said that after 37 years, “it’s time to enjoy the family and life.”