opposed

WASHINGTON — Back from a week abroad, President Trump is calling on the Senate to scrap the filibuster and reopen the government after a monthlong shutdown, breaking with majority Republicans who have long opposed such a move.

Trump said in a post on his social media site Thursday that “THE CHOICE IS CLEAR — INITIATE THE ‘NUCLEAR OPTION,’ GET RID OF THE FILIBUSTER.”

Trump’s sudden decision to assert himself into the shutdown debate — bringing the highly charged demand to end the filibuster — is certain to set the Senate on edge. It could spur senators toward their own compromise or send the chamber spiraling toward a new sense of crisis.

Trump has long called for Republicans to get rid of the Senate rule that requires 60 votes to overcome objections, dating all the way back to his first term in office. The rule gives Democrats a check on the 53-seat Republican majority and enough votes to keep the government closed while they demand an extension of health care subsidies.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune and most members of his Republican conference have strongly opposed changing the filibuster, arguing that it is vital to the institution of the Senate and has allowed them to halt Democratic policies when they are in the minority.

Thune has repeatedly said he is not considering changing the rules to end the shutdown, and his spokesman, Ryan Wrasse, said in a statement Friday that the leader’s “position on the importance of the legislative filibuster is unchanged.”

Broad GOP support for filibuster

Even if Thune wanted to change the filibuster, he would not currently have the votes to do so.

“The filibuster forces us to find common ground in the Senate,” Republican Sen. John Curtis of Utah posted on X Friday morning, responding to Trump’s comments and echoing the sentiments of many of his Senate Republican colleagues. “Power changes hands, but principles shouldn’t. I’m a firm no on eliminating it.”

Debate has swirled around the legislative filibuster for years. Many Democrats pushed to eliminate it when they had full power in Washington, as the Republicans do now, four years ago. But they ultimately didn’t have the votes after enough Democratic senators opposed the move, predicting such an action would come back to haunt them.

Speaker Mike Johnson also defended the filibuster Friday, while conceding “it’s not my call.” He criticized Democrats for pushing to get rid of it when they had power.

“The safeguard in the Senate has always been the filibuster,” Johnson said, adding that Trump’s comments are “the president’s anger at the situation.”

Little progress on shutdown

Trump’s call comes as the two parties have made little progress toward resolving the shutdown standoff while he was away for a week in Asia. He said in his post that he gave a “great deal” of thought to his choice on his flight home and that one question that kept coming up during his trip was why “powerful Republicans allow” the Democrats to shut down parts of the government.

While quiet talks are underway, particularly among bipartisan senators, the shutdown is not expected to end before next week, as both the House and Senate are out of session. Democrats say they won’t vote to reopen the government until Republicans negotiate an extension to the health care subsidies while Republicans say they won’t negotiate until the government is reopened.

As the shutdown drags on, from coast to coast, fallout from the dysfunction of the shuttered federal government is hitting home: Alaskans are stockpiling moose, caribou and fish for winter, even before SNAP food aid is scheduled to shut off. Mainers are filling up their home-heating oil tanks, but waiting on the federal subsidies that are nowhere in sight.

Flights are being delayed with holiday travel around the corner. Workers are going without paychecks. And Americans are getting a first glimpse of the skyrocketing health care insurance costs that are at the center of the stalemate on Capitol Hill. Money for food aid — the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP — will start to run out this weekend.

“People are stressing,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, as food options in her state grow scarce.

“We are well past time to have this behind us.”

Money for military, but not food aid

The White House has moved money around to ensure the military is paid, but refuses to tap funds for food aid. In fact, Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” signed into law this summer, delivered the most substantial cut ever to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, projected to result in some 2.4 million people off the program.

At the same time, many Americans who purchase their own health insurance through the federal and state marketplaces, with open enrollment also beginning Saturday, are experiencing sticker shock as premium prices jump.

“We are holding food over the heads of poor people so that we can take away their health care,” said Rev. Ryan Stoess during a prayer with religious leaders at the U.S. Capitol.

“God help us,” he said, “when the cruelty is the point.”

Deadlines shift to next week

The House remains closed down under Johnson for the past month and senators departed for the long weekend on Thursday.

That means the shutdown, in its 30th day, appears likely to stretch into another week if the filibuster remains. If the shutdown continues, it could become the longest in history, surpassing the 35-day lapse that ended in 2019, during Trump’s first term, over his demands to build the U.S.-Mexico border wall.

The next inflection point comes after Tuesday’s off-year elections — the New York City mayor’s race, as well as elections in Virginia and New Jersey that will determine those states’ governors. Many expect that once those winners and losers are declared, and the Democrats and Republicans assess their political standing with the voters, they might be ready to hunker down for a deal.

“I hope that it frees people up to move forward with opening the government,” Thune said.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Matt Brown and Josh Boak in Tokyo contributed to this report.

Oct. 22 (UPI) — Israel’s Knesset on Wednesday, in a preliminary vote, approved sovereignty in the West Bank for Israel, described as a political ploy by the right-wing opposition during U.S. Vice President JD Vance’s visit to the nation.

President Donald Trump said last month that he will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank.

The bill, which is called “Application of Israeli Sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, 2025,” passed 25-24 by the parliament, and was transferred to the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. It must still pass three additional votes in the plenum session.

The legislation says that “the laws, judicial system, administration, and sovereignty of the State of Israel shall apply to all areas of settlement in Judea and Samaria.”

A more limited annexation bill passed 32-9, also in a preliminary reading. The bill applies sovereignty to the West Bank settlement of Ma’ale Adumim near Jerusalem.

Militant Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip and not the West Bank, said in a statement that the recent bill “reflects the ugly face of the colonial occupation.”

As a “flagrant violation of all relevant international laws and resolution,” Hamas said Israel “insists on continuing its attempts to ‘legitimize’ settlements and impose Zionist ‘sovereignty’ over the occupied Palestinian territories.”

In 2007, the Palestinian territories were split into two separate administrations.

Israel maintains military control of the 2,263 square miles of the West Bank, while the Palestinian Authority, led by the Fatah party, has jurisdiction over civil and security authority in specific zones, based on the 1995 Oslo Accords.

The West Bank has been divided into three zones.

Area C, which makes up about 60% the West Bank, is under full Israeli military and civilian control. Area C includes agricultural land, water springs, quarries and land for future infrastructure for Israelis.

In August, Israel approved final plans for a settlement project in E1 of Area C between East Jerusalem and the Ma’ale Adumim settlement. This arrangement would sever the West Bank for a contiguous Palestinian State, which Israel opposes as a two-state solution.

More than 500,000 Israeli settlers live in the West Bank out of the total population of 4 million.

Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1980 and applies its civil law there, though the international community does not recognize this annexation. About 500,000 Israelis live there.

“By applying sovereignty to Judea and Samaria, we are correcting a historical wrong that is long overdue,” Avi Maoz, head of the far-right Noam party, said. “Since the government has hesitated, it is our duty as members of Knesset to act.”

All but one Likud minister boycotted the vote, with Yuli Edelstein breaking ranks to cast a decisive vote. Likud then removed Edelstein from his seat on the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, a spokesperson for the lawmaker confirmed to The Times of Israel.

Maoz denied a request by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to delay the vote.

Netanyahu’s Likud party said the vote was an attempt to embarrass the government while U.S. Vice President JD Vance visited the country.

“We strengthen settlements every day with actions, budgets, construction, industry, and not with words,” the Times of Israel reported by Likud. “True sovereignty will be achieved not with a show-off law for the protocol, but by working properly on the ground and creating the political conditions appropriate for the recognition of our sovereignty, as was done in the Golan Heights and in Jerusalem.”

The United Arab Emirates said in September that annexation of the West Bank would severely undermine the spirit of the Abraham Accords.

The West Bank was captured during the Six-Day War in 1967, except for East Jerusalem, as a “temporary belligerent occupation.”

The historic city of Bethlehem is in the West Bank and is under Israeli occupation. It has historic ties to the Jewish religion, as well as to Christianity and Islam.

In 2024, the International Court of Justice in The Hague issued an advisory opinion that Israel’s presence in the West Bank was unlawful under international law because it is no longer temporary.

Islamabad, Pakistan – Seated next to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer during a visit to the United Kingdom in September, United States President Donald Trump made clear he was eyeing a plot of land his country’s military once controlled nearly 8,000km (4,970 miles) away: Bagram airbase in Afghanistan.

“We gave it to [the Taliban] for nothing. We want that base back,” he said. Two days later, this time opting to express his views on social media, Trump wrote: “If Afghanistan doesn’t give Bagram air base back to those that built it, the United States of America, bad things are going to happen!”

The Taliban, predictably, bristled at the demand and stressed that under “no circumstances” will Afghans hand over the base to any third country.

On Tuesday, the Taliban, who have ruled Afghanistan since their takeover of Kabul in August 2021, won a remarkable show of support for their opposition to any US military return to the country, from a broad swath of neighbours who otherwise rarely see eye-to-eye geopolitically.

At a meeting in Moscow, officials from Russia, India, Pakistan, China, Iran, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan joined their Taliban counterparts in coming down hard on any attempt to set up foreign military bases in Afghanistan. They did not name the US, but the target was clear, say experts.

“They called unacceptable the attempts by countries to deploy their military infrastructure in Afghanistan and neighbouring states, since this does not serve the interests of regional peace and stability,” said the joint statement (PDF) published by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on October 7 at the conclusion of the seventh edition of what are known as the Moscow Format Consultations between Afghanistan’s neighbours.

Pakistan, China, Russia and Iran had opposed “the reestablishment of military bases” in a similar declaration last month on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. But the Moscow communique brought together a much wider range of nations – some with competing interests – on a single page.

India and Pakistan have long vied for influence over Afghanistan. India also worries about China’s growing investments in that country. Iran has often viewed any Pakistani presence in Afghanistan with suspicion. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have long feared violence in Afghanistan spilling over into their territory. And in recent years, Pakistan has had tense relations with the Taliban – a group that it supported and sheltered for decades previously.

The confluence of these countries, despite these differences, into a unanimous position to keep the US out of the region reflects a shared regional view that Afghan affairs are a “regional responsibility”, not a matter to be externally managed, said Taimur Khan, a researcher at the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad (ISSI).

“Despite their differences, regional countries share a common position that Afghanistan should not once again host a foreign military presence,” Khan told Al Jazeera.

That shared position, articulated in Moscow, also strengthens the Taliban’s hands as it seeks to push back against pressure from Trump over Bagram, while giving Afghanistan’s rulers regional legitimacy. Most of their neighbours are deepening engagements with them, even though Russia is the only country that has formally recognised them diplomatically as the Afghan government.

A symbolic, strategic prize

The groundwork for the Afghan Taliban’s return to power was laid in Doha in January 2020, under Trump’s first administration; they ultimately took over the country in August 2021, during the tenure of the administration of former President Joe Biden.

Yet in February this year, a month after taking the oath for his second term, Trump insisted: “We were going to keep Bagram. We were going to keep a small force on Bagram.”

Bagram, 44km (27 miles) north of Kabul, was originally built by the Soviet Union in the 1950s. The base has two concrete runways – one 3.6km long (2.2 miles), the other 3km (1.9 miles) – and is one of the few places in Afghanistan suitable for landing large military planes and weapons carriers.

It became a strategic base for the many powers that have occupied, controlled and fought over Afghanistan over the past half-century. Taken over by US-led NATO forces after the invasion of Afghanistan following the September 11 attacks, Bagram was a central facility in Washington’s so-called “war on terror”.

Afghanistan’s rugged, mountainous terrain means there are limited sites capable of serving as large military logistics hubs. That scarcity is why Bagram retains its strategic significance, four years after the US withdrew from the country.

Kamran Bokhari, senior director at the Washington, DC-based New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy, said he was sceptical about the US seriously planning any redeployment of forces to Afghanistan, despite Trump’s comments.

“The new US geostrategy is about military retrenchment. There is no appetite in Washington for any such military commitment, which would be a major logistical undertaking,” Bokhari told Al Jazeera. “Even if the Taliban were to agree to allow the Americans to regain Bagram, the cost of maintaining such a facility far outstrips its utility.”

At the same time, Bokhari said that the Moscow meet worked as an opportunity for Russia to show that it retains influence in Central Asia, a region in which its footprint has been eroded by the war in Ukraine and by China’s rising geoeconomic presence.

But the concerns about any renewed US footprint in Afghanistan aren’t limited to Russia, or even China, America’s biggest long-term rival. Amid heightened tensions with the US and Israel, Iran will not want an American military presence in Afghanistan.

Other regional nations – India and Pakistan among them – are also eager to show that the neighbourhood can manage the vacuum created in Afghanistan by the withdrawal of US security forces, Bokhari said. Though a close partner of the US, India’s ties with Washington have frayed during Trump’s second term, with the American president imposing 50 percent tariffs on imports from India, in part because of New Delhi’s continued purchase of oil from Russia.

And then there are the Central Asian countries that share long, porous borders with Afghanistan – and fear their soil might be used by violent groups energised by any return of the US, militarily, to Bagram.

Central Asia’s security calculus

The four Central Asian countries that were part of the Moscow Format – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan – together with Turkmenistan and Afghanistan, form a bloc of six landlocked nations whose geography gives them a unique vantage point in regional politics, while also compelling them to seek access to warmer waters for trade.

Analysts argue an American presence in the region would be “undesirable” for many of these nations.

“This is not knee-jerk anti-Americanism,” Kuat Akizhanov, a Kazakh analyst and deputy director of the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation Institute (CAREC) said.

“A US base would put host states on the front line of US-Russia-China rivalry. Moscow and Beijing have both signalled opposition to any renewed US presence, and aligning with that consensus reduces coercive pressure and economic or security retaliation on our much smaller economies,” Akizhanov told Al Jazeera.

He added that regional actors now prefer regional groupings such as the Moscow Format, or even the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) led by Moscow and Beijing, for cooperation on security and the neighbourhood’s stability, to any US presence.

What do the Taliban and Afghanistan’s other neighbours fear?

Many of Afghanistan’s bigger neighbours have their own concerns.

“They fear that a revived US military presence could potentially reintroduce intelligence operations, fuel instability, and once again turn Afghanistan into a proxy battleground,” Khan from the Islamabad-based ISSI said.

“This is the lens from which regional countries now view Afghanistan: a space that must be stabilised through regional cooperation and economic integration, and not through renewed Western intervention or strategic containment efforts,” he added.

For the Taliban, meanwhile, Trump’s Bagram demands pose a dilemma, say experts.

Ibraheem Bahiss, a Kabul-based senior analyst for Crisis Group, said he believed that Trump’s Bagram demand was primarily driven by the US president’s “personal inclination” rather than any consensus within the US strategic establishment. “There might be a sense that Afghanistan remains an unfinished business for him,” the analyst told Al Jazeera.

For the Taliban, surrendering Bagram is unthinkable. “Kabul cannot offer Bagram as it would antagonise their own support base and might lead to resistance against their own government if [the] US comes here,” Bahiss said.

At the same time, Bokhari, of the New Lines Institute, said that the Taliban know international sanctions are a major obstacle to governance and economic recovery, and for that, they will need to engage the West, and especially the US.

“The Taliban are asking for sanctions relief, but the question is, what do they offer? Washington is more interested in Central Asia, to which it does not have easy access to. The region is otherwise blocked by Russia, China and Iran,” he said.

Trump has cited Bagram’s proximity to China and its missile factories as a reason for wanting to take back control of the base. Bagram is about 800km (about 500 miles) from the Chinese border, and about 2,400km (about 1,500 miles) from a missile facility in Xinjiang.

“It is not in the US interest in allowing China to monopolise the region,” Bokhari said.

Against that backdrop, the Bagram demand might be a signal from the US that it is eager to explore new ways to do business with the Taliban, Bokhari and Bahiss agreed.

Washington isn’t the only one reaching out to the group, which until a few years ago was largely a global pariah. In fact, the US is late – the Taliban have already been making major headways, diplomatically, in its neighbourhood.

Engagement, not recognition

Since taking control of a country of more than 40 million people in August 2021, the Taliban have faced international scepticism over their style of governance.

Afghanistan’s rulers have imposed a hardline interpretation of Islam and have placed several restrictions on women, including limits on working and education.

International sanctions have further weakened an already fragile economy, while the presence of multiple armed groups – including Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) – continues to alarm neighbouring states. The Taliban insist that they do not support the use of Afghan soil to attack neighbours.

Pakistan, once seen as the primary benefactor of the Taliban, says it has grown increasingly frustrated over the past four years at what it sees as the Afghan government’s inability to clamp down on militants.

The year 2024 was one of the deadliest for Pakistan in nearly a decade, with more than 2,500 casualties from violence, many of which Islamabad attributes to groups that it says operate from Afghan soil, allegations rejected by Kabul.

On Wednesday, several soldiers were killed in an ambush by the TTP near the Afghan border in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

Still, Pakistan upgraded diplomatic ties with the Taliban in May. That month, Afghanistan’s acting Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi hosted his counterpart from Pakistan, spoke on the phone with India’s foreign minister, and flew to Iran and China for summits.

Muttaqi was in Moscow for the recent regional consultations that produced the criticism of Trump’s Bagram plans, and on Thursday is due to arrive in New Delhi for a historic, weeklong visit to India, a country that viewed the Taliban as a Pakistan proxy – and an enemy – until a few years ago.

Bahiss said the compulsion for regional nations to deal with the Taliban is driven by shared, pragmatic goals, which include keeping borders calm, guaranteeing counterterrorism assurances, and securing trade routes.

Akizhanov, the CAREC analyst, meanwhile, said that the wider regional interaction with Afghan officials “normalise working channels [with the Taliban] and reinforces their narrative that regional futures will be decided locally, not by outside militaries”.

However, “legitimacy remains conditional in capitals of each country, hinging on counterterrorism guarantees, cross-border security, economic connectivity, and basic rights, especially for women and girls,” said the analyst, who is based in Urumqi, China.

ISSI’s Khan agreed.

“What we are witnessing is not formal recognition, but a functional understanding that Afghanistan’s isolation serves no one’s interests,” he said.

Lester Maddox, the flamboyant and controversial restaurant owner who in the 1960s parlayed a staunch segregationist stance into the governorship of Georgia, died Wednesday in Atlanta. He was 87.

Maddox had been battling a number of ailments, including cancer, complications from a stroke and heart attacks. He recently broke two ribs in a fall and contracted pneumonia. He had been under hospice care for a few weeks.

He first came to national attention in 1964 on the eve of a new era in America with the passing of federal laws that barred racial discrimination. But Maddox was firmly opposed to the laws, and when friends wielding ax handles drove black protesters from his Pickrick fried chicken restaurant in Atlanta, he made headlines across the country.

Maddox, for his part, waved a handgun at the protesters, calling them “no-good dirty communists.” He closed the establishment months later rather than accept a court ruling ordering him to desegregate.

Although he had run two unsuccessful races for mayor of Atlanta and one for Georgia’s lieutenant governor, Maddox turned his eye to the race for the statehouse in 1966. Running a glad-handing campaign that attracted large support in rural Georgia, Maddox won the Democratic nomination for governor.

In the general election, the margin between Maddox and his Republican opponent was so small that write-in votes for a third candidate prevented either from getting a majority. The decision was left to the predominantly Democratic Legislature, which gave the governorship to Maddox by a wide margin.

As governor, Maddox was perhaps remembered more for his offbeat antics than for any government policies. He was photographed riding a bicycle backward and riding on the hood of a car to open a new stretch of highway.

He walked off TV talk shows in disgust when fellow guests protested his social views. He instituted “little people day” every week, when he sat in the governor’s office and listened to everyday folks complain about problems great and small. In one of those sessions, he chatted with four black convicts who had escaped expressly to find Maddox and complain about conditions in state prison. He established a panel to investigate their concerns.

Those who had feared further racial divisiveness when Maddox took office were somewhat surprised when he appointed more blacks to state government posts than any previous governor. He also worked for legal reform and helped gain pay increases for teachers and university professors. Even critics praised his honesty.

Merle Black, a Southern politics expert at Emory University in Atlanta, noted that one of Maddox’s strengths was “his genuine concern for low-income people.” And in Georgia, many low-income people happened to be blacks.

Maddox’s interest in the poor came naturally. He grew up in the slums of the Georgia capital where he was born, one of seven children of a devout Baptist mother and a hard-drinking machinist father.

Maddox sold newspapers, candy and soft drinks on the sidewalks as a youngster and dropped out of the 11th grade during the Depression in 1933 because he simply “didn’t like school.” He later took courses in accounting and engineering and completed his high school education by correspondence.

But Maddox did well in business and managed to profit from small real estate deals in the next decade. His most successful business endeavor was the Pickrick, which he opened in the late 1940s.

With a large newspaper advertising campaign for the restaurant, in which he also criticized the federal government’s negative impact on state and individual rights, the eatery became one of the most popular restaurants in the region. Its success was also the result of good food and moderate prices.

After closing the restaurant in the face of legal pressures, he opened a souvenir stand in front of the restaurant and sold several thousand dollars worth of souvenir ax handles to mark his bid to drive out black protesters. He later opened a furniture store, which he also called Pickrick.

None of this hurt his gubernatorial bid.

Maddox became something of a caricature during his time in the statehouse and afterward. He was the frequent target of political cartoonists, op-ed page columnists and social critics, including the songwriter Randy Newman, who used an incident when Maddox appeared on the Dick Cavett talk show as a focal point for the satirical song “Rednecks” on the 1974 album “Good Old Boys.”

After a failed race for president in 1976, Maddox briefly turned to stand-up comedy, teaming up with a black man he had pardoned from jail while serving as governor. The duo called themselves “the Governor and the Dishwasher,” and quickly disappeared from the scene.

Julian Bond, a former Georgia legislator, remembered Maddox on Wednesday as a “genial and cordial” man, but he had little regard for his service in the statehouse: “He had generally a negative effect on Georgia and its politics. He was an avowed segregationist and white supremacist … although he had occasional deviations from type.”

Bond recalled one positive incident, however.

“When I was in the statehouse, a group of black legislators went to him to complain that there were no black people on draft boards in Georgia,” Bond told The Times. And he simply said, “ ‘You all fight in the Army, don’t you? Then you ought to be on draft boards.’ And it was done.”

But on more public occasions, Maddox would revert to form. After the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., thousands of mourners lined the streets of Atlanta to bid farewell to the civil rights leader. But Maddox refused to close the Capitol for the funeral and was angered that the state flag was lowered to half-staff.

After his one term as governor, Maddox was elected lieutenant governor in 1970, with the new occupant of the statehouse being a peanut farmer from Plains, Ga., named Jimmy Carter. For the next four years, the two men fought frequently, with Maddox being the more vocal.

Maddox made another bid for the governorship in 1974 but was defeated.

When Carter ran for president in 1976, Maddox traveled to New Hampshire, where Carter was campaigning, to dispute Carter’s pronouncement that “I will not tell a lie.”

When news of Maddox’s foray reached Georgia, some pundits suggested that Maddox must be on Carter’s campaign payroll, because any criticism from Maddox would be a passkey to victory.

Carter’s press secretary, Jody Powell, was so taken by Maddox’s views that he quipped: “Being called a liar by Lester Maddox is like being called ugly by a frog.”

Maddox ran for president that same year on the American Independent Party ticket, getting just 170,531 votes of 81.5 million cast.

Maddox stayed out of electoral politics until the early 1990s, when he again tried a run for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. But he drew only 3% of the vote.

In a statement Wednesday, former President Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, extended condolences to the Maddox family.

“He worked hard for the state for many years, making himself accessible to the people of Georgia,” the Carters said.

To the end of his life, Maddox stood firm on his segregationist views, telling an Associated Press reporter in a recent interview, “I think forced segregation is illegal and wrong. I think forced racial integration is illegal and wrong. I believe both of them to be unconstitutional.”

Maddox’s health declined after the death of Virginia, his wife of 61 years, in 1997. He is survived by four children, 10 grandchildren and 12 great-grandchildren.

He will be buried Friday in Marietta, Ga.

*

Rennie Sloan, a researcher in The Times’ Atlanta bureau, contributed to this report.