Outrage

WASHINGTON — The very first thing you notice about the senior senator from West Virginia is that voice.

There is no doubt about it: Robert C. Byrd has the best voice in Washington.

It’s a deep yet tremulous 74-year-old voice that seems to descend upon the listener from on high, as if Byrd is somewhere above you, uttering eternal truths that are immediately being hammered into granite.

As he talks, Byrd dances through the octaves, carefully playing with his articulation of each vowel and consonant, surrounding his audience in the sweet darkness of sound.

Long, crafted pauses break his sentences, and during those silent moments time seems suspended; Byrd is then like nothing so much as a Shakespearean actor warming to the task.

The thought occurs that America is a safer place because Robert Byrd went into politics rather than into door-to-door sales.

Or is it?

“My voice, a political tool? I have never used my voice as a political tool,” insists Byrd in the sliding baritone that he has so often utilized as a political tool.

As he speaks, Byrd’s ornate Victorian-Era office in the Capitol Building is transformed into a personal stage. Beneath murals glorifying the Republic, Byrd paces the room, moves toward a shaft of sunlight and strikes a heroic pose beside a tall window.

He is a short, compact man, but his size belies the power of his presence. With his carefully coiffed silver hair, his high forehead and piercing eyes, and impeccably dressed in a vested dark suit, Byrd has the look of an important person not to be messed with, a fundamentalist preacher or a hanging judge.

Slowly, Byrd gets down to business. He moves to his desk, opens a drawer and pulls out a large black book. It is the Bible. Byrd turns to a coffee table in front of his audience, lifts the Bible and with sudden force slams the book down.

He slaps his hand onto the Bible. “Has Robert Byrd ever twisted arms to get the CIA to move jobs to West Virginia?”

His question to himself thunders through the room.

“Has Robert Byrd twisted arms at the FBI to move jobs to West Virginia?

“I swear on the Holy Bible that I have not!”

It is a bravura performance by the Senate’s premier dramatist.

Byrd, a Democrat, is here for some serious damage control. The former Senate majority leader and current chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee is under attack as Congress returns later this month, and he wants to get his side told.

The charge that Byrd is answering: that he has used his sway over the appropriations process, the flow of money, in the Senate to move–no, his real foes would say steal–thousands upon thousands of government jobs and take them to his depressed Mountain State.

Byrd’s pork-barrel deals have prompted the kind of shock and outrage from his colleagues that has rarely been seen here since Jimmy Stewart filibustered Claude Rains’ crooked dam project in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”

“Everyone in this body knows what’s going on,” Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.) warned darkly in a recent emotional rebuke to Byrd on the floor of the House. “We all know what’s taken place. I believe that actions like this . . . are disgraceful.”

Byrd’s efforts to move FBI and CIA facilities and thousands of jobs to West Virginia–immediately transforming rural hamlets there into international centers of law enforcement and intelligence gathering–have drawn special fire.

The attacks have come from such diverse sources as right-wing House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich (“It makes no sense at all except as a pure abuse of power,” Gingrich blasted) to Tom Clancy, best-selling novelist and friend of the CIA (“The Duke of West Virginia,” Clancy wrote in The Washington Post, “. . . is taking serfs from one fiefdom and moving them to another–his–in return for which he will deign to grant favors to those willing to support his legislative kidnaping”).

To be sure, pork has never gone out of style in Washington. There is a good reason, after all, why Congress seems so reluctant to cut the bloated defense budget, even after the collapse of the Soviet Evil Empire; it’s because the Pentagon and the nation’s military contractors have been so efficient at spreading their largess (factories and jobs) throughout almost every congressional district in the country.

So when others in Congress say they are shocked–shocked!–to find pork-barrel politics going on, their protestations may be just a wee bit disingenuous.

Still, Byrd has been catching flak because he seems to have gone beyond the pale, the accepted norms of pork. At least by the standards of modern Washington, that is, where special interests usually bring home the bacon through less showy practices–and without leaving so many tracks.

Indeed, perhaps Byrd’s biggest mistake was that he failed to follow convention and work through a bunch of shadowy lobbyists; he has instead done pork the old-fashioned way–by dint of his brute power over the legislative process.

Byrd denies that he has abused his power or exerted undue pressure to persuade federal agencies to locate jobs and facilities in West Virginia, yet he remains quite open in his desire to do more for his state.

He has, in fact, publicly devoted himself and the remainder of his Senate career to the cause of stimulating the moribund West Virginia economy through a massive injection of government money and jobs. He even set a goal: to bring $1 billion home with him in the space of five years.

He has already exceeded that objective in just three years, and the way he has gone about it is a lesson in congressional power.

In 1989, Byrd surprised official Washington by stepping down as Senate majority leader to become chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. To most political pundits, it was a puzzling move; after all, as majority leader Byrd was a national figure. He was trading in the status of statesman for the grubby world of an obscure committee post, and few outside the Senate saw the logic in it.

Yet Byrd, a senator since 1959 (and a congressman even before that, dating to 1953) understood where real power lay in Congress.

At least the kind of power that was useful to West Virginia.

A master of parliamentary procedure and a self-taught expert on the history of the Senate, Byrd knew that while the highly visible majority leader could control the scheduling and the legislative pace in the Senate, the real substance of the Senate’s business was conducted at the committee level. Arguably the most powerful committee of all was Appropriations; while other panels could create new programs, Appropriations controlled all the money to run those programs.

“I had been in the leadership for 22 years, and that’s a long time,” Byrd says. “I had been spending all my time on the floor and on matters affecting the nation. I felt it was time to move on. I’m glad I walked away from it.”

And so, after a career in the Senate leadership, what better way to help West Virginia than to take the helm of Appropriations, where Byrd would be in a position to pick and choose which government spending programs to ship back home?

Today, Byrd doesn’t deny the obvious benefits his committee post offers West Virginia. What is good for West Virginia, Byrd explains, is good for America.

“Naturally, my state is part of this union. A highway in West Virginia versus another state . . . one shouldn’t look at it as if it is a highway in Mexico. All of these states are part of the same country.” Byrd adds that others shouldn’t begrudge West Virginia. Quoting Daniel Webster, he notes: “We don’t put lines of latitude on what public works do or don’t benefit us.”

The result: By last fall, more than $500 million in proposed federal spending for West Virginia for fiscal 1992 alone was moving through the Appropriations process in the Senate, according to Congressional Quarterly, a Washington journal that tracks Congress. A list of Byrd’s West Virginia-bound pork, compiled by Congressional Quarterly in the middle of the fall’s congressional session, was impressive; it ranged from $165 million in highway improvements to $600,000 in research grants for the study of a replacement for lime fertilizer.

More visible projects included the transfer of a 90-worker data processing division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; an Internal Revenue Service center employing 300, and a 700-worker office of the Bureau of Public Debt.

But his greatest coup was the FBI’s national fingerprinting laboratory, bringing as many as 2,600 workers to Clarksburg, W.Va.

Byrd didn’t win so much for his depressed home state by relying on friendships with his fellow senators; on the contrary, he has been successful almost exclusively because of the power of his position and his unrivaled grasp of the legislative process in the Senate–and in spite of the fact that many of his colleagues view him as cold and aloof.

“I don’t have close friends in the Senate,” Byrd quietly acknowledges. He adds, with a measure of pride: “I don’t socialize with anybody. I haven’t played a round of golf in my life.”

But with few allies to rely on, Byrd’s West Virginia-first campaign finally ran aground late in 1991 in the face of mounting congressional opposition. Thus, when Byrd tried to take the CIA, or at least a big chunk of it, to West Virginia, the rest of Congress put its foot down.

The CIA and Byrd had earlier agreed to transfer 3,000 workers to a new CIA office center to be built in West Virginia, consolidating a series of smaller offices scattered throughout the Washington area.

But this time, Byrd’s critics had seen enough.

Quickly, the House Intelligence Committee labeled the plan a “covert action.” Condemnation spilled out of Congress: “If this wasn’t so pathetic, it would be funny,” complained Rep. David O’B. Martin (R-N.Y.).

Wolf, a Republican from the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington whose district includes CIA headquarters, noted that Byrd’s actions would mean the agency would have to change its name to the “Decentralized Intelligence Agency.”

Eventually, the full House defied Byrd and has at least temporarily blocked the move.

In the face of so much criticism, Byrd repeatedly has insisted that the CIA followed a legitimate site selection process in choosing West Virginia; he also stresses that he believes his honor was impugned in the House debate over the CIA project.

How has he responded to such personal attacks?

He insists–dramatically, of course–that he remains above the fray.

“Those are innuendoes, willful misrepresentations of the facts,” Byrd says.

The lawyerly words flow slowly but steadily, as if he is pulling warm licorice from his mouth.

“I have turned my cheek to all of the innuendoes,” Byrd says.

He says again, more emphatically: “I have turned my cheek.”

The public release of a Young Republican group chat that included racist language, jokes about rape and flippant commentary on gas chambers prompted bipartisan calls for those involved to be removed from or resign their positions.

The Young Republican National Federation, the GOP’s political organization for Republicans between 18 and 40, called for those involved to step down from the organization. The group described the exchanges, first reported by Politico, as “unbecoming of any Republican.”

Republican Vice President JD Vance, however, has weighed in several times to speak out against what he characterized as “pearl clutching” over the leaked messages.

Politico obtained months of exchanges from a Telegram conversation between leaders and members of the Young Republican National Federation and some of its affiliates in New York, Kansas, Arizona and Vermont.

Here’s a rundown of reaction to the inflammatory group chat, in which the operatives and officials involved openly worried that their comments might be leaked, even as they continued their conversation:

Vance

After Politico’s initial report Tuesday, Vance posted on X a screen grab from 2022 text messages in which Jay Jones, the Democratic candidate in Virginia’s attorney general race, suggested that a prominent Republican get “two bullets to the head.”

“This is far worse than anything said in a college group chat, and the guy who said it could become the AG of Virginia,” Vance wrote Tuesday. “I refuse to join the pearl clutching when powerful people call for political violence.”

Jones has taken “full responsibility” for his comments and offered a public apology to Todd Gilbert, who then was speaker of Virginia’s House of Delegates.

Vance reiterated his initial sentiment Wednesday on “ The Charlie Kirk Show ” podcast, saying when asked about the reporting that a “person seriously wishing for political violence and political assassination is 1,000 times worse than what a bunch of young people, a bunch of kids say in a group chat, however offensive it might be.”

Vance, 41, said he grew up in a different era where “most of what I, the stupid things that I did as a teenager and as a young adult, they’re not on the internet.”

The father of three said he would caution his own children, “especially my boys, don’t put things on the internet, like, be careful with what you post. If you put something in a group chat, assume that some scumbag is going to leak it in an effort to try to cause you harm or cause your family harm.”

“I really don’t want to us to grow up in a country where a kid telling a stupid joke, telling a very offensive, stupid joke is cause to ruin their lives,” Vance said.

Republicans

Other Republicans demanded more immediate intervention. Republican legislative leaders in Vermont, along with Gov. Phil Scott — also a Republican — called for the resignation of state Sen. Sam Douglass, revealed to be a participant in the chat. A joint statement from the GOP lawmakers termed the comments “unacceptable and deeply disturbing.”

Saying she was “absolutely appalled to learn about the alleged comments made by leaders of the New York State Young Republicans,” Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York called for those involved to step down from their positions. Danedri Herbert, chair of the Kansas GOP, said the remarks “do not reflect the beliefs of Republicans and certainly not of Kansas Republicans at large.”

In a statement posted to X on Tuesday, the Young Republican National Federation said it was “appalled” by the reported messages and calling for those involved to resign from their positions within the organization. Young Republican leaders said the behavior was “disgraceful, unbecoming of any Republican, and stands in direct opposition to the values our movement represents.”

Democrats

Democrats have been more uniform in their condemnation. On Wednesday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote to House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer asking for an investigation into the “vile and offensive text messages,” which he called “the definition of conduct that can create a hostile and discriminatory environment that violates civil rights laws.”

Speaking on the Senate floor, Senate Democratic leader Charles E. Schumer of New York on Tuesday described the chat as “revolting,” calling for Republicans including President Trump and Vance to “condemn these comments swiftly and unequivocally.”

Asked about the reporting, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul called the exchanges “vile” and called for consequences for those involved.

“Kick them out of the party. Take away their official roles. Stop using them as campaign advisers,” Hochul said. “There needs to be consequences. This bulls—- has to stop.”

Kinnard writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.

Tom Barrack’s remarks to journalists trigger calls for an apology and media boycott.

A top US diplomat has triggered outrage and calls for an apology in Lebanon after telling a group of local journalists to “act civilised”.

Tom Barrack, the United States ambassador to Turkiye and the special envoy for Syria, made the comments on Tuesday after meeting Lebanese President Joseph Aoun in Beirut to discuss plans for the disarmament of Hezbollah.

Briefing local media after the meeting, Barrack, who is of Lebanese descent, chided reporters for shouting out questions all at once, and appeared to draw a link between their behaviour and conflict in the Middle East.

“We’re going to have a different set of rules… please be quiet for a moment,” Barrack said.

“And I want to tell you something, the moment this starts becoming chaotic, like animalistic, we’re gone. So, you want to know what’s happening? Act civilised, act kind, act tolerant, because this is the problem with what is happening in the region.”

“In cadence with your kindness, your interest and your thoughtful questions, we’ll give you responses,” Barrack added. “If that’s not how you’d like to operate, we’re gone.”

Barrack’s remarks prompted a swift backlash in Lebanon and farther afield, with commentators accusing the diplomat of displaying arrogance and a colonial mentality.

The Lebanese Presidency expressed regret over the comments, saying in a statement on X that the government has “full appreciation for all journalists” and “extends to them its highest regards for their efforts and dedication in fulfilling their professional and national duties”.

The Union of Journalists in Lebanon called on Lebanese and Arab media outlets to boycott future events involving the envoy until he issues a formal public apology.

“The union considers Barrack’s comments against journalists not as a mere slip of the tongue or an individual stance, but rather as a reflection of an unacceptable superiority in dealing with the media and an implicit disdain for the essence of journalistic work,” the media union said in a statement.

“Furthermore, the content of his remarks reflects ingrained colonial arrogance towards the peoples of the region and constitutes a blatant violation of basic diplomatic etiquette and the values that diplomacy should represent – chief among them respect for press freedom and the people’s right to knowledge.”

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Mohamad Hasan Sweidan, a Beirut-based columnist at The Cradle, said Barrack’s comments reflected Washington’s attitude towards the region.

“Today, Tom Barrack is reminding us how they view people of the region by defining their actions as animalistic,” Sweidan said.

The US Department of State did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

New Delhi, India – The Indian government tabled a new bill earlier this week in parliament under which a prime minister, state chief minister or other federal or state minister can be removed from office if they are facing criminal investigations – even before they are convicted.

The draft law proposed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) mandates the automatic removal of elected officials if they are detained for 30 consecutive days on charges carrying a minimum sentence of five years.

Even as Amit Shah, India’s home minister who is widely seen as Modi’s deputy, presented the bill in parliament, members of the opposition ripped apart legislative papers and hurled them at Shah, before the house was suspended amid chaos.

The opposition, strengthened in the 2024 national election in which the BJP lost its majority and was forced to turn to smaller allies to stay in power, has slammed the bill as an example of “undemocratic” weaponising of laws against dissent.

Meanwhile, the Indian government says the proposed law will rein in corrupt and criminal public representatives.

So, is the proposed law authoritarian or democratic? What’s behind the opposition’s allegations against the Modi government? Or, as some experts argue, is it all a trap?

What’s the bill proposing?

The Modi government tabled the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, in parliament on Wednesday.

As per the amendment, an elected leader would automatically lose their post if they are arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days on charges carrying a minimum sentence of five years.

The bill also includes a provision for reappointment, allowing leaders to return to their posts if they secure bail or are acquitted.

The government argues that the measure is a step towards reinforcing accountability and public trust, arguing that those facing serious criminal charges should not continue in constitutional office.

The amendment has been referred to a joint parliamentary committee – a panel consisting of legislators from both the government and opposition parties – for its deliberations, following opposition protests.

What’s the opposition saying?

Opposition leaders have alleged that the proposed amendment could be misused by the Modi government against critics and political rivals.

That risk, they say, is especially high since law enforcement agencies that come under the federal government only need to arrest and press serious charges against opposition members, and keep them in custody for 30 days – without worrying about actually proving those charges in a court of law.

Manish Tewari, MP from the opposition Congress party, said that “the bill is against the principle of presumption of innocence” until proven guilty.

Asaduddin Owaisi, another opposition MP from Hyderabad city in southern India, said this law would be used to topple adversarial state governments.

Critics have also pointed to how, under India’s constitution, state governments have the primary responsibility for maintaining law and order. The proposed law, they say, upends that principle.

Applying this law to state leaders undermines India’s federal structure, he said, noting that this weakens the people’s right to choose governments.

“The bill would change the federal contract in fundamental ways, including balance of power between centre and states, giving the centre enormous leverage to sabotage elected governments – and, of course, to the space for oppositional politics,” said Asim Ali, a political observer based in New Delhi.

Are the opposition’s allegations founded?

Since 2014, when Modi came to power in New Delhi, the opposition has alleged that the government has increasingly used agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED), tasked with fighting financial crimes, and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the country’s premier investigative body, to target rival politicians.

In March 2023, opposition parties petitioned in India’s top court against “a clear pattern of using investigative agencies … to target, debilitate and in fact crush the entire political opposition and other vocal citizens”.

The petition noted that since 2014, 95 percent of cases taken up by the CBI and the ED have been against politicians from the opposition. That’s a 60 percentage point and 54 percentage point rise, respectively, from the days of the previous Congress-led government.

In parliament, 46 percent of current members face criminal cases, with 31 percent of them charged with serious crimes like murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping and crimes against women.

In the run-up to the 2024 general election, investigative agencies had arrested multiple opposition leaders, including Delhi’s Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his deputy, Manish Sisodia. The ED also arrested Hemant Soren, just hours after he resigned as the chief minister of the eastern state of Jharkhand, on accusations of corruption.

In the last 12 years of BJP rule in India, at least 12 sitting opposition ministers have been detained and jailed for more than 30 days  – nine of them from Delhi and the eastern state of West Bengal.

Is this a distraction?

Some political observers and the Modi government’s critics say yes.

A constitutional amendment in India requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of the parliament, which the BJP and its allies lack.

Modi’s government currently survives with the support of the BJP’s alliance partners, after it fell short of a majority in the 2024 national election.

In recent weeks, the Modi government has faced mounting opposition criticism over a controversial revision of electoral rolls ahead of a crucial state election, allegations of vote theft, and heat over foreign policy challenges as India battles 50 percent tariffs from the United States under President Donald Trump.

It is against that backdrop that the bill – which Ali, the political observer, described as “authoritarian” yet “symbolic” in nature – is significant, say experts.

“Even if the bill does not become a law, it will anyway force a showdown to make opposition parties vote against the bill,” Ali said, “so that they can use that as ammunition against them in [election] campaigning.”

Since floating the bill, Modi, his government and the BJP have been accusing critics of being sympathetic to criminals in politics.

On Friday, speaking at a rally in election-bound Bihar state, Modi referred to Kejriwal’s refusal for months after his arrest on money laundering charges to quit from the Delhi chief minister’s post.

“Some time ago, we saw how files were being signed from jail and how government orders were given from jail. If leaders have such an attitude, how can we fight corruption?” Modi said.

Rasheed Kidwai, a political analyst, said that while the bill is draconian and could be misused, Modi’s party, for now, thinks it can help them consolidate urban, middle-class votes for the upcoming election in Bihar.

“The opposition is in a bind because public opinion is against corruption,” he said. “It’s a double-edged sword.”

Shoppers were left stunned when the holidaymaker decided to mount the life-sized model bovine outside a popular Ale-Hop store in Playa Fañabé, Costa Adeje, causing consternation among locals

Anglo-Iberian relations have taken another dent after a British man rode a well-known cow in Tenerife.

Shoppers were left stunned when the holidaymaker decided to mount the life-sized model bovine outside a popular Ale-Hop store in Playa Fañabé, Costa Adeje.

With the help of one of his two friends, the man was spotted climbing onto the plastic cow’s back before bellowing, “Yeehaw!” Within seconds, alarmed employees of a nearby shop ran over to remove the man from the cow. They then had to ensure that the tourists didn’t steal the cow. It comes after ‘the King of Benidorm’ warned that Brits make the same mistake when the visit the city.

The shop employees calmed the man, who had declared himself a “real cowboy”, according to Canarian Weekly. He gave up on his attempts to remove the cow after giving it one big tug on its horns.

READ MORE: Beloved UK holiday park with beautiful location closes for good after 47 yearsREAD MORE: Flight attendants quietly hate when passengers make common mistake

The incident has caused ire among locals, who have been left unimpressed by the daytime antics.

“It’s called disrespect, but well, that’s already normalized, like so many things,” one wrote beneath a post online including the video. Another wrote: “That’s the kind of tourism they send to the Canary Islands. It’s like this everywhere, and then the British press is surprised by the protests that take place.”

The incident is not the first cow-related shock to cause alarm on the Canary island. Back in 2019, tourists visiting Tenerife were left baffled by the sight of dead cows floating in the sea and being washed up onto the beaches.

The animals were spotted in areas popular for Brits over a seven-day period. One cow was washed up on the tourist beach of Playa de La Jaquita near the coastal resort of El Médano. Council workers were called to dispose of the carcass.

The cow corpses came from freighters loaded with live cattle, which travelled from South America. Such boats are forbidden from mooring at some ports in Europe, including Las Palmas in Gran Canaria. If and when cows die during the crossing, they are tossed overboard.

When it comes to alcohol-related incidents that have caused strife between Spaniards and Brits, there are plenty. Late-night brawls that have spilled onto the streets of Playa de las Américas have been a regular occurrence, as have visitors leaping into hotel pools fully clothed.

A group of holidaymakers were fined for climbing onto a parked police car for photos back in 2023, around the same time that a stag party blocked traffic by staging an impromptu conga line over a busy roundabout in Costa Adeje.

US envoy Steve Witkoff met with Israeli families, as outrage grew over a new video of an emaciated captive held by Hamas. Relatives demanded Netanyahu’s government agree to a ceasefire, which would also bring relief to starving Palestinians in Gaza.

US president opens door to releasing more information on accused sex trafficker as supporters rebel.

United States President Donald Trump has expressed support for the release of “credible” files on accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein amid outrage among his supporters over his administration’s handling of the case.

Trump said on Tuesday that US Attorney General Pam Bondi should disclose “whatever she thinks is credible” about the government’s investigations into Epstein as he sought to quash a growing backlash on the political right.

“She’s handled it very well, and it’s going to be up to her,” Trump, who last week encouraged supporters to move on from the case, told reporters at the White House in Washington, DC.

“Whatever she thinks is credible, she should release.”

Trump also claimed the so-called Epstein films were “made up” by former US Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden and former FBI director James Comey, despite his administration’s role in publicising their existence.

Trump later on Tuesday repeated his support for the release of “credible” information, even as he expressed disbelief over the continuing fascination with the “sordid” but “boring” case.

“Credible information – let them give it,” he said. “I would say anything that’s credible, let them have it.”

Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement has been up in arms since the release of a law enforcement memo last week that concluded that Epstein died by suicide and there was no credible evidence that he possessed a “client list” or blackmailed powerful figures.

Epstein, who died in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019 while facing sex trafficking charges, has for years been the source of lurid theories and speculation, including that he was murdered and used sexual blackmail to compromise powerful figures on behalf of intelligence agencies.

Theorising about Epstein has been particularly frenzied in MAGA circles, which campaigned for Trump’s re-election in the belief he would expose the full extent of the late financier’s crimes and those of his elite connections.

Since the release of the joint US Department of Justice and FBI memo contradicting the most popular theories about Epstein, prominent MAGA followers have accused the Trump administration of breaking its promises and joining a cover-up aimed at protecting Epstein’s associates, possibly including the president himself.

“I want to make this very clear to those on the right, including the president himself, who are telling us to just drop the subject and move on,” conservative commentator Matt Walsh said on his podcast.

“We can’t drop it. We can’t move on.”

Mike Johnson, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, on Tuesday became the most powerful Trump ally yet to add to his voice to calls for greater transparency.

“We should put everything out there and let the people decide,” Johnson said in an interview with conservative commentator Benny Johnson, adding that Bondi needed to “come forward and explain it to everybody”.

As Netanyahu courts Trump with peace prizes and platitudes, divisions over Israel in the MAGA media space are deepening.

Contributors:
Laura Albast – Fellow, Institute for Palestine Studies
Mitchell Plitnick – Author, Except for Palestine
Mouin Rabbani – Co-editor, Jadaliyya
Jude Russo – Managing editor, The American Conservative

On our radar:

Since the US-Israeli GHF took over the distribution of aid, more than 800 Palestinians have been killed while attempting to collect it. New reporting uncovers the foundation’s links to plans for Gaza’s ethnic cleansing. Meenakshi Ravi reports.

Georgia under fire: The crackdown on protests and the press

Mass protests, a tightening grip on media and a creeping authoritarianism; eight months on, the struggle over Georgia’s democracy is intensifying.

Elettra Scrivo reports from Tbilisi on the mounting crackdown on journalists and independent voices.

Featuring:
Irakli Rukhadze – Owner, Imedi TV
Nestan Tsetkhladze – Editor, Netgazeti
Nino Zautashvili – Former host, Real Space

Bridgette Covelli arrived near Los Angeles City Hall for last Saturday’s “No Kings” festivities to find what she described as a peaceful scene: people chanting, dancing, holding signs. No one was arguing with the police, as far as she could tell.

Enforcement of the city’s curfew wouldn’t begin for hours. But seemingly out of nowhere, Covelli said, officers began to fire rubber bullets and launch smoke bombs into the crowd, which had gathered to protest the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement campaign.

“No dispersal order. Nothing at all,” she said. “We were doing everything right. There was no aggression toward them.”

Covelli, 23, grabbed an electric bike and turned up 3rd Street, where another line of police blocked parts of the roadway. She felt a shock of pain in her arm as she fell from the bike and crashed to the sidewalk.

In a daze, she realized she was bleeding after being struck by a hard-foam projectile shot by an unidentified LAPD officer.

The young tattoo artist was hospitalized with injuries that included a fractured forearm, which has left her unable to work.

“I haven’t been able to draw. I can’t even brush my teeth correctly,” she said.

Bridgette Covelli says she was shot with a less-lethal round by law enforcement last week during the ‘No Kings Day’ protest in downtown Los Angeles, which resulted in a fractured arm that has put her out of work as a tattoo artist.

(Luke Johnson / Los Angeles Times)

She is among the demonstrators and journalists hurt this month after being targeted by LAPD officers with foam projectiles, tear gas, flash-bang grenades and paintball-like weapons that waft pepper spray into the air.

Despite years of costly lawsuits, oversight measures and promises by leaders to rein in indiscriminate use of force during protests, the LAPD once again faces sharp criticism and litigation over tactics used during the past two weeks.

In a news conference at police headquarters last week, LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell promised “a comprehensive review when this is all done,” while also defending officers he said were dealing with “a very chaotic, dynamic situation.”

Police officials said force was used only after a group of agitators began pelting officers with bottles, fireworks and other objects. At least a dozen police injuries occurred during confrontations, including one instance in which a protester drove a motorcycle into a line of officers. L.A. County prosecutors have charged several defendants with assault for attacks on law enforcement.

Behind the scenes, according to communications reviewed by The Times and multiple sources who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, tensions sometimes ran high between LAPD commanders and City Hall officials, who pushed for restraint in the early hours of the protests downtown.

Bridgette Covelli holds a 40mm foam round like the type fired by Los Angeles police during a protest she and thousands of others attended last weekend in opposition to the Trump administration’s policies.

(Luke Johnson / Los Angeles Times)

On June 6 — the Friday that the demonstrations began — communication records show Mayor Karen Bass made calls to LAPD Capt. Raul Jovel, the incident commander, and to McDonnell. In the days that followed, sources said Bass or members of her senior staff were a constant presence at a command post in Elysian Park, from where local and federal officials were monitoring the on-the-ground developments.

Some LAPD officials have privately grumbled about not being allowed to make arrests sooner, before protesters poured into downtown. Although mostly peaceful, a handful of those who flooded the streets vandalized shops, vehicles and other property. LAPD leaders have also pointed out improvements from past years, including restrictions on the use of bean-bag shotguns for crowd control and efforts to more quickly release people who were arrested.

But among longtime LAPD observers, the latest protest response is widely seen as another step backward. After paying out millions over the last decade for protest-related lawsuits, the city now stares down another series of expensive court battles.

“City leaders like Mayor Bass [are] conveniently saying, ‘Oh this is Trump’s fault, this is the Feds’ fault.’ No, take a look at your own force,” said longtime civil rights attorney James DeSimone, who filed several excessive force government claims against the city and the county in recent days.

A spokesperson for Bass didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

McDonnell — a member of the LAPD command staff during an aggressive police crackdown on immigrant rights demonstrators on May Day in 2007 — found himself on the defensive during an appearance before the City Council last week, when he faced questions about readiness and whether more could have been done to prevent property damage.

“We’ll look and see, are there training issues, are there tactics [issues], are there less-lethal issues that need to be addressed,” McDonnell told reporters a few days later.

One of the most potentially embarrassing incidents occurred during the “No Kings” rally Saturday, when LAPD officers could be heard on a public radio channel saying they were taking friendly fire from L.A. County sheriff’s deputies shooting less-lethal rounds.

Three LAPD sources not authorized to speak publicly confirmed the incident occurred. A spokesperson for the Sheriff’s Department said in a statement that the agency “has not received reports of any ‘friendly fire’ incidents.”

Motorists encountered mounted LAPD officers as curfew enforcement began near Temple Street on June 10.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Some protesters allege LAPD officers deliberately targeted individuals who posed no threat.

Shakeer Rahman, a civil rights attorney and community organizer with the Stop LAPD Spying Coalition, said he was monitoring a demonstration snaking past LAPD headquarters on June 8 when he witnessed two colleagues who were demanding to know an officer’s badge number get shot with a 40mm less-lethal launcher at close range.

In a recording he shared of the incident, Rahman can be heard confronting the officer, who threatens to fire as he paces back and forth on an elevated platform.

“I’m gonna pop you right now, because you’re taking away my focus,” the officer is heard saying before raising his weapon over the glass partition that separated them and firing two foam rounds at Rahman, nearly striking him in his groin.

“It’s an officer who doesn’t want to be questioned and knows he can get away with firing these shots,” said Rahman, who noted a 2021 court injunction bans the use of 40mm launchers in most crowd-control situations.

Later on June 8, as clashes between officers and protesters intensified in other parts of downtown, department leaders authorized the use of tear gas against a crowd — a common practice among other agencies, but one that the LAPD hasn’t used in decades.

“There was a need under these circumstances to deploy it when officers started taking being assaulted by commercial fireworks, some of those with shrapnel in them,” McDonnell said to The Times. “It’s a different day, and we use the tools we are able to access.”

City and state leaders arguing against Trump’s deployment of soldiers to L.A. have made the case that the LAPD is better positioned to handle demonstrations than federal forces. They say local cops train regularly on tactics beneficial to crowd control, including de-escalation, and know the downtown terrain where most demonstrations occur.

Police prepare to fire less-lethal projectiles at protesters after an unlawful assembly was declared from the “No Kings” protest on Temple Street in downtown Los Angeles on June 14.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

But numerous protesters who spoke with The Times said they felt the LAPD officers were quicker to use violence than they have been at any point in recent years.

Raphael Mamoun, 36, followed the June 8 march from City Hall to the federal Metropolitan Detention Center on Alameda Street. Mamoun, who works in digital security, said his group eventually merged with other demonstrators and wound up bottlenecked by LAPD near the intersection of Temple and Alameda, where a stalemate with LAPD officers ensued.

After roughly an hour, he said, chaos erupted without warning.

“I don’t know if they made any announcement, any dispersal order, but basically you had like a line of mounted police coming behind the line of cops that were on foot and then they just started charging, moving forward super fast, pushing people, screaming at people, shooting rubber bullets,” he said.

Mamoun’s complaints echoed those of other demonstrators and observations of Times reporters at multiple protest scenes throughout the week. LAPD dispersal orders were sometimes only audible when delivered from an overhead helicopter. Toward the end of Saturday’s hours-long “No Kings” protests, many demonstrators contended officers used force against crowds that had been relatively peaceful all day.

The LAPD’s use of horses has also raised widespread concern, with some protesters saying the department’s mounted unit caused injuries and confusion rather than bringing anything resembling order.

One video captured on June 8 by independent journalist Tina-Desiree Berg shows a line of officers on horseback advance into a crowd while other officers fire less-lethal rounds at protesters shielding themselves with chairs and road signs. A protester can be seen falling to the ground, seemingly injured. The mounted units continue marching forward even as the person desperately tries to roll out of the way. Several horses trample over the person’s prone body before officers arrest them.

At other scenes, mounted officers were weaving through traffic and running up alongside vehicles that were not involved with the demonstrations. In one incident on June 10, a Times reporter saw a mounted officer smashing the roof of a car repeatedly with a wooden stick.

“It just seems like they are doing whatever the hell they want to get protesters, and injure protesters,” Mamoun said.

Protesters were pushed back by LAPD officers on Broadway during the “No Kings Day” protest downtown.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

Audrey Knox, 32, a screenwriter and teacher, was also marching with the City Hall group on June 8. She stopped to watch a tense skirmish near the Grand Park Metro stop when officers began firing projectiles into the crowd.

Some protesters said officers fired less-lethal rounds into groups of people in response to being hit with flying objects. Although she said she was well off to the side, she was still struck in the head by one of the hard-foam rounds.

Other demonstrators helped her get to a hospital, where Knox said she received five staples to close her head wound. In a follow-up later in the week, a doctor said she had post-concussion symptoms. The incident has made her hesitant to demonstrate again, despite her utter disgust for the Trump administration’s actions in Los Angeles.

“It just doesn’t seem smart to go back out because even when you think you’re in a low-risk situation, that apparently is not the case,” she said. “I feel like my freedom of speech was directly attacked, intentionally.”

Times staff writers Julia Wick, Connor Sheets and Richard Winton contributed to this report.

The Skye Bridge is a road bridge over Loch Alsh, which connects mainland Scotland to the Isle of Skye. The bridge was the scene of controversy over the fees charged to use it

The UK is home to some of the world’s most impressive bridges, with iconic structures such as Scotland’s Queensferry Crossing, and the Humber and Tyne bridges. With a total of 3,680 bridges, they provide vital links between regions and cities across the country. Scotland alone boasts 577 bridges, one of which sparked public outrage due to the toll fees charged for its use.

This bridge quickly earned the title of the world’s most expensive, until the charges were eventually abolished. The Skye Bridge, which opened to the public on October 16, 1995, connects the island to the mainland, reports the Express.

READ MORE: Simple airport duty free trick to bag cheaper beauty and alcohol before arriving

Construction began in 1992, led by Scottish company Miller, but the design was the work of German engineering firm DYWIDAG Systems International, in partnership with civil engineering company Arup.

The main structure is a concrete arch, supported by two piers, linking Skye to the small island of Eilean Bàn, with the remainder of the bridge extending level to the mainland.

Spanning a total distance of 1.5 miles, the main arch stands approximately 35m high, allowing a clearance of 30m for boats at high tide. The bridge offered a faster and more efficient route for locals to reach the mainland.

Before its construction, which cost an estimated £28 million, residents faced lengthy queues during the summer months for the ferry from Kyle of Lochalsh to Kyleakin on the Isle of Skye.

The decision to impose a toll for crossing the Skye Bridge, which escalated from a mere 40p to an eye-watering £11.40, sparked outrage among the public, earning it the title of Europe’s priciest bridge.

Locals often quipped: “The Skye Bridge – the only place in the world where you get mugged AND get a receipt!” Skye and Lochalsh residents didn’t take long to rally together, forming the protest group Skye Bridge Against Tolls or SKAT.

After relentless campaigning, the authorities finally caved to the pressure, scrapping the tolls on 21 December 2004.

Protesters alleged that the firm running the bridge had raked in over £33 million from tolls, dwarfing the bridge’s operational costs pegged at £3.5 million.

Hollywood star Julia Roberts was in attendance at Old Trafford for Soccer Aid 2025, which sees an England team take on Soccer Aid World XI FC in a charity football match

Dermot O’Leary delivered a “profuse apology” to ITV audiences after Tyson Fury, the heavyweight champion, let slip some colourful language during a pre-match pep talk live on air for England’s Soccer Aid 2025 team.

The star-studded charity event at Old Trafford also saw silver screen icon Julia Roberts mingling with football legend Wayne Rooney during the annual fundraiser that pits an England squad against Soccer Aid World XI FC, all in support of Unicef.

In the throes of motivation, Fury, who took on the role of manager for the England team, couldn’t contain his passion in the dressing room speech as he dropped the seven-letter swear. He said live on ITV:

“Let them know how good we are. We are England. We are f****** Spartans. We are Spartans.”

Following the raw moment, presenters Alex Scott and Dermot O’Leary swiftly offered their apologies to viewers, with Scott commenting:

“What can I say about Tyson Fury? We do apologise for the swearing, but it is Tyson Fury, we don’t know what’s going to happen.”

READ MORE: Soccer Aid’s Sam Thompson speechless as he’s given shocking news live on airREAD MORE: Hollywood star Julia Roberts makes unlikely cameo at Soccer Aid as hosts speechless

Adding to Scott’s sentiment, O’Leary stated: “We do profusely apologise.”

However, some viewers remained angry that Fury had used the language in the first place, with some even demanding that he should not appear on our screen again. Taking their outrage over the pre-watershed moment to X, one user said: “Why bother getting Tyson Fury on #SoccerAid2025? Of course he’s going to swear constantly on TV.”

Noting that lots of people were getting angry about his use of the F-word, @brikka49 took the mick, saying: “Hi ITV… it’s totally disgusting that uneducated idiot Tyson Fury was allowed to swear at 18:25 in the evening on the lord’s day.

“He should never appear on TV again!”

And some were just outraged that other people were outraged. @96_mikeys said: “God forbid Tyson Fury swearing on Soccer Aid, and people moaning and groaning already! Because at no point in your sad little cretin lives have you ever heard someone swear before.

“Grow up”

Adding a Hollywood shine to Old Trafford was ‘Pretty Woman’ actress Roberts, a self-proclaimed Manchester United enthusiast, captured taking pictures and sharing a smile with Rooney, who not long after dazzled the crowd by netting England’s opening goal.

Other notable names wearing the England kit included ex-One Direction star Louis Tomlinson and celebrated Olympic champion Sir Mo Farah.

This year’s England team also welcomed Last of Us star Bella Ramsey, comedian Paddy McGuinness, ex-Manchester United player Gary Neville and singer Tom Grennan.

Last year saw England triumph with a 6-3 victory, marking the Three Lions’ first win in six years.

Soccer Aid was jointly established in 2006 by Robbie Williams to fundraise for children’s aid organisation Unicef. Since its inception nearly two decades ago, the charity match has raised over £106 million.

The young victims, two of whom remain under the rubble, range in age from seven months to 12 years old.

An Israeli strike has killed nearly the entire family of a Khan Younis doctor while she was at work, Gaza health officials said.

The attack hit the home of Alaa al-Najjar, a paediatrician at the southern city’s Nasser Hospital, on Friday, setting it ablaze and killing nine of her 10 children, according to the head of the hospital’s paediatrics department, Ahmad al-Farra.

Al-Najjar’s husband is severely wounded, and the couple’s only surviving child, 11-year-old Adam, is in critical condition, Gaza’s Government Media Office said in a statement.

The dead children, two of whom remain under the rubble, range in age from seven months to 12 years old, the media office added.

The attack “encapsulates the ongoing genocide faced by the Palestinian people in Gaza,” said the office. “It is a full-fledged war crime under all international laws and conventions.”

‘New phase of genocide’

The UN’s special rapporteur for the Palestinian territory, Francesca Albanese, slammed the attack as part of a “sadistic pattern” of a “new phase of genocide” facing Palestinians in the besieged enclave.

Two doctors go to work to assist others.Nine of their kids are killed by an Israeli missile targeting their home. Only surviving child, in critical conditions.

Targeting families in the still-standing buildings: distinguishable sadistic pattern of the new phase of the genocide. https://t.co/6tlylARKK5

— Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur oPt (@FranceskAlbs) May 24, 2025

Hamas said it followed a routine of Israel “deliberately targeting … medical personnel, civilians and their families in an attempt to break their will”.

The Israeli military said it had struck suspected fighters operating from a structure next to its forces in an area where civilians had been evacuated. “The claim regarding harm to uninvolved civilians is under review,” the military added.

On Monday, Israel issued forced evacuation orders for Khan Younis, Gaza’s second-largest city, warning of an “unprecedented attack”. There has been heavy, deadly bombardment in the area daily.

The al-Najjar children were among dozens killed in Israel’s attacks on Friday and Saturday.

According to Gaza’s Health Ministry, the bodies of 79 people killed in Israeli attacks were brought to hospitals between Friday and midday Saturday. That count does not include facilities in the north of the enclave that are inaccessible, it said.

The ministry puts the overall death toll in Gaza since October 2023 at 53,901, with 122,593 injured.