Office

The world’s largest Bitcoin conference is taking place in Las Vegas, Nevada from May 27-29.

This year’s event includes several speakers from US President Donald Trump’s circle including Vice President JD Vance; Trump’s two eldest sons, Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump; as well as White House crypto tsar David Sacks.

Trump’s favourable view of cryptocurrency and his family’s heavy involvement in the industry is raising concerns about the integrity of Trump’s administration and how he is using his influence as president of the United States.

How has Bitcoin performed under Trump?

Over the past week, Bitcoin reached an all-time high of $111,970, marking a 2.6 percent increase from its previous Inauguration Day peak of $109,114.

Since Donald Trump’s re-election in November 2024, Bitcoin has surged 60 percent, rising from about $69,539 at close on Election Day to its current record level.

The cryptocurrency briefly dropped below $90,000 on February 25, amid market jitters triggered by Trump’s announcement of new tariffs on multiple countries and industries worldwide, before recovering.

What were the policies during the Biden administration?

During the Biden administration, government policy on cryptocurrency was mixed, with a plethora of lawsuits brought against crypto firms by then Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) chair Gary Gensler, who has been replaced under the new Trump administration. There were also major moves to adopt cryptocurrency, with the SEC approving 11 spot Bitcoin ETFs in January 2024.

In 2022 and into 2023, the crypto market faced major drawdowns following the implosion of Bahamas-based cryptocurrency exchange FTX in 2022 and the regional banking crisis in early 2023. This led to the Federal Reserve Board releasing statements to banks on the risks of crypto assets, which it has recently withdrawn.

What are Trump’s crypto policies?

The crypto industry has emerged as a significant political player, contributing large sums to support Trump and other legislators.

Much of Biden’s crypto policies have been rescinded under the Trump administration, with the US Senate advancing key pro-crypto legislation such as the establishment of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and the Digital Asset Stockpile, aimed at maintaining control of Bitcoin seized as part of “criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings”.

Trump’s cryptocurrency policies included appointing pro-crypto figures to key regulatory roles, such as naming Paul Atkins as the new SEC chair.

The most recent rally in Bitcoin is largely prompted by investor optimism over a more crypto-friendly administration and proposed regulatory changes to reduce barriers to entry in the crypto asset markets.

Unlike fiat currencies, Bitcoin’s maximum supply is 21 million coins. Because of this, the White House has stated “there is a strategic advantage to being among the first nations to create a strategic Bitcoin reserve.”

What if Bitcoin were a country?

With Bitcoin priced at $110,000 and a circulating supply of approximately 19.87m BTC, its market capitalisation stands at roughly $2.18 trillion.

If Bitcoin were a country, it would be a major economic powerhouse, ranking roughly in the top 10 worldwide by gross domestic product (GDP) size, roughly on par with countries like Brazil ($2.17 trillion), Canada ($2.14 trillion) or Russia ($2.02 trillion).

What are the regulations and ethics on government officials’ involvement in crypto?

Just before taking office, Trump launched the $TRUMP meme coin at a Crypto Ball held in Washington, DC. Meme coins are often created as a joke and are susceptible to volatile price movements, however, Trump’s coin has allowed top investors access to him.

Last week, President Trump hosted top investors for a cryptocurrency project at his luxury golf course in Northern Virginia. It’s estimated investors spent $148m on the $TRUMP coin to secure their seats at the dinner, with the top 25 spending more than $111m, according to crypto intelligence firm Inca Digital, the Reuters news agency reported.

While the White House insisted Trump would be attending the event “in his personal time”, he spoke at the event behind a podium marked with the presidential seal.

When Trump’s meme coin launched, it first surged, then fell in value, while its creators, which include an entity linked to the Trump Organization, made hundreds of millions in trading fees.

The Trump family is now deeply invested in crypto, with ventures like First Lady Melania Trump’s coin and a stake in World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency firm founded in 2024.

While government officials have financial disclosure requirements, and regulatory agencies can monitor the goings-on of officials, critics have warned of conflicts of interest, as Trump backs crypto after once opposing it, potentially using policy to boost his own gains.

Former Los Angeles Times reporter Maya Lau filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against Los Angeles County, former Sheriff Alex Villanueva, a former undersheriff and a former detective, alleging that a criminal investigation into her activities as a journalist violated her 1st Amendment rights.

The suit comes less than a year after a Times article revealed that Lau had been the target of an L.A. County Sheriff’s Department probe that “was designed to intimidate and punish Lau for her reporting” about a leaked list of deputies with a history of misconduct, Lau’s attorneys alleged in an emailed statement.

Lau’s suit seeks unspecified damages to compensate her for alleged violations of her dignity and privacy, as well as the “continuous injuries” and anxiety she says in the complaint that she has faced in the wake of the revelation she had been investigated.

The suit details “six different counts of violating Ms. Lau’s rights under the U.S. constitution and California state law, including retaliation and civil conspiracy to deny constitutional rights,” according to the statement by Lau’s attorneys.

“It is an absolute outrage that the Sheriff’s Department would criminally investigate a journalist for doing her job,” Lau said in the statement. “I am bringing this lawsuit not just for my own sake, but to send a clear signal in the name of reporters everywhere: we will not be intimidated. The Sheriff’s Department needs to know that these kinds of tactics against journalists are illegal.”

The Sheriff’s Department said in an emailed statement that it had “not been officially served with this lawsuit” by late Tuesday afternoon.

“While these allegations stem from a prior administration, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department under Sheriff Robert G. Luna is firmly committed to upholding the Constitution, including the First Amendment,” the statement said. “We respect the vital role journalists play in holding agencies accountable and believe in the public’s right to a free and independent press.”

Villanueva said via email that he had not yet reviewed the complaint in full and that “under the advice of counsel, I do not comment on pending litigation.”

“What I can say is the investigation in question, like all investigations conducted by the Public Corruption Unit during my tenure as Sheriff of Los Angeles County, were based on facts that were presented to the Office of the Attorney General,” he said. “It is the political establishment, of which the LA Times is a part, that wishes to chill lawful investigations and criminal accountability with frivolous lawsuits such as this one.”

A spokesperson for the county counsel’s office declined further comment. The other defendants in the lawsuit, former Undersheriff Tim Murakami and former Detective Mark Lillienfeld, did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday afternoon.

In December 2017, The Times published a story by Lau about a list of about 300 problem deputies. A lengthy case file reviewed by The Times last year found that department investigators launched an initial probe into who provided Lau with the list. The agency’s investigation began when Jim McDonnell was sheriff in 2017. The Sheriff’s Department ultimately dropped the investigation without referring it for proscution after, as Lau’s complaint says, it “turned up no evidence connecting Ms. Lau to any crime.”

The case file reviewed by The Times last year stated that, after Villanueva became sheriff in 2018, he revived the investigation into Lau, which the complaint alleges was part of an “unlawful conspiracy” conducted as part of a policy of “retaliatory criminal charges against perceived opponents of LASD.”

Lillienfeld led the investigation, and Villanueva “delegated to Undersheriff Murakami his decision-making authority” in the probe, which Murakami ultimately referred to the state attorney general’s office for prosecution, Lau’s complaint says. In May 2024, the office declined to prosecute her, citing insufficient evidence.

But Lau alleges that the damage was already done and that her rights under the 1st Amendment and California’s Constitution had been violated. “If LASD’s actions are left unredressed,” according to the complaint, “journalists in Los Angeles will be chilled from reporting on matters of public concern out of fear that they will be investigated and prosecuted.”

The Sheriff’s Department told The Times last year that its probe of Lau was closed and that the department under Luna does not monitor journalists.

David Snyder, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit free speech and press freedom advocacy organization, told The Times last year that reporting on leaked materials involving a matter of public concern is typically “protected under the 1st Amendment” even if a reporter is aware they were obtained illegally.

“You’re not authorized to break into a file cabinet to get records. You’re not authorized to hack computers. But receiving information that somebody else obtained unlawfully is not a crime,” Snyder said.

The saga of the leaked records began in 2014, when Diana Teran compiled a list of deputies with histories of disciplinary problems. Teran was working for the Office of Independent Review, which conducted oversight of the Sheriff’s Department until it closed down that July.

In 2015, Teran was hired by the Sheriff’s Department to serve in an internal watchdog role. In 2017, according to the investigative file reviewed by The Times last year, she heard that Times reporters including Lau had been asking questions about the list.

After investigating further and learning that the reporters had asked about specific details that matched her 2014 list, she grew worried that it had been leaked.

On Dec. 8, 2017, The Times ran an investigation by Lau and two other reporters that described some of the misconduct detailed in the list, from planting evidence and falsifying records to sexual assault. Some of the deputies on the list, the reporters found, had kept their jobs or been promoted.

Sheriff’s department investigators interviewed Teran and other department officials who all denied leaking the list. The investigation was dropped before Villanueva became sheriff in November 2018.

Several months later, Lillienfeld was assigned to investigate allegations that Teran and other oversight officials had illegally accessed department personnel records, reopening the probe into the leaked list.

Lillienfeld’s inquiry produced an 80-page report that was part of the case file reviewed by The Times last year. It detailed potential times when the list could have been leaked by Teran and stated that she denied doing so.

In fall 2021, Murakami sent the 300-page case file – which identified Lau, Teran, L.A. County Inspector General Max Huntsman, an assistant to Teran and an attorney in Huntsman’s office as suspects – to California Atty. General Rob Bonta. There was no probable cause to prosecute Lau, according to the complaint.

“Undersheriff Murakami alleged that Ms. Lau had engaged in conspiracy, theft of government property, unlawful access of a computer, burglary, and receiving stolen property,” the complaint says. “Ms. Lau did not commit any of these crimes.”

Bonta declined to prosecute the case.

“The retaliatory investigation against Ms. Lau is one example of how Alex Villanueva used the LASD to target and harass his political opponents,” said Justin Hill, an attorney at Loevy & Loevy representing Lau. “Our communities suffer when governmental leaders try to silence journalists and other individuals who hold those leaders accountable. This lawsuit seeks to re-affirm the protected role that journalism plays in our society.”

WASHINGTON — Asylum seekers under the Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” policy whose cases were closed — many for reasons beyond their control, including kidnappings and court rulings against the government — will now be able to come into the U.S. to pursue asylum claims, the Biden administration said Tuesday.

The administration on Wednesday will begin to allow the first of thousands with closed cases to pursue their asylum claims within the United States, the Department of Homeland Security announced. More than 30,000 migrants could potentially be eligible, according to government data.

“As part of our continued effort to restore safe, orderly, and humane processing at the Southwest Border, DHS will expand the pool” of asylum seekers eligible for processing, the department said in a statement, including those “who had their cases terminated or were ordered removed in absentia.”

Facing a policy riddled with administrative errors and questions of illegality, immigration judges across the United States ruled against the Trump administration, closing thousands of cases the government had brought against asylum seekers sent to Mexico to await U.S. hearings.

But when President Biden took office and began winding down the policy that he sharply criticized, his administration allowed only asylum seekers under Remain in Mexico — formally known as Migrant Protection Protocols — whose immigration cases remained open to enter the United States.

Since February, the Biden administration has permitted entry to some 12,000 asylum seekers with pending Migrant Protection Protocols cases, according to the United Nations refugee agency, the primary organization processing them. At the same time, Biden officials have urged patience from those whose cases were closed, promising a second phase.

Advocates and experts welcomed the move to begin admitting those asylum seekers, but criticized the administration’s slowness on restoring access.

“A delay of that kind would have to be driven by political considerations, not legal or purely administrative ones,” said Austin Kocher, an assistant professor at Syracuse University. “It flags a larger question: Is the Biden administration serious about following its national and international obligations to asylum law?”

For many asylum seekers, it is too late. From January 2019, when the Trump administration first implemented the policy in Southern California, to when Biden froze the program on his first day in office, roughly 70,000 migrants were sent by U.S. officials to wait in some of the world’s most dangerous cities just south of the border.

More than 1,500 of them suffered rape, kidnapping and assault, according to Human Rights First. And those numbers have continued to rise during Biden’s presidency, through a combination of policies that have left tens of thousands stuck on the southern side of the border.

An untold number missed their hearings while abducted, several were killed, and hundreds more made the wrenching decision to send their children across the border alone, believing they’d have a better chance of being allowed to stay under U.S. policies to protect unaccompanied minors. Thousands have given up, according to estimates from officials and advocates.

“Why it’s taken so long is obviously of concern, because those people who are still in Mexico are still suffering and in dangerous situations,” said Judy Rabinovitz of the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued then-President Trump over the policy.

Biden administration officials have acknowledged this grim toll, even as they continue to send asylum seekers — some with Migrant Protection Protocols cases — to Mexico again, invoking a Trump-era coronavirus policy. Citing Title 42, an obscure 1944 public health law, border officials have summarily expelled more than 850,000 migrants, including asylum seekers, this time without a court date or due process.

“Having Title 42 still in place at the same time that the administration is claiming to try and fix cases in Remain in Mexico presents the administration with a fundamental contradiction between what they claim to be doing and the way that border control is actually working on the ground,” said Kocher.

Biden froze Migrant Protection Protocols on his first day in office, though it had already largely been supplanted by Trump’s coronavirus expulsions policy. But the Biden administration did not formally end Remain in Mexico until June 1.

In the memo ending the policy, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas said it had further strained department resources and added to a record backlog in immigration court proceedings.

More than 25% of those subjected to the policy were apprehended by border officials when they attempted to enter again, Mayorkas said, and roughly 44% of cases were completed by judges’ orders to remove asylum seekers who missed their hearings.

That raised questions about whether the program provided them “adequate opportunity” to appear, he said, “and whether conditions faced by some MPP enrollees in Mexico, including the lack of stable access to housing, income, and safety, resulted in the abandonment of potentially meritorious protection claims.”

Still, the current chaos at the border — with thousands of migrants remaining stuck in northern Mexico and monthly border-crossing numbers still among their highest in years — stems in part from confusion over the administration’s continued pledges to undo Trump’s policies, while its promised asylum overhaul has yet to materialize.

Advocates argue that migrants subjected to Migrant Protection Protocols who received final decisions from immigration judges denying their asylum claims also deserve to be given another opportunity to seek asylum in accordance with U.S. law.

On Tuesday, the Homeland Security Department statement reiterated that others who may be eligible to enter in the future “should stay where they are currently located and register online” through a system administered by the United Nations.

Trump administration officials explicitly stated that the goal of the policy was to make it as difficult as possible to seek asylum and as a deterrent to others.

“This is what they wanted, and this is what they got: People couldn’t get asylum,” Rabinovitz said of Trump administration officials. Now with Biden in the White House, she continued, “we’re saying no — in order to unwind it, you need to give people a new opportunity to apply for asylum, free of that taint.”

U.S. border officials frequently committed errors while administering the Remain in Mexico policy, The Times found. That included serving asylum seekers paperwork in languages they did not speak, or writing the phrase “domicilio conocido” — “known address” — or simply “Tijuana” — a Mexican border city of some 2 million people — on their paperwork, instead of a legally required address. That made it nearly impossible for applicants to be notified of changes to their cases or court dates.

These missteps by U.S. border officials also fueled federal judges’ rulings against the policy.

In one ruling, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judge said Homeland Security’s procedures for implementing the policy were “so ill-suited to achieving that stated goal as to render them arbitrary and capricious.”

But the Supreme Court never ultimately ruled on the legality of Migrant Protection Protocols. In early February, the Biden administration asked the nation’s highest court to cancel arguments on the policy. Opponents in several states sued, arguing that the Biden administration cannot end it.

On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected that effort, ordering: “The motion to intervene is dismissed as moot.”

TEST your vision to the max with this perplexing brain teaser, that will have you scratching your head trying to solve it.

Everyone can see the busy office scene, but only the most eagle-eyed can spot the five hidden utensils in this busy office scene.

2

Whether you’re trying to improve your sight, or test your IQ, this puzzle will prove a challenge to many readers.

Put your observation skills to the test and figure out whether you have what it takes to spot the five hidden utensils in under 18 seconds.

Make sure to set your stopwatch before undertaking this challenge, to make it extra hard for yourself.

If you can spot all five within 18 seconds, you are said to have 20/20 vision.

The brainteaser, provided by Diamond Interiors, depicts a busy office scene, featuring people working, chatting and having meetings.

At first glance, it is hard to spot the five utensils hidden within the scene.

However, look closely and the hidden items will begin to be revealed.

Unless you’re lucky enough to spot the five utensils immediately, we recommend analysing the image in great detail.

The visual deception of this image will have you peeling your eyes, but the payoff is worth it.

If you need a hint, we recommend focusing on the table right in the middle of the image.

The first utensil can be found balanced on top of the table.

If you’re looking for something a bit harder, only those with eagle eyes will be able to find the hidden word amongst the flowers in this summer scene.

Another tricky puzzle challenges readers to say the colour without reading the word.

If that’s not hard enough, why not try looking for the jokers hidden in this poker scene in 10 seconds.

Finally, only the sharpest drivers will be able to spot all hazards in 15 seconds in this busy motorway scene.

Coming back to our challenge, were you able to solve it in under 18 seconds?

For those struggling to find the answer, we have marked the solution for you.

How many utensils were you able to spot?

2

A chaotic blue alien and the high-flying escapades of Tom Cruise propelled the Memorial Day weekend box office to record heights, giving relief to theater owners still struggling from a post-pandemic malaise among moviegoers.

Walt Disney Co.’s live-action film “Lilo & Stitch” hauled in $183 million in its opening weekend in the U.S. and Canada, according to studio estimates, placing it in first place. It’s the biggest Memorial Day weekend opener ever, not adjusting for inflation, topping “Top Gun: Maverick,” which debuted with $160.5 million in 2022.

Paramount Pictures and Skydance Media’s “Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning” brought in $77 million domestically for second place. “Final Destination Bloodlines,” “Thunderbolts*” and “Sinners” rounded out the top five this weekend.

The two new studio blockbusters were big overseas, too. Globally, “Lilo & Stitch” collected $341.7 million including domestic ticket sales. The worldwide tally for “Mission: Impossible,” the eighth in the series, was $190 million.

Aria Clark fills up her Lilo and Stitch cup with slushy before going into the movie with her mom, Lexi, and brother Leo at AMC Century City.

Historically, the holiday has been one of the biggest moviegoing weekends of the year, serving as a springboard for the busy summer months. But since the 2020 pandemic and the dual writers’ and actors’ strikes in 2023, it has become a less reliable indicator of the theatrical business.

“The calendar thinned out a little bit, particularly post-pandemic,” said Eric Handler, media and entertainment analyst at Roth Capital. “You just didn’t have the depth that you used to have. But it’s good to see that there’s two big event movies this year.”

“Lilo & Stitch” and “Mission: Impossible” also largely catered to different audiences, lowering the risk that audiences would pick and choose between similar films. Box office grosses have typically done better with more genres in theaters.

The reported budget for “Lilo & Stitch” was $100 million, while “Mission: Impossible” reportedly cost $300 million to $400 million to produce, placing it among the most expensive movies ever.

Movie goers attend showings of “Lilo & Stitch” at AMC Century City.

The strong showing on Memorial Day weekend adds to a solid spring at the box office. Powered by films including Warner Bros. Pictures’ “A Minecraft Movie” and Ryan Coogler’s “Sinners,” domestic theatrical revenue for April totaled $875 million, close to the pre-pandemic average of $886 million for the same month from 2015-19, Handler said.

Then in May came Disney and Marvel Studios’ “Thunderbolts*” and Warner Bros. Pictures’ “Final Destination Bloodlines,” which have kept up steady business at theaters.

“This spring has been so good for the box office, it usually means the summer is going to be strong,” said Kimberly Owczarski, associate professor in the department of film, television and digital media at Texas Christian University. “Last year, we didn’t have those big tentpoles in April and early May that usually start the season. Because we’ve had that, people are in the moviegoing mood.”

Last year, the holiday weekend grossed just $132 million, making it the worst Memorial Day weekend box office in nearly 30 years. Films like “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” and “The Garfield Movie” brought in about $30 million each that weekend, a distinct difference from the mega-hauls that blockbusters traditionally gross during Memorial Day weekend.

KK McDermott attends a showing of “Mission: Impossible” at AMC Century City.

The slow start last year to the all-important summer movie season made distributors and exhibitors anxious. It wasn’t until Disney-Pixar’s “Inside Out 2” debuted in mid-June that the box office started to turn around.

This year, however, a seemingly strong lineup of familiar blockbusters for most of the summer has given industry insiders optimism.

Sony Pictures’ “Karate Kid: Legends” comes out at the end of the month, followed by Lionsgate’s “John Wick” spin-off “Ballerina” in early June. Other anticipated releases include Universal Pictures’ live action “How to Train Your Dragon” and “Jurassic World Rebirth,” Disney-Pixar’s original animated film “Elio,” Warner Bros.’ “Superman” and Disney and Marvel Studios’ “The Fantastic Four: First Steps.”

That’s boosted hopes for a stronger overall theatrical business this year.

Analysts say the 2025 domestic box office could gross an estimated $9.2 billion to $9.5 billion, which would be an improvement on last year’s $8.7 billion. More importantly, it’s higher than the 2023 box office total of $9 billion, which would indicate continued growth and a “true recovery,” Handler said.

However, those numbers still pale in comparison with pre-pandemic box office totals, including $11.4 billion in 2019 and $11.9 billion in 2018.

Moviegoers head to showings of “Lilo & Stitch,” one of this Memorial Day weekend’s biggest films at AMC Century City.

Even before the pandemic, theaters were starting to see declines in attendance, a trend that accelerated during COVID-19 when people got used to staying at home and watching movies on streaming platforms. As the pandemic and the strikes decreased the number of movies in theaters, and the length of time between a movie’s theatrical debut and its availability for home viewing shortened, theaters lost more of the crucial business of the casual moviegoer.

“When the content is good, people show up,” Handler said. “The content cycle is favorable right now, and hopefully we’ll see that continue through the next two years.”

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti — A video showing dozens of people marching toward the office of Haiti’s prime minister elicited gasps from some viewers as it circulated recently on social media. The protesters, who are HIV-positive, did not conceal their faces — a rare occurrence in a country where the virus is still heavily stigmatized.

“Call the minister of health! We are dying!” the group chanted.

The protesters risked being shunned by society to warn that Haiti is running out of HIV medication just months after the Trump administration slashed more than 90% of the United States Agency for International Development’s foreign aid contracts and $60 billion in overall aid across the globe.

At a hospital near the northern city of Cap-Haitien, Dr. Eugene Maklin said he struggles to share that reality with his more than 550 HIV patients.

“It’s hard to explain to them, to tell them that they’re not going to find medication,” he said. “It’s like a suicide.”

‘We can’t stay silent’

More than 150,000 people in Haiti have HIV or AIDS, according to official estimates, although nonprofits believe the number is much higher.

David Jeune, a 46-year-old hospital community worker, is among them. He became infected 19 years ago after having unprotected sex.

“I was scared to let people know because they would point their finger at you, saying you are infecting others with AIDS,” he said.

His fear was so great that he didn’t tell anyone, not even his mother. But that fear dissipated with the support Jeune said he received from nonprofit groups. His confidence grew to the point where he participated in last week’s protest.

“I hope Trump will change his mind,” he said, noting that his medication will run out in November. “Let the poor people get the medication they need.”

Patrick Jean Noel, a representative of Haiti’s Federation of Assns. of HIV, said that at least five clinics, including one that served 2,500 patients, were forced to close after the USAID funding cuts.

“We can’t stay silent,” he said. “More people need to come out.”

But most people with HIV in Haiti are reluctant to do so, said Dr. Sabine Lustin, executive director of the Haiti-based nonprofit Promoters of Zero AIDS Goal.

The stigma is so strong that many patients are reluctant to pick up their medication in person. Instead, it is sent in packages wrapped as gifts so as to not arouse suspicion, she said.

Lustin’s organization, which helps some 2,000 people across Haiti, receives funding from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Though its funding hasn’t been cut, she said that shortly after President Trump took office in January, the agency banned HIV prevention activities because they targeted a group that is not a priority — which she understood to be referring to gay men.

That means the organization can no longer distribute up to 200,000 free condoms a year or educate people about the disease.

“You risk an increase in infections,” she said. “You have a young population who is sexually active who can’t receive the prevention message and don’t have access to condoms.”

‘That can’t be silenced’

On the sunny morning of May 19, a chorus of voices drowned out the din of traffic in Haiti’s capital, Port-au-Prince, growing louder as protesters with HIV marched defiantly toward the prime minister’s office.

“We are here to tell the government that we exist, and we are people like any other person,” one woman told reporters.

Another marching alongside her said, “Without medication, we are dying. This needs to change.”

Three days after the protest, the leader of Haiti’s transitional presidential council, Louis Gérald Gilles, announced that he had met with activists and would try to secure funding.

Meanwhile, nonprofit organizations across Haiti are fretting.

“I don’t know what we’re going to do,” said Marie Denis-Luque, founder and executive director of CHOAIDS, a nonprofit that cares for Haitian orphans with HIV/AIDS. “We only have medication until July.”

Her voice broke as she described her frantic search for donations for the orphans, who are cared for by HIV-positive women in Cap-Haitien after gang violence forced them to leave Port-au-Prince.

Denis-Luque said she has long advocated for the orphans’ visibility.

“We can’t keep hiding these children. They are part of society,” she said, adding that she smiled when she saw the video of last week’s protest. “I was like, whoa, things have changed tremendously. The stigma is real, but I think what I saw … was very encouraging to me. They can’t be silenced.”

A dangerous combination

Experts say Haiti could see a rise in HIV infections because medications are dwindling at a time that gang violence and poverty are surging.

Dr. Alain Casseus, infectious-disease division chief at Zanmi Lasante, the largest nongovernmental healthcare provider in Haiti, said he expected to see a surge in patients given the funding cuts, but that hasn’t happened because traveling by land in Haiti is dangerous since violent gangs control main roads and randomly open fire on vehicles.

He warned that abruptly stopping medication is dangerous, especially because many Haitians do not have access or cannot afford nutritious food to strengthen their immune system.

“It wouldn’t take long, especially given the situation in Haiti, to enter a very bad phase,” he said of HIV infections. And even if some funding becomes available, a lapse in medication could cause resistance to it, he said.

Casseus said gang violence also could accelerate the rates of infection by rapes or other physical violence as medication runs out.

At the New Hope Hospital run by Maklin in Haiti’s northern region, shelves are running empty. He used to receive more than $165,000 a year to help HIV/AIDS patients. But that funding has dried up.

“Those people are going to die,” he said. “We don’t know how or where we’re going to get more medication.”

The medication controls the infection and allows many to have an average life expectancy. Without it, the virus attacks a person’s immune system and they develop AIDS, the late stage of an HIV infection.

Reaction is swift when Maklin tells his patients that in two months, the hospital won’t have any HIV medication left.

“They say, ‘No, no, no, no!’” he said. “They want to keep living.”

Coto and Sanon write for the Associated Press and reported from San Juan, Puerto Rico, and Port-au-Prince, respectively.

May 24 (UPI) — A record number of Americans applied to become British citizens during the first three months of this year after Donald Trump re-took office as president, according to official data.

The last time American applications for British citizenship spiked was in 2020 during Trump’s first presidential term early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

This comes as the British government is toughening requirements for legal migrants and extending the wait for newcomers to claim citizenship.

Britain’s Home Office on Thursday reported 6,618 U.S. citizens applied for British citizenship over the past 12 months through March, the highest annual figure since records began in 2004. That includes 1,931 applications between January and March — the highest number for any quarter on record.

There also is a record number of Americans seeking to live and work indefinitely in the country as a necessary precursor to citizenship. Of the 5,521 settlement applications granted last year, most were for people eligible because of their spouses, parents and other family links. And a substantial portion had originally arrived in Britain on temporary visas for “skilled workers” and want to remain.

For the year through March, there were 238,690 applications worldwide, an increase of 238,690 for the same period last year.

Some people might qualify “more swiftly” for permanent settlement in Britain depending on the “contribution” they made, Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, said in Parliament on May 12.

Since Trump was elected president again, immigration lawyers told The New York Times they had received an increased number of inquiries from people in the United States about possibly relocating to Britain.

“People who were already here may have been thinking, ‘I want the option of dual citizenship in the event that I don’t want to go back to the U.S,'” Muhunthan Paramesvaran, a senior immigration lawyer at Wilsons Solicitors in London, said.

There also have been increased applications from non-U.S. citizens living there seeking to go to Britain.

“We’ve seen increases in inquiries and applications not just for U.S. nationals, but for U.S. residents of other nationalities who are currently in the U.S. but looking at plans to settle in the U.K.,” Zeena Luchowa, a partner at Laura Devine Immigration, a law firm that specializes in American migration to Britain, said. “The queries we’re seeing are not necessarily about British citizenship – it’s more about seeking to relocate.”

This comes as British authorities under a Labor government are trying to reduce immigration. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Britain has to take “back control of our borders” and warned uncontrolled immigration could result in “becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.”

British figures show net migration dropped by almost half in 2024 to 431,000 compared with 2023.

The British government had extended the qualification period from five years to 10 before they could apply for settlement.

Also, the government wants to raise English language requirements across every immigration route. In 2021, nine out of 10 migrants reported speaking English well, according to analysis by the Oxford University Migration Observatory.

On May 5, European Union nations announced they would spend $566 million from 2025 to 2027 to attract foreign researchers after the Trump administration cut funding to universities in the United States. Britain left EU in 2020.

Under Trump’s direction, there will be a “gold card” at a cost of $5 million, as an extension of the EB-5 program that extends green cards to foreign investors and their families.

“We’re going to be selling a gold card,” Trump told reporters on Feb. 5 in the Oval Office, which is adorned by items in gold.

The current program grants green cards to immigrants who make a minimum investment of at least $1.050 million or $800,000 in economically distressed areas.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Wednesday: “I expect there will be a website up called ‘Trump card dot gov’ in about a week. The details of that will come soon after, but people can start to register.”

A former senior member of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass’ staff has struck a plea deal with federal prosecutors, admitting he called in a fake bomb threat to City Hall late last year that was blamed on anti-Israel sentiment, federal prosecutors announced on Thursday.

Under the terms of the plea agreement, Brian Williams, a longtime law enforcement oversight official who served as Bass’ deputy mayor of public safety, agreed to plead guilty to a single count of threats regarding fire and explosives, which carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years. He is expected to make his initial court appearance in the next few weeks.

“In an era of heated political rhetoric that has sometimes escalated into violence, we cannot allow public officials to make bomb threats,” U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli said in a news release announcing the deal. “My office will continue its efforts to keep the public safe, including from those who violate their duty to uphold the law.”

In a statement to The Times, Williams’ lawyer Dmitry Gorin said his client “has demonstrated his unreserved and full acceptance of responsibility for his actions.”

“This aberrational incident was the product of personal issues which Mr. Williams is addressing appropriately, and is not representative of his character or dedication to the city of Los Angeles,” Gorin said.

Williams was participating in a virtual meeting at City Hall on Oct. 3, 2024, when he used the Google Voice application on his personal phone to place a call to his city-issued cell phone, according to the plea agreement.

Williams admitted he left the meeting and called Scott Harrelson, a top aide to the LAPD chief. According to the plea, Williams falsely stated that he had just received a call on his city-issued cell phone from an unknown male caller who made a bomb threat against City Hall.

At no time did Williams intend to carry out the threat, according to the plea agreement.

About 10 minutes after calling the LAPD, according to the plea, Williams texted Bass and several other senior mayoral officials a message that read: “Bomb threat: I received phone call on my city cell at 10:48 am this morning. The male caller stated that ‘he was tired of the city support of Israel, and he has decided to place a bomb in City Hall. It might be in the rotunda.’ I immediately contacted the chief of staff of LAPD, they are going to send a number of officers over to do a search of the building and to determine if anyone else received a threat.”

Soon after, LAPD officers searched the building and did not locate any suspicious packages or devices, according to the agreement. Williams told the officers that a man called and said: “I’m tired of the city support of Israel, I have decided to place a bomb in City Hall. It might be in the Rotunda.”

Williams showed the officers the record of an incoming call, which appeared as a blocked number on his city-issued phone. According to the plea deal, that call was the one Williams had placed from Google Voice.

Williams followed up with the mayor and other high-ranking officials some time later with several other texts, saying that there was no need to evacuate City Hall.

“I’m meeting with the threat management officers within the next 10 minutes. In light of the Jewish holidays, we are taking this thread, a little more seriously. I will keep you posted,” the text read, according to federal authorities.

Federal authorities revealed they were looking into Williams last December, when FBI agents raided his home in Pasadena. It sent shock waves through City Hall and the Police Department, where many expressed incredulity at the prospect of a respected government official faking a bomb threat.

Before the case was turned over to the FBI, detectives from the LAPD’s Major Crimes Division conducted surveillance that led them to conclude that Williams was responsible for the bomb threat, sources previously told The Times.

Williams, who was the deputy mayor overseeing the police and fire departments, was on leave because of the criminal investigation in January when Pacific Palisades was engulfed in flames, killing 12 people and destroying more than 6,000 structures.

“Like many, we were shocked when these allegations were first made and we are saddened by this conclusion,” said Zach Seidl, a spokesperson for Bass.

Bass named a former FBI official to replace Williams in early April. The official, Robert Clark, led anti-gang efforts in Los Angeles during his time with the Bureau before retiring in 2016 and serving as a law enforcement consultant and director of public safety for the city of Columbus, Ohio, among other roles.

Williams has held a variety of government positions spanning more than three decades. He had spent nearly two years as a deputy mayor in Bass’ office, working on issues such as police hiring, public safety spending and the search for a new police chief.

Previously, Williams was a deputy mayor in the administration of Mayor James K. Hahn, who held office from 2001 to 2005. Before that, he spent several years as an assistant city attorney in Los Angeles.

From 2016 to 2023, Williams was the executive director of the Sheriff’s Civilian Oversight Commission, according to his LinkedIn page.

Working in Bass’ office, Williams oversaw the Police Department, the Fire Department, Port Police, Airport Police and the city’s emergency management agency, according to his hiring announcement. He was also a member of the mayor’s inner circle, playing a key role in the monthslong search for a new police chief that ended with the hiring of Jim McDonnell.

When Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman was sworn in last year, Williams was the city official chosen to address the audience on behalf of the mayor. He was also a fixture at police graduations, news conferences, community meetings and other events across the city, often wearing a well-pressed suit and a bowtie.

Williams’ attorney Gorin called his client “a career public servant who has worked closely with law enforcement, community groups, public safety and prosecuting agencies throughout his many years in local government and has devoted his life to the service of others.”

Akil Davis, the assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles field office, said in a statement that Williams “not only betrayed the residents of Los Angeles, but responding officers, and the integrity of the office itself, by fabricating a bomb threat.”

“Government officials are held to a heightened standard as we rely on them to safeguard the city,” the statement read. “I’m relieved that Mr. Williams has taken responsibility for his inexplicable actions.”

Orange County Dist. Atty. Todd Spitzer appeared at a civil trial this week and denied claims he retaliated against a former executive and whistleblower who sought to protect female prosecutors who were sexually harassed in the D.A.’s office.

In a lawsuit filed against the county by former senior assistant Dist. Atty. Tracy Miller, at one point the highest-ranking woman in the prosecutors office, Spitzer and others are accused of retaliation and trying to force Miller out of her job after she questioned Spitzer’s actions as D.A. Those actions included his handling of allegations that a male superior, who was also the best man at Spitzer’s wedding, sexually harassed young female prosecutors.

Spitzer denied the accusations during hours of testimony that became at times tense and emotional. In a San Diego courtroom this week, Spitzer acknowledged deep tensions within the D.A.’s office following his 2018 election victory over former Orange County Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas.

Spitzer, who appeared to wipe away tears during his testimony, told jurors he believed he was walking “in the lions’ den” after winning the election and expected opposition from employees who had worked for Rackauckas.

“I knew it was going to be miserable, and it was miserable,” Spitzer said, his voice cracking.

In her lawsuit, Miller alleges that Spitzer and former chief assistant Dist. Atty. Shawn Nelson — who is now an Orange County Superior Court Judge — forced the prosecutor out through “purposeful and intentional retaliation.” The reason for this, Miller alleges, is that she was protecting female subordinates who had reported sexual misconduct by a male superior, Gary LoGalbo, who is now deceased.

“Miller was punished for refusing to allow Spitzer to lionize the predator, gaslight, and further savage the reputation of the victims,” her lawsuit says.

According to the suit, Miller had also raised concerns about Spitzer’s handling of the D.A.’s office, including worries that Spitzer had violated the Racial Justice Act by bringing up questions of race while trying to determine whether or not to seek the death penalty against a Black defendant. She also claimed that Spitzer considered a prosecutor’s race in assignments and that he had possibly undermined a homicide case.

But it was the allegations of sexual harassment against LoGalbo, a former friend and roommate of Spitzer’s, that plaintiff attorneys say most threatened Spitzer’s leadership and prompted him to target Miller.

“[Spitzer] knew that if this was believed, the (district attorney’s) office would suffer one of the worst scandals ever,” said John Barnett, an attorney representing Miller during his opening statement Monday. “He punished (Miller) for protecting one of her young prosecutors.”

Attorneys representing the county, as well as Spitzer and Nelson, argue that the men wanted Miller to stay in the prosecutor’s office and valued her experience, pointing out they promoted four women to top positions due to her recommendations.

Defense Attorney Tracey Kennedy argued during her opening statement Monday that even though LoGalbo had been friends with Spitzer years ago, the relationship had changed by the time the allegations were raised.

“(Spitzer) had no reason to protect Mr. LoGalbo at the expense of the Orange County DA’s office, and the expense of his career,” Kennedy said.

Instead, she said, Spitzer and Nelson had set out to make much needed reforms for the office.

“They had a mission to change the D.A.’s office,” she said.

The county investigation substantiated the sexual harassment allegations against LoGalbo, but an April 2021 report found that allegations of retaliation were unsubstantiated because no actions were taken against the employees.

Much of Spitzer’s time on the witness stand Tuesday centered on his role in the LoGalbo investigation, and what appeared to be differing versions of what occurred. At one point during questioning, Spitzer disclosed that the version of events he gave the county’s investigator during the internal probe — about a highly scrutinized private meeting with a supervisor — had been “inaccurate.”

Chris Duff, a former senior deputy district attorney, had told the county investigator that Spitzer met with him in the law library of a Westminster courthouse in January 2021 and instructed him to write up one of the sexual harassment victims in her upcoming evaluation for being “untruthful.” Duff said he refused to do so, according to a report of the internal investigation.

Spitzer initially denied discussing the evaluation during the meeting and told the investigator, Elisabeth Frater, that he “never said that” to Duff because he didn’t want anything “to be perceived in any way whatsoever that we were retaliating against her.”

But in court this week, Spitzer offered a different version of events.

“What I told Frater was inaccurate,” Spitzer said, adding that he did discuss concerns he had about the female prosecutor’s honesty regarding an email she wrote. “I did talk to Duff about that.”

But Spitzer maintained his concerns were about the prosecutor’s veracity, and not about the claims she had raised against LoGalbo.

After Duff met with Spitzer, Miller sent a note to Spitzer telling the district attorney she was aware of the conversation, and arguing against writing up the female prosecutor.

During his testimony, Spitzer said that he was disappointed with Miller, and that she had not gone directly to him with her concerns about various issues.

At one point, Spitzer said, he had grown to wonder why Miller would take notes during executive meetings.

“You could see anytime a subject came up, Tracy was taking notes about our meetings,” Spitzer said. “There was a point of time where it was very curious to me, why do you seem to be memorializing everything we’re doing?”

When he was first elected in 2018, Spitzer said he believed he was walking “in the lions’ den” and expected opposition from his direct reports. For that reason, he said, he chose Shawn Nelson to be his number two.

“I picked him because I was going into battle, in the lions’ den,” Spitzer said.

Miller’s lawsuit is just the latest in a series of troubles that have recently hit the district attorney’s office, including allegations of retaliation raised by top prosecutors and investigators in the office.

The county is also facing eight sexual harassment lawsuits involving allegations against LoGalbo.

In March, a now-retired investigator of the office also sent letters to the California attorney general, the U.S. Department of Justice, the State Bar of California, and other agencies to investigate Spitzer and other top officials at the prosecutor’s office.

A roughly 11-mile stretch of Pacific Coast Highway is set to reopen Friday ahead of Memorial Day weekend, reconnecting Malibu to the Westside after months of closures.

But less than 48 hours before the planned reopening, the state said Wednesday that it remains “in the dark” regarding the city of Los Angeles’ plans for providing security to the fire-ravaged Pacific Palisades area just off the highway.

Bass spokesperson Zach Seidl countered that the mayor did, in fact, have a plan to keep the area secure and closed to non-residents.

“As PCH is reopened, we will have a strict security plan in place, as we have for months,” Seidl said Wednesday afternoon. He did not immediately respond when asked whether he had shared the city’s plan with the state.

The leader of the state’s emergency services agency sent a sharply worded letter earlier Wednesday to a senior official in Mayor Karen Bass’ administration, chiding the city for not answering questions despite weeks of outreach from the state.

As of Wednesday morning, the mayor’s office had yet to provide the state with a plan for how it plans to provide security to the Palisades as part of the reopening, or whether it plans to establish new security checkpoints on arterial streets into the community, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Times.

Seidl said Wednesday afternoon that the city would put new checkpoints in place, though he did not provide specifics.

The affluent coastal enclave has remained closed to the public since the devastating January wildfire, months after other fire-damaged neighborhoods reopened. But with the California National Guard set to leave at the end of the month, officials must decide how to move forward. There seems to be a consensus among both state and local officials that the neighborhood should remain closed to the public, though the logistics of that decision remain an open question.

Checkpoints currently block public access at major ingress points to the community. But the reopening of PCH would necessitate several new checkpoints.

“Over the last few weeks, Cal OES has reached out to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and City staff and officials – including as recently as yesterday – offering technical and financial resources to support the City as it develops a security plan,” Nancy Ward, who leads the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, wrote in the letter, saying the state would also provide financial support for federal reimbursement-eligible security costs.

“Despite this outreach, we remain in the dark regarding the City’s plans and have heard that the City may request a multi-week delay of the reopening of PCH – despite the incredibly hard work by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Caltrans, and many others to facilitate the reopening for Memorial Day,” Ward wrote.

Seidl said the city was not requesting a delay to the reopening.

The letter was sent from Ward to deputy mayor for public safety Robert Clark, Bass’ top aide overseeing police and fire issues.

Though she stopped short of directly criticizing Bass, Traci Park — the Los Angeles city council member who represents the Palisades — also expressed frustration with the process and lack of clarity.

“For months, Councilmember Park sounded the alarm on safety and called for a formalized plan from departments and consultants through the LA Recovery Committee, which she chairs. None have been forthcoming,” Park spokesperson Pete Brown said.

Concerned about the lack of movement, Park submitted her own proposal to the governor for Palisades safety as the highway reopens, Brown said.

The governor’s office had reached out to Park with concerns about the situation, according to someone familiar with the issue who was not authorized to speak publicly.

In late January, Bass briefly announced plans to reopen the Palisades to the public before reversing course less than 30 hours later after widespread outcry from community members who said the checkpoints should remain in place.

Newsom previously announced last month that the highway would reopen by the end of May, though he did not provide a specific date. His office declined to comment on the letter.

The soon-to-reopen section of highway, which spans from Chautauqua Boulevard just north of Santa Monica to Sweetwater Canyon Drive in Malibu will operate two lanes of traffic in both directions, according to a CalTrans document.

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a 2026 candidate for California governor, criticized former Vice President Kamala Harris and former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra on Tuesday as complicit in covering up former President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline in office.

Villaraigosa said those actions, in part, lead to President Trump winning the November election. Becerra, who previously served as California Attorney General, is also in the running for governor and Harris is considering jumping into the race. All three are Democrats.

“At the highest levels of our government, those in power were intentionally complicit or told outright lies in a systematic cover up to keep Joe Biden’s mental decline from the public,” Villaraigosa said in a statement. “Now, we have come to learn this cover up includes two prominent California politicians who served as California Attorney General – one who is running for Governor and another who is thinking about running for Governor. Voters deserve to know the truth, what did Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra know, when did they know it, and most importantly, why didn’t either of them speak out?”

President Joe Biden walks out to speak in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Nov. 26, 2024.

(Ben Curtis / Associated Press)

Attempts to reach representatives for Harris and Beccera were unsuccessful Tuesday afternoon.

Villaraigosa based his remarks on excerpts from “Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again,” written by CNN’s Jake Tapper and Axios’ Alex Thompson and publicly released Tuesday.

The book, largely relying on anonymous sources, argues that Biden’s confidants and inner circle kept his deteriorating state from the American people, resulting in the Republican victory in the 2024 presidential election.

“Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra took an oath of office and were entrusted to protect the American people, but instead Kamala Harris repeatedly said there was nothing wrong with Biden and Becerra turned a blind eye,” Villaraigosa said.

President Biden’s weekend announcement that he has an “aggressive” form of prostate cancer that has metastasized to his bone sparked the usual sympathy from supporters — and sharp suspicions among detractors.

The announcement comes amid fresh reporting on Biden and his inner circle hiding the degree to which his mental acuity was slipping during his presidency and campaign for reelection last year, and the advanced stage of his cancer drew immediate accusations from the right that the former president was also hiding problems with his physical health.

President Trump said he was surprised the cancer “wasn’t notified a long time ago,” suggested the public wasn’t being properly informed and said that “people should try and find out what happened.”

The Times spoke to six doctors who are experts in prostate cancer. They said the information Biden’s office has shared about his condition is indeed limited, but also that many of the assumptions being made publicly about the progression of such cancers, the tests that can screen for them and the medical guidelines for care among men of Biden’s advanced age — 82 — were simply off base.

The cancer

In its statement Sunday, Biden’s office said the former president was seen last week “for a new finding of a prostate nodule after experiencing increasing urinary symptoms,” and on Friday was “diagnosed with prostate cancer, characterized by a Gleason score of 9 (Grade Group 5) with metastasis to the bone.”

Dr. Mark Litwin, chair of UCLA Urology, said that description indicated Biden has a more advanced and aggressive form of prostate cancer than is diagnosed in most men, but that it was nonetheless “a very common scenario” — with about 10% of such cancers in men being metastatic at diagnosis.

Dr. Howard Sandler, chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Cedars-Sinai, agreed.

“It’s a little unusual for him to show up with prostate cancer that’s metastatic to bone at first diagnosis, but not extraordinary,” he said. “It happens every day to elderly men.”

That’s in part because of the nature of such cancer, the modern screening guidelines for older men, and the advanced treatment options for such cancer when it is found, the doctors said.

Prostate cancer in small, slow-growing amounts is prevalent among men of Biden’s age, whether it’s causing them problems or not. Most prostate cancers can be slowed even more dramatically — for years after diagnosis — with medical intervention to block testosterone, which feeds such tumors.

For those reasons, many doctors recommend men stop getting tested for prostate-cancer-related antigens, through what’s known as a PSA test, around age 70 or 75, depending on the individual’s overall health.

That advice is based in part on the idea that finding a slow-moving prostate cancer and deciding to act on it surgically or otherwise — which many alarmed patients are inclined to do when they get such news — can often lead to worse outcomes than the cancer would have caused if simply left alone. That includes impotence, incontinence and life-threatening infections.

Also, if an older patient does start experiencing symptoms and is found to have a more advanced prostate cancer, modern treatments are capable of stalling the cancer’s growth for years, the doctors said — often beyond the point when those patients are statistically likely to die from something else.

Even when older patients are tested and show somewhat elevated PSA levels, it is not always of immediate concern, and they are often told to just keep an eye on it, Litwin said. Simply put, doctors “typically don’t get too exercised about a diagnosis of prostate cancer in an 82-year-old,” he said.

Dr. Sunil Patel, a urologic oncologist and an assistant professor of urology and oncology within the Brady Urological Institute at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, said that’s because the average life expectancy for an American man is under 85.

“And so most men at that time, at 75, they’re like, ‘OK, well, if it’s not going to kill me in the next 10 years, I’m going to leave it alone,’” Patel said. “That’s a really shared decision between the patient and the physician.”

When advanced, aggressive prostate cancers are found, as with Biden, the prognosis — and treatment plan — is of course different, the doctors said. “He is for sure going to need treatment,” Litwin said. “This is not the type that we can just observe over time like we often do.”

But that doesn’t mean Biden’s doctors dropped the ball earlier, he and others said.

The diagnosis

Biden’s office has not said whether he was receiving PSA screenings. A letter from Biden’s White House physician in February of last year made no mention of PSA testing, despite other recent presidents’ medical assessments including that information. Biden’s aides did not respond to requests for comment.

The doctors The Times spoke to had no special insight into Biden’s medical care, but said his diagnosis did not make them feel any less confident about the caliber of that care or suggest to them any nefarious intent to hide his condition.

For starters, “it would be considered well within the standard of care” for Biden to have forgone testing in recent years, given his age, Sandler said. “Certainly after 80.”

Litwin said he believes Biden probably was still tested, given his position, but that doesn’t mean he was necessarily hiding anything either. Some forms of aggressive prostate cancer don’t secrete antigens into the blood at levels that would be flagged in a PSA test, while others can grow and even metastasize rapidly — within a matter of months, and between routine annual screenings, he said.

Patel said he has personally found “very aggressive disease” in patients who had relatively normal PSA levels. “I don’t think anyone can blame anyone in terms of was this caught too late or anything like that,” he said. “This happens not too infrequently.”

Dr. Alicia Morgans, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, a genitourinary medical oncologist and the director of the Survivorship Program at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, agreed. Even if a patient is diligent about getting screened annually, “there will be some cancers that arise between screening tests,” she said.

Morgans said things gets even more complicated as men get older, when their PSA number may increase and start getting monitored before it is considered a clear indicator of cancer.

“Maybe it’s up a while. It was not cancer before, it hasn’t really changed that much. Now it has become cancer. It’s not the fault of anyone,” she said. “You can do everything right and things like this can happen.”

The treatment

Biden’s office said his cancer appeared “to be hormone-sensitive, which allows for effective management.”

The doctors The Times spoke to were relatively bullish about Biden’s short-term — and even medium-term — prognosis. “It’s not curable, but it’s highly treatable,” Morgans said.

“Without meaning to sound glib, there’s never been a better time to have metastatic prostate cancer in the history of medicine,” Litwin said — in part thanks to Biden’s own cancer “moonshot” initiative and the funding it sent to institutions such as UCLA, which has helped develop new drugs.

“There are numerous, very effective treatments for a patient in his situation,” Litwin said.

The standard and most likely course of care for Biden will be ADT, or androgen deprivation therapy, which involves a pill or shot that will shut down testosterone production, the doctors said.

“Now, an 82-year-old doesn’t have the same testosterone production as a 22-year-old anyway, so there’s not that far to go. But we shut it off,” Litwin said. “And by shutting it off, it cuts out the principal hormone that feeds the prostate cancer. That alone can be very, very effective.”

Dr. Geoffrey Sonn, urologic oncologist and associate professor of urology at Stanford Cancer Center, said Biden’s cancer is serious, but the ADT treatment “will make prostate cancer cells shrink down, stop growing, at least temporarily, in the vast majority of guys.”

“That is, it’s not a permanent fix, in that those cells will eventually figure out a way to grow even with low levels of testosterone,” Sonn said. “But that can take several years, and sometimes longer.”

Recent studies have shown that adding additional medications to an ADT regime can extend life even further, Sonn said, to “four, five, seven, 10” years or more after a metastatic prostate cancer diagnosis.

Dr. Mihir Desai, a urologist with Keck Medicine of USC, said with modern advancements, prostate cancer is just different than other cancers.

“If you find, say, colon cancer or pancreatic cancer or liver cancer are metastasized, then the deterioration is fairly fast and the outcomes are very poor,” he said. But with previously untreated metastatic prostate cancer, “there are many lines of treatment that can, if not cure it, certainly keep it under control for many years, with good quality of life.”

Sandler, who focuses on radiation oncology, said ADT treatment can cause loss of bone density or muscle mass, so Biden will likely be encouraged to stick to a fitness regimen or take medications to counter those effects.

He may also receive radiation to more heavily target specific pockets of cancer, including where it has metastasized to the bone, but that would depend on the number of metastatic sites, Sandler said — with radiation more likely the fewer sites there are.

“If there’s cancer all over the place, then there’s probably no benefit,” he said.

JOE Biden is facing fresh scrutiny over his health while in office amid his “aggressive” prostate cancer diagnosis.

The former president, 82, claimed to have had cancer in a speech he gave three years ago – which sparked fears for his health at the time.

4

4

4

Biden’s comments came during a speech about “cancer-causing” emissions from oil refineries near his childhood home in Delaware.

He said: “That’s why I and so damn many other people I grew up with have cancer and why for the longest time Delaware had the highest cancer rate in the nation.”

Biden’s use of the present tense led to speculations that the president was suffering from cancer.

But these were dismissed after it was suggested that the comments were a reference to “non-melanoma skin cancers”.

Before assuming the presidency, Biden had a number of “localized, non-melanoma skin cancers” removed by surgery.

In November 2021, Biden had a polyp removed from his colon that was a benign, but potentially pre-cancerous lesion.

And in February 2023, he had a skin lesion removed from his chest that was a basal cell carcinoma, a common form of skin cancer.

Non-melanoma skin cancer typically develops in the areas of the body most exposed to the sun such as the face, ears, hands, shoulders, upper chest, and back.

But Biden is now facing fresh scrutiny over his cancer comments following the announcement of his cancer diagnosis on Sunday.

This comes as Donald Trump took a swipe at his predecessor and said he was “surprised” the public wasn’t told long ago about Biden’s cancer.

The US President cast doubt on the timeline of Biden’s diagnosis on Monday as he said it usually takes a “long time” to reach such an aggressive stage of cancer.

Trump was backed up by a leading oncologist who claimed that the former president likely had cancer when he took office in 2021.

Dr Zeke Emanuel said: “He had it while he was President.

“He probably had it at the start of his presidency, in 2021.”

Biden announced his cancer diagnosis in an official statement from his personal office on Sunday.

The statement said that he was seen by doctors last week after suffering urinary symptoms, with a prostate nodule then being found.

He was then diagnosed with prostate cancer on Friday, with the cancer cells having spread to the bone.

The statement read: “Last week, President Joe Biden was seen for a new finding of a prostate nodule after experiencing increasing urinary symptoms.

“On Friday, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, characterized by a Gleason score of 9 (Grade Group 5) with metastasis to the bone.

“While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive which allows for effective management.

“The President and his family are reviewing treatment options with his physicians.”

A Gleason score of 9 means the cancerous cells “look very abnormal” and that the disease is “likely to grow quickly”, according to Cancer Research UK.

Biden served as US president from 2021 to 2025, with his term ending on January 20 when Donald Trump took office.

4

A federal judge will decide later this week whether to allow an L.A. County sheriff’s deputy to take a plea deal that would spare him from prison time months after he was convicted of punching and pepper spraying an unarmed woman who filmed him during a 2023 arrest.

In a Monday court hearing, Judge Stephen V. Wilson and Assistant U.S. Atty. Rob Keenan sparred for more than two hours over the federal government’s highly unusual legal maneuver to offer L.A. County sheriff’s Deputy Trevor Kirk a misdemeanor plea deal just two months after he was convicted of a felony in the excessive force case.

Kirk was convicted in February of one count of deprivation of rights under color of law after he was caught on camera rushing at the victim, hurling her to the ground and then pepper spraying her in the face while planting a knee on her neck during a 2023 incident outside of a Lancaster supermarket.

Wilson said he would rule on the motion to accept the plea in the next “three or four days.”

He faced up to a decade in prison at sentencing.

But that was upended after the Trump administration last month appointed Bill Essayli, a former California assemblyman, as U.S. attorney for Los Angeles. On May 1, prosecutors reached a rare post-trial plea agreement with Kirk.

The government recommended a one-year term of probation for Kirk and moved to strike the jury’s finding that Kirk had injured the victim, which made the crime a felony. Kirk agreed to plead guilty to a lesser-included misdemeanor violation of deprivation of rights under color of law.

The agreement caused turmoil in the U.S. attorney’s office, with assistant U.S. attorneys Eli A. Alcaraz, Brian R. Faerstein, Michael J. Morse and Cassie Palmer, chief of the Public Corruption and Civil Rights Section, all withdrawing from the case. Keenan, the only assistant U.S. attorney who signed off on the plea agreement, was not previously involved in the case.

Alcaraz, Faerstein and Palmer submitted their resignations following the “post-trial” plea agreement offer, sources previously confirmed to the Times. A filing submitted in the case last week also confirmed Palmer is departing the federal prosecutor’s office.

The incident mirrored turmoil at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan that followed pressure by Trump Administration officials to drop a corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.

Essayli, a former California assemblyman, is a staunch Trump ally and hard line conservative appointed at a time when the President has sought to weaken the independence of the Department of Justice. He made the post-conviction plea offer to Kirk the same week Trump issued an executive order vowing to “unleash” American law enforcement.

In court Monday, Wilson grilled Keenan, appearing increasingly perplexed at the government’s logic in offering Kirk a deal. He questioned if prosecutors had a “serious and significant doubt” as to the deputy’s guilt and continually pushed Keenan to justify the deal.

“If the government hasn’t offered any explanation for its change of course, the court must grant the motion?” Wilson asked.

Keenan said he believed the court was legally obligated to do so, claiming the deal was “a pure exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”

In June 2023, Kirk was responding to a reported robbery when he threw a woman to the ground and pepper-sprayed her in the face while she filmed him outside a Lancaster WinCo. The woman — who is only identified in federal court filings as J.H. but named as Jacey Houston in a separate civil suit — matched a dispatcher’s description of a female suspect she was not armed or committing a crime at the time Kirk first confronted her, court records show.

But in a 31-page position statement filed May 13, Keenan dissected the victim’s actions leading up to and during the confrontation with Kirk. Keenan said Kirk used the pepper spray after “continued resistance by J.H.”

“In contrast to other excessive-force cases, defendant did not use pepper spray after J.H. was cuffed or otherwise secured,” Keenan wrote.

Keenan said the evidence didn’t show that Kirk sprayed Houston in the face with an intent to cause bodily injury. He also described her injuries as “limited in duration and severity” and said they did not constitute “serious bodily injury.”

In the filing, Keenan appeared to question the government’s evidence relating to a reported “blunt head injury,” calling it “vague and ill-defined even at trial.”

In court Monday, Keenan described Kirk’s use of force as “excessive, but just “barely so,” at one point attacking the credibility of the victim in the case, suggesting she exaggerated her injuries in a victim impact statement she made before the court.

Wilson did not accept that analysis.

“The jury was completely justified in finding he used excessive force in taking her to the ground and pepper spraying her,” the judge said. “Had he ordered her to be handcuffed … that would be a different case,” the judge said.

Earlier in the morning, Houston said Kirk should never be allowed to be a police officer or own a firearm again, given the “uncontrollable rage” he aimed at her on the day of the incident.

“I was certain that I was going to die,” she said, describing the moment Kirk grabbed her.

Houston’s attorney, Caree Harper, has said Keenan’s filing distorts the reality of what happened in the parking lot that day.

“J.H. is a senior citizen. She committed no crime. She had no weapon. She did not try to flee. She did not try to resist. J.H. sustained a black eye, a fractured bone in her right arm, multiple bruises, scratches, and significant chemical burning from the pepper-spray,” Harper wrote in a court filing. “J.H. screamed in pain and struggled to fill her lungs with oxygen.”

Wilson had previously denied a motion from Yu for an acquittal, finding that footage of the incident was sufficient evidence for a jury to find Kirk had used “objectively unreasonable force.”

“J.H. did not have a weapon, did not attack Defendant, was not attempting to flee, and was not actively committing a crime,” Wilson wrote in his ruling last month.

The judge also noted that, while Kirk acted aggressively toward Houston from the outset, his partner managed to lead the arrest of the other robbery suspect without using force.

Keenan painted the concessions Kirk made in the post-trial agreement as “significant.” He said Kirk was agreeing to admit that he “used unnecessary force” while attempting to detain Houston and that he did so “willfully.”

In early 2024, shortly after the Winco incident, Kirk was arrested by his own department on suspicion of domestic violence against his wife. His attorney dismissed it as a non-issue, noting the victim did not want Kirk to be prosecuted, contending the alleged abuse was reported by a third party. A spokesman for the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office said the case was rejected due to insufficient evidence.

In her filing last week, Harper also said Kirk was arrested on allegations he threw his wife on the ground in January 2023. Harper alleged Kirk “threatened to bury [his wife] in the desert,” records show.

Sheriff’s department arrest logs only display the 2024 arrest. A sheriff’s department spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Support for Kirk began gaining steam on social media after his indictment last September. In January, Nick Wilson, founder of a first responder advocacy group and spokesperson for the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Professional Assn., wrote a letter to Trump urging him to intervene before the case went to trial.

Former Sheriff Alex Villanueva, who has become increasingly popular in right-wing circles online, has also championed Kirk’s case, posting an Instagram video of himself and Wilson consoling the deputy at the courthouse after trial. Both Villanueva and Wilson have insisted Kirk did nothing wrong.

Villanueva, Wilson and Essayli were all present in court Monday. At one point Harper approached Essayli directly and asked about the legality of the plea deal he was offering.

Essayli, seated in a plastic chair because all of the benches in the courtroom were filled, threatened to have Harper removed from the courtroom. Harper noted that only judges and federal marshals have the right to remove someone from a courtroom. A U.S. Attorney’s office spokesman declined to comment.

Some deputies have also blamed current Sheriff Robert Luna for pushing federal prosecutors to go after Kirk, a fact Luna has denied. Some deputy groups have staged forms of protest against Luna as a result.

But in a sentencing recommendation obtained by The Times, Luna asked Wilson to sentence Kirk to probation, blaming his actions that day on poor training.

He noted prior department leaders had effectively ignored a monitoring agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice that was meant to mandate reform policies on use-of-force issues at the Lancaster and Palmdale stations. Luna’s letter did not address whether or not Wilson should act on Essayli’s request to vacate the jury verdict.

“I’m not suggesting that the failures of the Department should immunize Deputy Kirk or any other deputy taking responsibility for their actions,” Luna wrote. “No deputy who is found by a jury to have used excessive force or who has agreed to a plea deal should have such immunity.”

Former President Biden’s office said Sunday that he has been diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer and is reviewing treatment options with his doctors.

Biden was having increasing urinary symptoms and was seen last week by doctors who found a prostate nodule. On Friday, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer and the cancer cells have spread to the bone, his office said in a statement.

When caught early, prostate cancer is highly survivable, but it is also the second-leading cause of cancer death in men. About 1 in 8 men will be diagnosed over their lifetime with prostate cancer, according to the American Cancer Society.

Here are some things to know about prostate cancer that has spread.

What is the prostate gland?

The prostate is part of the reproductive system in men. It makes fluid for semen. It’s located below the bladder and it wraps around the urethra, the tube that carries urine and semen out through the penis.

How serious is Biden’s cancer?

Biden’s cancer has spread to the bone, his office said. That makes it more serious than localized or early-stage prostate cancer.

Outcomes have improved in recent decades, and patients can expect to live with metastatic prostate cancer for four or five years, said Dr. Matthew Smith of Massachusetts General Brigham Cancer Center.

“It’s very treatable, but not curable,” Smith said.

What are the treatment options?

Prostate cancer can be treated with drugs that lower levels of hormones in the body or stop them from getting into prostate cancer cells. The drugs can slow down the growth of cancer cells.

“Most men in this situation would be treated with drugs and would not be advised to have either surgery or radiation therapy,” Smith said.

What is a Gleason score?

Prostate cancers are graded for aggressiveness using what’s known as a Gleason score. The scores range from 6 to 10, with 8, 9 and 10 prostate cancers behaving more aggressively. Biden’s office said his score was 9, suggesting his cancer is among the most aggressive.

Johnson writes for the Associated Press.

Former US President Joe Biden, 82, has been diagnosed with prostate cancer that has spread to his bones, a statement from his office said on Sunday.

Biden, who left office in January, was diagnosed on Friday after he saw a doctor last week for urinary symptoms.

The cancer is a more aggressive form of the disease, characterised by a Gleason score of 9 out of 10. This means his illness is classified as “high-grade” and the cancer cells could spread quickly, according to Cancer Research UK.

Biden and his family are said to be reviewing treatment options. His office added that the cancer was hormone-sensitive, meaning it could likely be managed.

In Sunday’s statement, Biden’s office said: “Last week, President Joe Biden was seen for a new finding of a prostate nodule after experiencing increasing urinary symptoms.

“On Friday, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, characterised by a Gleason score of 9 (Grade Group 5) with metastasis to the bone.

“While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive which allows for effective management.”

After news broke of his diagnosis, the former president received support from both sides of the aisle.

President Donald Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social that he and First Lady Melania Trump “are saddened to hear about Joe Biden’s recent medical diagnosis.”

“We extend our warmest and best wishes to Jill and the family,” he said, referring to former First Lady Jill Biden. “We wish Joe a fast and successful recovery.”

Former Vice-President Kamala Harris, who served under Biden, wrote on X that she and her husband Doug Emhoff are keeping the Biden family in their prayers.

“Joe is a fighter – and I know he will face this challenge with the same strength, resilience, and optimism that have always defined his life and leadership,” Harris said.

In a post on X, Barack Obama – who served as president from 2009 to 2017 with Joe Biden as his deputy – said that he and his wife Michelle were “thinking of the entire Biden family”.

“Nobody has done more to find breakthrough treatments for cancer in all its forms than Joe, and I am certain he will fight this challenge with his trademark resolve and grace. We pray for a fast and full recovery,” Obama said. In 2016, the former president launched a “Cancer Moonshot” programme and announced that Biden would lead it.

The news comes nearly a year after the former president was forced to drop out of the 2024 US presidential election over concerns about his health and age. He is the oldest person to have held the office in US history.

Biden, then the Democratic nominee vying for re-election, faced mounting criticism of his poor performance in a June televised debate against Republican nominee and current president Donald Trump. He was replaced as the Democratic candidate by his vice-president, Kamala Harris.

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer affecting men, behind skin cancer, according to the Cleveland Clinic. The US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says that 13 out of every 100 men will develop prostate cancer at some point in their lives.

Age is the most common risk factor, the CDC says.

Dr William Dahut, the Chief Scientific Officer at the American Cancer Society and a trained prostate cancer physician, told the BBC that the cancer is more aggressive in nature, based on the publicly-available information on Biden’s diagnosis.

“In general, if cancer has spread to the bones, we don’t think it is considered a curable cancer,” Dr Dahut said.

He noted, however, that most patients tend to respond well to initial treatment, “and people can live many years with the diagnosis”.

Dr Dahut said that someone with the former president’s diagnosis will likely be offered hormonal therapies to mitigate symptoms and to slow the growth of cancerous cells.

Biden had largely retreated from the public eye since leaving the White House and he has made few public appearances.

The former president delivered a keynote speech in April at a Chicago conference held by the Advocates, Counselors, and Representatives for the Disabled, a US-based advocacy group for people with disabilities.

In May, he sat down for an interview with the BBC – his first since leaving the White House – where he admitted that the decision to step down from the 2024 race was “difficult”.

Biden has faced questions about the status of his health in recent months.

In an appearance on The View programme that also took place in May, Biden denied claims that he had been experiencing cognitive decline in his final year at the White House. “There is nothing to sustain that,” he said.

For many years, the president had advocated for cancer research.

In 2022, he and Mrs Biden relaunched the Cancer Moonshot initiative with the goal of mobilising research efforts to prevent more than four million cancer deaths by the year 2047.

Biden himself lost his eldest son, Beau, to brain cancer in 2015.

WASHINGTON — Former President Biden has been diagnosed with an “aggressive form” of prostate cancer, his office said Sunday.

Biden was seen last week by doctors after urinary symptoms and a prostate nodule was found. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer Friday, with the cancer cells having spread to the bone. His office said he has Stage 9 cancer.

“While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive which allows for effective management,” his office said in a statement. “The President and his family are reviewing treatment options with his physicians.”

Prostate cancers are given a rating called a Gleason score that measures, on a scale of 1 to 10, how the cancerous cells look compared with normal cells. Biden’s score of 9 suggests his cancer is among the most aggressive.

When prostate cancer spreads to other parts of the body, it often spreads to the bones. Metastasized cancer is much harder to treat than localized cancer because it can be hard for drugs to reach all the tumors and completely root out the disease.

However, when prostate cancers need hormones to grow, as in Biden’s case, they can be susceptible to treatment that deprives the tumors of hormones.

The health of Biden, 82, was a dominant concern among voters during his time as president. After a calamitous debate performance in June while seeking reelection, Biden abandoned his bid for a second term. Then-Vice President Kamala Harris became the nominee and lost to Republican Donald Trump, who returned to the White House after a four-year hiatus.

But in recent days, Biden rejected concerns about his age despite reporting in a new book, “Original Sin” by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, that aides had shielded the public from the extent of his decline while he was serving as president.

In February 2023, Biden had a skin lesion removed from his chest that was a basal cell carcinoma, a common form of skin cancer. And in November 2021, he had a polyp removed from his colon that was a benign but potentially pre-cancerous lesion.

In 2022, Biden made a “cancer moonshot” one of his administration’s priorities with the goal of halving the cancer death rate over the next 25 years. The initiative was a continuation of his work as vice president to address a disease that had killed his older son, Beau.

For some folks, this summer will be a time of relaxation: picnics, barbecues, vacation. For others, a mad scramble between work and swim meets, baseball tournaments or shopping before shelves go bare and the Trump tariffs price everything beyond reach.

For Kamala Harris, it’s a time for deciding.

The former vice president is expected to spend a chunk of her summer weighing various options — whether to retire from politics after more than 20 years seeking elected office, whether to mount a 2026 bid for California governor or whether to make a third attempt at the White House in 2028.

According to several who’ve spoken with Harris, she is genuinely undecided, torn between concern and affection for her home state and an undimmed desire to be president.

Of the three options, the most pressing is whether to enter the race to replace her fellow Democrat, the term-limited Gavin Newsom, as governor.

The contest is already well underway — 10 serious (broadly speaking) candidates have so far announced their candidacies. While Harris’ near-universal name recognition and nationwide fundraising base allow her to wait longer than others, a serious gubernatorial bid will take more than a few months to mount.

That forces a decision and a public announcement sooner rather than later.

If she does run, one thing Harris must avoid at all costs is anything that bespeaks arrogance, entitlement or anything less than a 100% commitment to serving as governor. It’s not hard to imagine one of her first utterances as a candidate would be pledging to serve a full four-year term and vowing not to use the office as an interim step toward another presidential bid.

Failing that, voters have every reason to send Harris packing. California doesn’t need another governor with a wandering political eye.

Another imperative Harris faces is offering a compelling reason why she wants to be governor. Seeking the office for the same reason climbers tackle Mt. Everest — because it’s there — won’t do.

History offers a lesson.

In November 1979, Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy was preparing to launch an upstart bid for president against the unpopular incumbent, Jimmy Carter. He gave a television interview that was so legendarily awful it’s become an object lesson in how not to start a campaign.

Asked why he wanted to be president, Kennedy paused at length, appearing stricken. He then unspooled a long-winded, curlicued, two-minute response that mentioned natural resources, technology, innovation, productivity, inflation, energy, joblessness and the economy, among other things. His answer was lucid as a fog bank and inspiring as a stalk of celery.

“Kennedy was on a rocket ship,” said Dan Schnur, a veteran communications strategist and political science professor, who uses the Kennedy interview as part of his curriculum at USC, Pepperdine and UC Berkeley. Carter was in dreadful shape, Kennedy was political royalty and the enthusiasm for his candidacy at the Democratic grassroots “looked like it was going to sweep him to the nomination.

“And then he did that one interview,” Schnur recollected, “and he couldn’t answer the most basic question.”

Though Kennedy ended up giving Carter a stiff challenge, he never fully recovered from leaving that terrible impression.

Harris should take heed.

A recent poll by the L.A. Times and UC Berkeley gave her a 50% approval rating among California voters, which is not exactly a number to beat the band. Still, she would enter the governor’s race as a heavy favorite to at least make the runoff under the state’s top-two election system. If a Republican nabbed the second spot, Harris would be strongly positioned to win in November, given California’s strong Democratic leaning.

But, again, neither is a reason for Harris to be governor.

Some of those close to the former vice president wonder how much she really wants, or would enjoy, the job.

In 2015, when the governorship and a U.S. Senate seat both came open, Harris — the state’s attorney general at the time — opted to seek the latter. Her reasons were both personal, involving family considerations, and professional, given the platform and opportunities afforded a member of the Senate.

In short, Harris has never burned with a passion to be California governor.

That makes it all the more important for her to explain — clearly and convincingly — why she’d want to be elected.

“She’s got to give some affirmative reason why she’s running and why it would be good for the voters of California,” Schnur said. “And it’s not just a matter of constructing several words into a sentence.

“It’s not hard for someone as smart as Kamala Harris and her team to concoct a lab-tested phrase that tests well,” he went on. “The challenge isn’t typing out a sentence. It’s developing a core purpose that can then be explained in a sentence.”

Harris has all summer to look inward and figure that out. If she can’t, California voters should choose someone else for their next governor.

In March 2024, I wrote a column about President Biden’s State of the Union speech with a confident headline that made perfect sense to me at the time: “Chill out, my fellow Americans. Your president isn’t cognitively impaired.”

Boy was I wrong. For months, critics and supporters had been raising pointed questions about the president’s physical health and intellectual acuity. Had he won the November election, after all, he would have been the oldest president in American history. (Since he lost, that honor goes to the current White House occupant.) But during his hourlong speech to Congress, Biden had sparred repeatedly with Republican hecklers. He was on his game. Democrats were relieved.

Having watched Trump raise spurious questions during the 2016 campaign about Hillary Clinton’s health —particularly after she was visibly ill at a 9/11 ceremony in Manhattan — I thought Republicans were harping on the issue of Biden’s age more as a tactic than anything else. It was a good distraction, considering that his opponent, then-former President Trump, was only a few years younger and given to rambling incoherence himself.

Republicans may have exaggerated Biden’s issues, but they were, as we soon learned, in the main, correct. By the time the president stood slack-jawed and confused on a debate stage with Trump only three months after his triumphant State of the Union address, it was clear that something was very, very wrong. The debate stage can be a cruel place, and with no prepared speech loaded onto a teleprompter, Biden was suddenly naked in the spotlight. It was not a pretty sight, and suddenly, he was no longer a tenable presidential candidate.

But why are we talking about this old news when we have a president flouting every ethical norm of his office, wantonly violating the Constitution and cozying up to murderous dictators such as Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince whom the CIA concluded had ordered the 2018 killing and dismemberment of Washington Post columnist and Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi?

Biden is back in the news thanks to “Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again,” by longtime CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Axios White House correspondent Alex Thompson. The book, whose subtitle says it all, has been excerpted in the New Yorker and reviewed by other publications. Its publication date is Tuesday.

I tried to get my hands on a copy, but the publishing house blew me off.

In any case, so much of the book’s insider information has been made available that it is possible to make a convincing case, even from a distance, that Biden’s insistence on running for a second term, despite his promise to be a one-term “bridge,” and his belated decision to drop out, is how we got to where we are today: in the grip of a chaotic, despotic self-dealing president who is turning the Constitution on its head.

Heckuva job, Joe!

I was as surprised as anyone that Biden became the nominee in 2020. I recall watching him stump in Iowa, certain that he was too old for the job. Onstage, he was shouty, his voice rising and falling for no particular reason — “mistaking volume for passion,” as I wrote back then.

And yet, for all his faults, gaffes and frailties, I would still prefer an impaired Biden to the corrupt felon who currently occupies the Oval Office.

Those who have read “Original Sin” say that it does not contain any bombshells. What it offers is a detailed account of the systematic effort by family and advisors to conceal the truth from the American people, and calls out the cowardly Democratic leaders who knew Biden was not up to a second term but were afraid to cross him.

As the Washington Post put it in its review: “The book is a damning account of an elderly, egotistical president shielded from reality by a slavish coterie of loyalists and family members united by a shared, seemingly ironclad sense of denial and a determination to smear anyone who dared to question the president’s fitness for office as a threat to the republic covertly working on behalf of Trump.”

Co-author Thompson, as it happens, was one of the few mainstream political journalists to aggressively report on Biden’s worsening condition and the struggle — you might even call it gaslighting — to keep it from the public.

For that, the White House Correspondents’ Assn. awarded him its top honor in April. In his acceptance speech, Thompson was unflinching.

“President Biden’s decline and its cover-up by the people around him is a reminder that every White House, regardless of party, is capable of deception,” he said. “But being truth tellers also means telling the truth about ourselves. We, myself included, missed a lot of this story, and some people trust us less because of it. We bear some responsibility for faith in the media being at such lows. … We should have done better.”

I take his point. We are now living with the consequences of our failures.

@rabcarian.bsky.social and @rabcarian