political

The move is in line with a new law, giving hope to throngs of others jailed over alleged plots to oust the government.

Venezuelan authorities have granted amnesty to 379 political prisoners, according to a lawmaker, after a new law was enacted by interim authorities following the United States’ abduction of President Nicolas Maduro.

Venezuela’s National Assembly unanimously adopted the law on Thursday, providing hope that hundreds of political prisoners may soon be released.

National Assembly deputy Jorge Arreaza, the lawmaker overseeing the amnesty process, said in a televised interview on Friday that the 379 prisoners “must be released, granted amnesty, between tonight and tomorrow morning”.

“Requests have been submitted by the Public Prosecutor’s Office to the competent courts to grant amnesty measures,” he said.

Opposition figures have criticised the new legislation, which appears to include carve-outs for some offences previously used by authorities to target Maduro’s political opponents.

It explicitly does not apply to those prosecuted for “promoting” or “facilitating … armed or forceful actions” against Venezuela’s sovereignty by foreign actors.

Interim President Delcy Rodriguez has levelled such accusations against opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, who hopes to return to Venezuela at some point from the US.

The law also excludes members of the security forces convicted of “terrorism”-related activities.

Arreaza said earlier that “the military justice system will handle” relevant cases for members of the armed forces, “and grant benefits where appropriate”.

Hundreds have already been granted conditional release by President Rodriguez’s government since the deadly US raid that seized Maduro.

‘Amnesty is not automatic’

The NGO Foro Penal had said before the announcement that about 650 were detained, a toll that has not been updated since.

Foro Penal director Alfredo Romero said on Friday that receiving “amnesty is not automatic”, but would require a process in the courts, viewed by many as an arm of Maduro’s repression.

Opposition politician Juan Pablo Guanipa, a Machado ally, announced his release from detention shortly after the bill was passed.

Earlier this month, he had been freed from prison but then quickly re-detained and kept under house arrest.

“I am now completely free,” Guanipa wrote on social media. He called for all other political prisoners to be freed and exiles to be allowed to return.

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Venezuelans have been jailed in recent years over plots, real or imagined, to overthrow the government of Maduro – who was taken to New York to stand trial on drug trafficking and other charges.

Rodriguez was formerly Maduro’s vice president and took his place as the South American country’s leader with the consent of US President Donald Trump, if she toed Washington’s line.

The US has taken over control of Venezuela’s oil sales, with Trump promising a share for Washington in the profits.

More than 600 people may be in custody for political reasons, one Venezuelan rights group estimates.

Venezuela’s acting president has signed into law an amnesty bill that could see hundreds of politicians, activists and lawyers released soon, while tacitly acknowledging what the country has denied for years – that it has political detainees in jail.

The law, signed on Thursday, in effect reverses decades of denials in the government’s latest about-face since the United States military’s January 3 attack in the country’s capital, Caracas, and the abduction of President Nicolas Maduro.

Opposition members, activists, human rights defenders, journalists and others who were targeted by the governing party over the past 27 years could benefit from the new law.

But families hoping for the release of relatives say acting President Delcy Rodriguez has failed to deliver on earlier promises to release prisoners. Some of them have been gathered outside detention centres for weeks.

Venezuela-based prisoners’ rights group Foro Penal has tallied 448 releases since January 8 and estimates that more than 600 people are still in custody for political reasons.

The new law provides amnesty for involvement in political protests and “violent actions” which took place during a brief coup in 2002 and during demonstrations or elections in certain months going back to 2004.

It does not detail the exact crimes which would be eligible for amnesty, though a previous draft laid out several, including instigation of illegal activity, resistance to authorities, rebellion and treason.

People convicted of “military rebellion” for involvement in events in 2019 are excluded. The law also does not return assets of those detained, revoke public office bans given for political reasons or cancel sanctions against media outlets.

Opposition divided

“It’s not perfect, but it is undoubtedly a great step forward for the reconciliation of Venezuela,” opposition politician Nora Bracho said during a debate on the bill in the legislature on Thursday.

But the law was criticised by other members of the opposition, including Pedro Urruchurtu, international relations director for opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Corina Machado.

“A true amnesty doesn’t require laws, but rather will, something that is lacking in this discussion,” he said on X on Thursday. “It is not only an invalid and illegitimate law, but also a trap to buy time and revictimize those persecuted.”

Since Madura’s abduction, US President Donald Trump has praised Rodriguez, Maduro’s former deputy, while downplaying the prospect of supporting the opposition.

For her part, Rodriguez has overseen several concessions to the US, including freezing oil shipments to Cuba and supporting a law to open the state-controlled oil industry to foreign companies.

The US has said it will control the proceeds ⁠from Venezuela’s oil sales until a “representative government” is established.

Imagine if a candidate for, say, the California Assembly appeared at a political event and delivered the following remarks:

“No to kosher meat. No to yarmulkes. No to celebrating Easter. No, no, no.”

He, or she, would be roundly — and rightly — criticized for their bigotry and raw prejudice.

Recently, at a candidates forum outside Dallas, Larry Brock expressed the following sentiments as part of a lengthy disquisition on the Muslim faith.

“We should ban the burqa, the hijab, the abaya, the niqab,” said the candidate for state representative, referring to the coverings worn by some Muslim women. “No to halal meat. No to celebrating Ramadan. No, no, no.”

Brock, whose comments were reported by the New York Times, is plainly a bigot. (He’s also a convicted felon, sentenced to two years in prison for invading the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. No to hand-slaughtered lamb. Yes to despoiling our seat of government.)

Brock is no outlier.

For many Texas Republicans running in the March 3 primary, Islamophobia has become a central portion of their election plank, as a longtime political lance — illegal immigration — has grown dull around its edges.

Aaron Reitz, a candidate for attorney general, aired an ad accusing politicians of importing “millions of Muslims into our country.”

“The result?” he says, with a tough-guy glower. “More terrorism, more crime. And they even want their own illegal cities in Texas to impose sharia law.” (More on that in a moment.)

One of his opponents, Republican Rep. Chip Roy — co-founder of the “Sharia-Free America Caucus” — has called for amending the Texas Constitution to protect the state’s tender soil from Islamification by “radical Marxists.”

In the fierce GOP race for U.S. Senate, incumbent John Cornyn — facing a potentially career-ending challenge from state Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton — has aired one TV spot accusing his fellow Republican of being “soft on radical Islam” and another describing radical Islam “as a bloodthirsty ideology.”

Paxton countered by calling Cornyn’s assertions a desperate attack “that can’t erase the fact that he helped radical Islamic Afghans invade Texas,” a reference to a visa program that allowed people who helped U.S. forces — in other words friends and allies — to come to America after being carefully screened.

There hasn’t been such a concentrated, sulfurous political assault on Muslims since the angst-ridden days following the Sept. 11 attacks.

In just the latest instance, Democrats are calling for the censure of Florida Republican Rep. Randy Fine after he wrote Sunday on X: “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.” He’s since doubled down by posting several images of dogs with the words “Don’t tread on me.”

In Texas, the venom starts at the top with Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who’s waltzing toward reelection to an unprecedented fourth term.

In November, Abbott issued an executive order designating the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations — the latter a prominent civil rights group — as terrorist organizations.

Not to be out-demagogued, Bo French, a candidate for Texas Railroad Commission, called on President Trump to round up and deport every Muslim in America. (French, the former Tarrant County GOP chair, gained notoriety last year for posting an online poll asking, “Who is a bigger threat to America?” The choice: Jews or Muslims.)

Much of the Republican hysteria has focused on a proposed real estate development in a corn- and hayfield 40 miles east of Dallas.

The master-planned community of about 1,000 homes, known as EPIC City, was initiated by the East Plano Islamic Center to serve as a Muslim-centered community for the region’s growing number of worshipers. (Of course, anyone could choose to live there, regardless of their religious faith.)

Paxton said he would investigate the proposed development as a “potentially illegal ‘Sharia City.’ ” The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development last week jumped in with its own investigation — a move Abbott hailed — after the Justice Department quietly closed a probe into the project, saying developers agreed to abide by federal fair housing laws. That investigation came at the behest of Cornyn.

The rampant resurgence of anti-Muslim sentiment hardly seems coincidental.

For years, Republicans capitalized on the issues of illegal immigration and lax enforcement along the U.S. -Mexico border. With illegal crossings slowed to a trickle under Trump, “Republicans can’t run on the border issue the way [they] have in the past,” said Jim Henson, director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin.

What’s more, cracking down on immigration no longer brings together Republicans the way it once did.

General support for Trump’s get-tough policies surpasses 80% among Texas Republicans, said Henson, who’s spent nearly two decades sampling public opinion in the state. But support falls dramatically, into roughly the high-40s to mid-50s, when it comes to specifics such as arresting people at church, or seizing them when they make required court appearances.

“Republicans need to find something else that taps into those cultural-identity issues” and unifies and animates the GOP base, said Henson.

In short, the fearmongers need a new scapegoat.

Muslims are about 2% of the adult population in Texas, according to the Pew Research Center’s Religious Landscape Study, completed in 2024. That works out to estimates ranging from 300,000 to 500,000 residents in a state of nearly 32 million residents.

Not a huge number.

But enough for heedless politicians hell-bent on getting themselves elected, even if it means tearing down a whole group of people in the process.

Nithya Raman began her political career by defeating a well-funded incumbent with deep ties to the Democratic Party establishment.

Raman, an urban planner who was running to shake up the status quo, became the first person to oust a sitting councilmember in 17 years, stunning the Los Angeles political establishment with her defeat of David Ryu in 2020.

Now, with her surprise, last-minute entry into the mayor’s race, the 44-year-old Silver Lake resident is hoping to defeat another incumbent, Karen Bass, by expanding on the formula that led to her first upset victory.

“I was an outsider when I first ran, and I think I’ll be an outsider in this race,” Raman said after filing her candidate paperwork on Feb. 7, hours before the deadline.

But after six years at City Hall, Raman is no longer an outsider. She has her own record, which is in many ways intertwined with the mayor’s, particularly on homelessness, an issue the onetime allies have worked closely together to remedy.

As a City Council member, Raman, whose previous campaigns were backed by Democratic Socialists of America Los Angeles, has sometimes walked a political tightrope, exasperating her progressive base on issues like policing. Last week, she said that the LAPD must not shrink further — a substantial evolution from her “defund the police” declaration during her first run for council.

She has also frustrated some on the left by calling for changes to the city’s “mansion tax,” which she backed in 2022 but which she now says is getting in the way of much-needed development.

Raman shook up a mayoral race that was devoid of high-powered challengers after former L.A. schools Supt. Austin Beutner dropped out and L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath and billionaire developer Rick Caruso decided not to run.

“Nithya has shown that she can get votes. She’s going to be competitive,” said Bill Carrick, a longtime Democratic political consultant who worked on campaigns for former Mayors Eric Garcetti, James Hahn and Richard Riordan.

But her late entry will make it more difficult to get endorsements and raise money. With three months before ballots are mailed for the June 2 primary, she will have to work at double speed to build a campaign infrastructure and tap into bases that have helped her win before, from Hollywood supporters to DSA members and pro-housing advocates from the YIMBY — Yes in My Backyard — movement.

She has already missed DSA’s endorsement season. And last week, nine of her 14 City Council colleagues reiterated their endorsements of Bass, including another progressive council member, Hugo Soto-Martínez, who said he was “caught off-guard” by Raman’s “last-minute maneuver.”

Raman, who had also endorsed Bass, will have to combat hard feelings among some L.A. politicos who feel that her entry into the race is a betrayal of a mayor who helped her win reelection in 2024.

Raman has said that her decision to run was driven in part by her frustration with city leaders’ inability to get the basics right, such as fixing streetlights and paving streets.

Since launching her campaign, Raman has also joined a chorus of Angelenos criticizing Bass’ handling of the catastrophic Palisades fire, saying the city must be better prepared for major emergencies.

As the dust settles on her unexpected candidacy, political observers are assessing Raman’s prospects — both her strengths and the obstacles that stand between her and the mayor’s office.

Bass campaign spokesperson Douglas Herman declined to comment. A Raman campaign spokesperson, Jeff Millman, also declined to comment.

Ryu, who lost to Raman in 2020, said Bass should be “nervous” about her newest opponent.

To win, Ryu said, Raman must tap into the strengths that helped propel her to victory in the past, including her prowess with social media.

“She couldn’t speak in front of crowds at the beginning. She was super nervous,” Ryu said. “But oh my God, her social media team, the production value of her videos. It’s a science.”

Raman’s 2020 campaign will be hard to replicate. That year, the council race focused not just on local policy but also on national issues such as #MeToo and the police murder of George Floyd, Ryu said. Big-name politicians weighed in, with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders endorsing Raman and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsing Ryu.

The most important difference, Ryu said, is that Raman can no longer plausibly position herself as an outsider.

“Now there’s a record. It’s easy when you’re the activist fighting the system. But when you’re in there, you realize it’s a zero-sum game,” he said. “Do you want to trim trees and fix potholes or build housing? Sometimes that is the brutal reality.”

In the coming months, Raman will have to reach beyond her district, which stretches from Silver Lake to Reseda, introducing herself and her record to voters across the city. She began a media blitz in her first week as a candidate, doing interviews with NBC4, KNX News and The Times.

Her main goal should be to make it to the November runoff, said Mike Trujillo, a Democratic political consultant.

If no candidate among the roughly 40 running for mayor wins more than 50% of the vote in the June 2 primary, the top two finishers will move to the runoff.

A runoff would allow Raman a fresh start, with each candidate starting a new round of fundraising and pitching themselves to voters in a one-on-one contest.

“If it’s Nithya and Mayor Bass, they would both start at zero,” Trujillo said. “For a challenger, that is a godsend.”

That leaves political watchers doing the math of how the mayor and the councilmember could get to the runoff, and which candidates might block their way.

After Bass and Raman, the three biggest figures in the race are Spencer Pratt, Rae Huang and Adam Miller.

Pratt is a registered Republican whose house burned down in the Palisades fire. He has been sharply critical of the mayor’s handling of the fire and has gained traction with national Republicans, including allies of President Trump.

Of the more than 2 million registered voters in the city of Los Angeles, just under 15% were Republicans as of December 2025.

Mike Murphy, a Republican political consultant, thinks Pratt could get 19% to 21% of the vote, with a ceiling in the mid to high 20s.

“Not liking Karen does not make you a Republican,” Murphy said.

On the other side of the spectrum, community organizer Rae Huang has been running an unabashedly leftist campaign, calling for free buses and the abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Huang has not been endorsed by DSA’s Los Angeles chapter, but she is a member of the organization.

In 2022, leftist Gina Viola won nearly 7% of the vote in the primary.

Trujillo, the Democratic consultant, said the other wild card is Adam Miller, the tech entrepreneur who has waded into the fight against homelessness. Miller could spend a significant amount of his own fortune in the race — as Caruso did against Bass in 2022.

If Pratt and Huang combine to take 25% and Miller can take somewhere in the 20% range, then Raman and Bass would have to worry about not making the runoff.

“Suddenly, you have a three-way jump ball,” Trujillo said.

Despite having more name recognition than some of her opponents, Raman will need to raise significant funds in a short time.

“My hope is that money will flow,” said Dave Rand, a land use attorney active on housing issues who supports Raman.

Rand said that developers and people in the YIMBY movement will support Raman, who has been a strong advocate for building more housing in Los Angeles.

Mott Smith, a developer and Raman supporter, said he believes fellow developers who know Raman will “gladly” contribute to her campaign.

Smith said he is concerned about Angelenos associating Raman with DSA, which could turn off more moderate voters.

“She will win if Los Angeles gets to know the pragmatic, solutions-oriented Nithya, as opposed to the cartoon image that one paints when they hear she is the latest of the DSA candidates to run for office here,” he said.

Reporting from Sacramento — For all of the unprecedented elements of President Trump’s federal budget plans, there’s an item buried in the list of detailed spending cuts that has a familiar, contentious political legacy in California.

Trump has proposed canceling federal government subsidies to states that house prisoners and inmates who are in the U.S. illegally. He’s not the first president to try it, and undoubtedly will get an earful from states like California.

For sheer bravado, the award for defending that subsidy probably goes to former Gov. Pete Wilson. In a letter sent to federal officials in 1995, two days after Christmas, Wilson threatened to drop off one of the state’s undocumented prisoners — in shackles, no less — on the doorstep of a federal jail. (He never actually did it.)

“The intent of federal law is unequivocal,” Wilson wrote about the subsidy program. “The federal government must either reimburse the state at a fair rate for the incarceration of any undocumented inmate which it identifies or… take the burden of incarceration off the state’s hands.”

Wilson had won a second term the year before, with a blistering campaign attacking illegal immigration. His time in office was also marked by persistent state budget problems, and the money mattered. The state never got as much as it wanted, though, and years of squabbles followed over the fate of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, established as part of the sweeping immigration reforms of 1986.

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger did his fair share of complaining about skimpy SCAAP funding. In 2005, he and a bipartisan group of western U.S. governors demanded a boost in the program to a total of $850 million. That didn’t happen.

The past two presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, offered their own proposals to cancel the program. Trump’s budget scores the possible savings at $210 million. His budget blueprint lampoons SCAAP as “poorly targeted,” and describes it as a program “in which two-thirds of the funding primarily reimburses four states” for housing felons who lack legal immigration status.

Want to take a guess which state gets the most? OK, that’s an easy one.

California’s state government received $44.1 million in the 2015 federal budget year, according to Justice Department data. Add to that another $12.8 million that was paid directly to California counties, with the largest local subsidy being the $3 million paid to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

More than one-third of the entire program went to California. No other state’s share was even close. A win on this issue for the president would be particularly bitter for the state, where political animosity toward Trump is widespread.

Political Road Map: There’s a $368 billion reason that California depends on Washington »

In Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget unveiled last month, he assumed $50.6 million in federal help for prison costs related to felons in the U.S. illegally. A budget spokesman for Brown said the governor will ask for help from the state’s congressional delegation in saving the program. Still, it’s safe to say the estimate is now in doubt.

Roll back the clock, though, and take a look at how this political debate has changed. Wilson’s legacy on illegal immigration cast a long shadow as candidate Trump promised to go after “bad hombres” who are illegally in the country. The president’s official plan, by most estimates, would go even further.

When President Obama tried to nix the subsidy, conservatives warned it would endanger public safety. So far, few are making the same case now that it’s coming from Trump — a curious development, given California’s most famous illegal immigration critic once insisted the program was essential.

john.myers@latimes.com

Follow @johnmyers on Twitter, sign up for our daily Essential Politics newsletter and listen to the weekly California Politics Podcast

ALSO:

Los Angeles County sheriff opposes legislation to create a ‘sanctuary state’ in California

Gov. Jerry Brown projects a $1.6 billion deficit by the summer of 2018

Updates on California politics and state government

Tehran, Iran – Iran says it will continue efforts to get out of a blacklist of a prominent global watchdog on money laundering and “terrorism” financing despite “20 years of obstruction” from domestic opponents.

The statement by the Financial Intelligence Unit of Iran’s Ministry of Economic Affairs on Sunday came two days after the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF) renewed its years-long blacklisting of Iran, according to a report by the official IRNA news agency.

The FATF also ramped up measures aimed at isolating Iran from global financial markets with a particular focus on virtual asset service providers (VASPs) and cryptocurrencies.

It recommended member states and financial institutions around the world to:

• Refuse to establish representative offices of Iranian financial institutions and VASPs or consider the noncompliance risks involved.
• Prohibit financial institutions and VASPs from establishing offices in Iran.
• On a risk basis, limit business relationships or financial transactions, including virtual asset transactions, with Iran or people inside the country.
• Prohibit financial institutions and VASPs from establishing new correspondent banking relationships and require them to undertake a risk-based review of existing ties.

Even the flow of funds involving humanitarian assistance, food and health supplies as well as diplomatic operating costs and personal remittances are recommended to be handled “on a risk basis considering the “terrorist” financing or proliferation financing risks emanating from Iran”.

What does the FATF move mean?

Iran has been blacklisted by the FATF for years and is currently on the list in the company of just two other countries: North Korea and Myanmar.

Since October 2019, Iran has had “heightened measures” like supervisory examination and external audit requirements recommended against it and has been subject to “effective countermeasures” since February 2020.

This contributed to making access to international transactions increasingly difficult or impossible for Iranian banks and nationals and made the country more dependent on costlier shadowy third-party intermediaries for transactions.

The new countermeasures emphasise existing frameworks but also specifically cite virtual assets, signalling an increased focus.

The fact that the FATF also urges countries and global institutions to remain wary of risks of having any dealings with Iran may mean even more limited transaction opportunities for Iranian entities and nationals.

Small banks maintaining old correspondent relations with Iranian counterparts may also reconsider after being recommended to re-evaluate existing links.

The isolation has hobbled state-run or private income streams and contributed to the continuous depreciation of the Iranian rial over the years.

Links with Iran’s nuclear dilemmas

The FATF, formerly known by its French name, was established by the Group of Seven (G7) countries in 1989 to combat money laundering but later had its mandate expanded to countering financing of “terrorism” and weapons of mass destruction.

It has been formally raising concerns about Iran since the late 2000s, which is also when it started calling for countermeasures as international tensions grew over Iran’s nuclear programme and the country was sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council.

But a year after Iran signed a landmark 2015 nuclear deal with world powers that lifted the sanctions, the FATF also acknowledged a “high-level political commitment” from Iran and agreed to an action plan for the country to address its compliance requirements.

The centrist government of President Hassan Rouhani, who had clinched the deals, pressed ahead with ratifying several laws needed to fulfil the action plan despite opposition from hardliners who were firmly against the increased financial transparency and international supervision.

But United States President Donald Trump unilaterally reneged on the nuclear deal in 2018, imposing a “maximum pressure” campaign that has remained in effect until today. The move empowered the argument from the hardliners in Tehran, who succeeded in blocking the ratification of the rest of the FATF-linked legislation, leaving the issue dormant for years.

Washington has retained the sanctions over the years with some of the latest – including the blacklisting in January of two United Kingdom-based cryptocurrency exchanges – allegedly connected to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The UN Security Council sanctions were also reinstated against Iran in September when Western powers triggered the “snapback” mechanism of the nuclear accord. They include an arms embargo, asset freezes and travel bans as well as nuclear, missile and banking sanctions that are binding for all UN member states.

Support for ‘axis of resistance’

The Iranian hardliners railing against any progress on FATF-related legislation have presented two main concerns.

They assert that fully adhering to the watchdog’s guidelines would curb Tehran’s ability to back its “axis of resistance” of aligned armed groups in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Palestine. The axis lost its base in Syria with the fall of President Bashar al-Assad in December 2024.

Hardliners have also suggested that Iran’s ability to circumvent US sanctions may be significantly compromised by disclosing all the information required by the FATF.

Iran has been selling most of its oil to China at hefty discounts, using a shadow fleet of ships that turn their transponders off to avoid detection in international waters. The country has also for years been forced to rely on a capillary network of currency exchanges and intermediaries, some of them based in neighbouring countries, such as Türkiye and the United Arab Emirates.

To assuage some of the domestic concerns, two FATF-related laws ratified by Iran in 2025 were passed with special “conditions” and reservations infused in the text.

One of the main conditions was that the ratified regulations must not “prejudice the legitimate right of peoples or groups under colonial domination and/or foreign occupation to fight against aggression and occupation and to exercise their right to self-determination” and “shall not be construed in any manner as recognition of the Zionist occupying regime”, a reference to Israel.

Iran also said it would not accept any referral to the International Court of Justice and asserted that its own Supreme National Security Council would determine which groups qualify as “terrorist” outfits.

Those conditions were rejected by the FATF, leading to the increased countermeasures.

The watchdog also said it expects Iran to identify and freeze “terrorist assets” in line with relevant UN Security Council resolutions. Some of Iran’s nuclear and military authorities are among individuals sanctioned by those resolutions.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi repeatedly sparred with lawmakers on Wednesday as she was pressed over the Justice Department’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation and faced demands for greater transparency in the high-profile case.

Bondi accused Democrats and at least one Republican on the House Judiciary Committee of engaging in “theatrics” as she fielded questions about redaction errors made by the Justice Department when it released millions of files related to the Epstein case last month.

The attorney general at one point acknowledged that mistakes had been made as the Justice Department tried to comply with a federal law that required it to review, redact and publicize millions of files within a 30-day period. Given the tremendous task at hand, she said the “error rate was very low” and that fixes were made when issues were encountered.

Her testimony on the Epstein files, however, was mostly punctuated by dramatic clashes with lawmakers — exchanges that occurred as eight Epstein survivors attended the hearing.

In one instance, Bondi refused to apologize to Epstein victims in the room, saying she would not “get into the gutter” with partisan requests from Democrats.

In another exchange, Bondi declined to say how many perpetrators tied to the Epstein case are being investigated by the Justice Department. And at one point, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said the Trump administration was engaging in a “cover-up,” prompting Bondi to tell him that he was suffering from “Trump derangement syndrome.”

The episodes underscore the extent to which the Epstein saga has roiled members of Congress. It has long been a political cudgel for Democrats, but after millions of files were released last month, offering the most detail yet of Epstein’s crimes, Republicans once unwilling to criticize Trump administration officials are growing more testy, as was put on full display during Wednesday’s hearing.

Among the details uncovered in the files is information that showed Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick had closer ties to Epstein than he had initially led on.

Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) asked Bondi if federal prosecutors have talked to Lutnick about Epstein. Bondi said only that he has “addressed those ties himself.”

Lutnick said at a congressional hearing Tuesday that he visited Epstein’s island, an admission that is at odds with previous statements in which he said he had cut off contact with the disgraced financier after initially meeting him in 2005.

“I did have lunch with him as I was on a boat going across on a family vacation,” Lutnick told a Senate panel about a trip he took to the island in 2012.

As Balint peppered Bondi about senior administration officials’ ties to Epstein, the back and forth between them got increasingly heated as Bondi declined to answer her questions.

“This is not a game, secretary,” Balint told Bondi.

“I’m attorney general,” Bondi responded.

“My apologies,” Balint said. “I couldn’t tell.”

In another testy exchange, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) pressed Bondi on whether the Justice Department has evidence tying Donald Trump to the sex-trafficking crimes of Jeffrey Epstein.

Bondi dismissed the line of questioning as politically motivated and said there was “no evidence” Trump committed a crime.

Lieu then accused her of misleading Congress, citing a witness statement to the FBI alleging that Trump attended Epstein gatherings with underage girls and describing secondhand claims from a limo driver who claimed that Trump sexually assaulted an underage girl who committed suicide shortly after.

He demanded Bondi’s resignation for failing to interview the witness or hold co-conspirators to account. Other Democrats have floated the possibility of impeaching Bondi over the handling of the Epstein files.

Beyond the Epstein files, Democrats raised broad concerns about the Justice Department increasingly investigating and prosecuting the president’s political foes.

Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said Bondi has turned the agency into “Trump’s instrument of revenge.”

“Trump orders up prosecutions like pizza and you deliver every time,” Raskin said.

As an example, Raskin pointed to the Justice Department’s failed attempt to indict six Democratic lawmakers who urged service members to not comply with unlawful orders in a video posted in November.

“You tried to get a grand jury to indict six members of Congress who are veterans of our armed forces on charges of seditious conspiracy, simply for exercising their 1st Amendment rights,” he said.

During the hearing, Democrats criticized the Justice Department’s prosecution of journalist Don Lemon, who was arrested by federal agents last month after he covered an anti-immigration enforcement protest at a Minnesota church.

Bondi defended Lemon’s prosecution, and called him a “blogger.”

“They were gearing for a resistance,” Bondi testified. “They met in a parking lot and they caravanned to a church on a Sunday morning when people were worshipping.”

The protest took place after federal immigration agents fatally shot two U.S. citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, in Minneapolis.

Six federal prosecutors resigned last month after Bondi directed them to investigate Good’s widow. Bondi later stated on Fox News that she “fired them all” for being part of the “resistance.” Lemon then hired one of those prosecutors, former U.S. Atty. Joe Thompson, to represent him in the case.

Bondi also faced questions about a Justice Department memo that directed the FBI to “compile a list of groups or entities engaged in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism” by Jan. 30, and to establish a “cash reward system” that incentivizes individuals to report on their fellow Americans.

Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, (D-Pa.) asked Bondi if the list of groups had been compiled yet.

“I’m not going to answer it yes or no, but I will say, I know that Antifa is part of that,” Bondi said.

Asked by Scanlon if she would share such a list with Congress, Bondi said she “not going to commit anything to you because you won’t let me answer questions.”

Scanlon said she worried that if such a list exists, there is no way for individuals or groups who are included in it to dispute any charge of being a domestic terrorists — and warned Bondi that this was a dangerous move by the federal government.

“Americans have never tolerated political demagogues who use the government to punish people on an enemy’s list,” Scanlon said. “It brought down McCarthy, Nixon and it will bring down this administration as well.”

The head of the powerful Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, blasted Nithya Raman on Wednesday, calling the city council member an “opportunist” for launching a campaign to unseat Mayor Karen Bass after previously signaling her support for Bass.

Federation president Yvonne Wheeler said in a statement that her organization, which represents an estimated 800,000 workers, will “use every tool” in its arsenal to get Bass reelected.

“With Donald Trump’s ongoing war against the people of Los Angeles, our working families and immigrant communities, now is not the time for distractions from a political opportunist — especially one who backed the Mayor’s re-election campaign just weeks ago,” Wheeler said.

Raman, whose district stretches from Silver Lake to Reseda, was announced as one of the mayor’s endorsers on Jan. 27 in a campaign press release listing Bass’ San Fernando Valley supporters. Two days later, she appeared in a second campaign press release as one of Bass’ female endorsers.

Raman launched her own last-minute mayoral bid on Saturday, saying that City Hall is unable to “manage the basics.”

The primary election is June 2, followed by a November runoff if no candidate secures a majority of the vote.

Raman’s campaign team did not immediately respond to Wheeler’s assertions after being contacted by The Times.

In her statement, Wheeler described Bass as a “lifelong progressive” while suggesting that Raman, whose council campaigns were backed by the Democratic Socialists of America and several other progressive groups, falls short on that front.

“You can’t truly be progressive unless you are a true champion of working people,” she said. “Karen Bass is the only candidate in this race who meets that criteria.”

The federation represents about 300 labor organizations in L.A. County, including unions representing teachers, social workers, construction trades and entertainment industry workers. In previous city elections, the group has spent big on its favored candidates, paying for campaign materials, door-to-door canvassers and other expenses.

Raman broke with the labor federation and her colleagues in September, voting against the $2.6-billion expansion of the Los Angeles Convention Center.

Before that vote, labor unions said the upgrade would generate much-needed construction jobs at a time when housing production has been down. Raman and Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky warned the project was too financially risky and would saddle the city with significant budget shortfalls starting in 2031 — after Bass is out of office.

“What I fear is that we’re going to have a beautiful new Convention Center surrounded by far more homelessness than we have today, which will drive away tourists, which will prevent people from coming here and holding their events here,” Raman said at the time.

Bass supported the project, as did a majority of the council.

Raman also drew the ire of some construction union leaders last month by drafting a last-minute proposal to ask voters to change Measure ULA, a tax on property sales of $5.3 million and up. Raman, who described herself as a supporter of Measure ULA, brought her proposal to the council floor one day before the deadline to take action.

Raman, who backed Measure ULA in 2022, said she now believes it has had unintended consequences, putting a major damper on real estate development and inhibiting the production of much-needed housing.

Last Tuesday, Philip Glass withdrew the delayed premiere in June of his latest symphony, No. 15. Originally meant to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in 2022, it is a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, but the composer decided the values of the current Kennedy Center were “in direct conflict to the message of the symphony,” which is inspired by Lincoln’s 1838 Lyceum Address.

In rebuke to Glass, Kennedy Center spokesperson Roma Daravi’s quick response was: “We have no place for politics in the arts.”

Two nights later, the chairman of the Kennedy Center board (who also happens to be president of the United States) hosted at the “no place for politics” center a bevy of Republican politicians and donors for the gala premiere of “Melania,” a documentary about and produced by his wife, the first lady.

Three days after that, the president, with no warning to Congress (which administers the Kennedy Center), center staff or the public, announced on his social media platform that he would close the facility July 4 for two years to undertake a major renovation. This may get the center off the hook for putting together a new season, what with all its departures (voluntary and not) of competent artistic directors, but it also means the center’s one remaining major institution, and its crown jewel, the National Symphony, is suddenly homeless.

The fact is, the Kennedy Center has always been political. The same goes for orchestras. And Lincoln’s seeming role as a symphonic football is nothing new, either.

But political doesn’t — or, at least, once didn’t — necessarily imply partisan. In March 1981, two months into his presidency, Ronald Reagan turned up at the Kennedy Center for the premiere of a new production of Lillian Hellman‘s “The Little Foxes,” and was photographed happily congratulating a smiling Elizabeth Taylor backstage. Also present was the gruff playwright.

Hellman, who had been a member of the Communist Party and was called up in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1952, and Reagan, an avid anti-Communist, couldn’t have had much use for each other politically. But there they were, soaking up art and glamour (if maybe not in that order) together. It was also in 1952 and thanks to Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s Communist witch hunts that the first inklings of a national performing arts center in Washington, D.C. developed.

Aaron Copland’s “Lincoln Portrait,” for speaker and orchestra, written in 1942 in the wake of the Pearl Harbor attack, had been slated for a performance at Dwight D. Eisenhower’s inauguration in 1952. Complaints about Copland’s leftist leanings pressured Eisenhower to cancel the performance, but left inklings in Ike’s mind that the nation needed a performing arts center in Washington, D.C. In 1955, he instituted a District of Columbia Auditorium Commission and that led to the National Cultural Center Act of 1958.

Bipartisan support became a no-brainer. Kennedy was an enthusiast and, in his presidency, both First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy and former First Lady Mamie Eisenhower worked together to support the cultural center. In 1963, just days before his assassination, JFK hosted a White House fundraiser for the center. A year later, President Lyndon B. Johnson broke ground for what was to become “a living memorial to John F. Kennedy” with the gold-plated spade that President Taft had used for the Lincoln Memorial.

President Lyndon B. Johnson lifts a shovel full of dirt during ground-breaking ceremonies for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in 1964 while members of the Kennedy family look on.

(Bettmann Archive / Getty Images)

The Kennedy Center proved political from Day 1. Leonard Bernstein was commissioned to write a theatrical piece for the center’s opening in 1971, which turned out to be an irreverent “Mass” — musically, liturgically, culturally and, most assuredly, politically. Most of all it was an unmistakably protest against the Vietnam War. In his own protest, President Nixon stayed home.

“Mass” was ridiculed by critics and sophisticates. And so was the Kennedy Center in its monstrosity. But the composition ultimately came to be seen as a precursor of musical Postmodernism and possibly Bernstein’s greatest work, a monument in its own right. The Brutalist monumentalism of the Kennedy Center also grew over time to be loved, increasingly bringing cachet to a diverse nation’s artistic needs.

All of that has, however, been called into question by a new administration noisily remaking the center as partisan and politicizing even renovation and Lincoln.

You don’t take on renovation of a single concert hall overnight, let alone an entire performance center with several theaters, including a major concert hall and opera house. This requires architects and acousticians deeply schooled in theaters, and each has its own acoustical needs. You touch anything, and it will affect the sound. Both the opera house and concert hall could use acoustical work, but that is a very big deal. If this sudden renovation comes as a surprise to staff, that means there have been no consultations, no proposals, no models, no feedback. Best to add to the budget some hundreds of millions of dollars to fix mistakes.

Before even considering anything else, a space has to be found for the National Symphony. It is possible to create temporary structures or renovate existing buildings into acoustical wonders, as architect Frank Gehry and acoustician Yasuhisa Toyota have proved. In Munich, the temporary Isarphilharmonie, which has Toyota acoustics, is so successful that some are saying the city doesn’t need a new concert hall after all.

So, given the timing of this precipitous announcement, it is hard to believe that something isn’t also going on with attitudes toward Lincoln and Glass’ displeasure with the Kennedy Center administration. For what it’s worth, Presidents Ford, Carter, George H.W. Bush, Clinton and Obama have all narrated Copland’s “Lincoln Portrait.”

Lincoln has been central to Glass’ work for more than four decades. The composer first used Lincoln in Act V (known as “The Rome Section”) of Robert Wilson’s 12-hour opera, “the CIVIL warS: a tree is best measured when it is down” (a prescient title for current Kennedy Center thinking), which had been intended for the 1984 Olympic Arts Festival in L.A. but was never produced here for lack of funds.

Lincoln shows up in Glass’ 2007 opera, “Appomattox,” commissioned by San Francisco Opera and later revised and expanded for Washington National Opera in 2015. The opera offers a look at how the Civil War ended with high-minded statesmanship. The first act of Glass’ 2013 opera, “The Perfect American,” about the last days of Walt Disney, ends with a flashback of Walt, who idolized Lincoln, visiting Disneyland and getting into an argument about slavery with the animatronic Lincoln, which gets so worked up it attacks Walt.

Politics are rarely far away from orchestral or operatic life. At a recent appearance of the Chicago Symphony at the Soraya, Italian conductor Riccardo Muti followed an impressively grand performance of Brahms’ Fourth Symphony by telling the audience how the arts keep us honest and played as an encore the overture to Verdi’s “Nabucco,” as an example of how an opera could motivate public support for Garibaldi’s nationalist movement. Garibaldi also makes an appearance with Lincoln in the Glass/Wilson “Rome Section.”

A few days later at the Renée and Henry Segerstrom Concert Hall, the thrilling Orquesta Sinfónica de Minería from Mexico City revealed an inspiring model of Latin American cooperation. On the program was Cuban composer Paquito D’Rivera’s “Concerto Venezolano,” featuring the fearless improvising Venezuelan trumpet soloist Pacho Flores. The concerto also featured solos on the Venezuelan cuatro by Héctor Molina, but his name was only announced last minute, due to current travel uncertainty.

One of the greatest recordings of Shostakovich’s Fifth Symphony, his grab-you-by-the-gut answer to Stalin and celebration of Russia, is by the National Symphony under Mstislav Rostropovich, recorded in 1994 at the Kennedy Center. Stalin saw the symphony as his deification. Rostropovich exuded, in the Kennedy Center aura, the expression of an overwhelmingly triumphant celebration of the end of the Soviet repression. You can take the symphony and the opera out of the Kennedy Center, but you can’t take the essence of the Kennedy Center, the living memorial to the ideal of something larger than political ego, out of the symphony and opera.

What’s the difference between Brett Ratner and Leni Riefenstahl? Riefenstahl, for all her many sins, was technically innovative; Ratner (unless you count an almost fetishistic fascination with first lady footwear), not so much.

But in the end, they are both political propagandists, collaborators if you will, with heads of state determined to create a narrative that is, at best, at odds with reality and, at worst, a targeted attempt to distort it.

Am I saying that “Melania” is as horrifically significant as “Triumph of the Will”? No, I am not. But it is motivated by the same base forces, and as fun as it might be to watch Jeff Bezos lose most of the $75 million Amazon paid for the purchase and then marketing of the film, it is important to remember that.

As Melania Trump said herself at the film’s premiere: “Some have called this a documentary. It is not. It is a creative experience that offers perspectives, insights and moments.”

A “creative experience” for which the first lady, who serves as narrator and executive producer, reportedly received about $28 million.

Money she very much does not earn.

Anyone who goes into “Melania” hoping to see even a glimpse of what it is like to be first lady, or indeed Melania Trump, will find instead a super-long version of “we followed [fill in the blank] as they got ready for the Oscars.”

Only in this case, it’s Donald Trump’s second inauguration, which Ratner (given his first big job since being accused by six women of sexual misconduct) frames as the Second Coming, from the lingering shots of the sleek lines of the motorcade to the use of “His truth is marching on” from “Battle Hymn of the Republic” as the first couple takes the stage at one of the inaugural balls.

(And in case you think that’s not obsequious enough, at the end of the inaugural festivities, Ratner, off camera, says, “sweet dreams, Mr. President,” which honestly could have been the title of this film.)

Most of the “action” involves the first lady making entrances: off private jets, out of big black cars and into well-appointed rooms. There, Trump and her designers wax rhapsodic over a gown designed to disguise any seams, admire an inaugural dinner menu that begins with caviar in a big golden egg and discuss the furnishings that will be moved in as soon as the Bidens move out.

These mind-numbing glories are interrupted just long enough for Tham Kannalikham, an interior designer in charge of the White House transition, to talk about how her family immigrated to America from Laos when she was 2 — the opportunity to work in the White House is, for her, the ultimate American dream. Beside her, Trump, also an immigrant, remains silent.

Other things happen. Trump has a video conference with French First Lady Brigitte Macron to discuss initiatives to end cyberbullying, meets with Queen Rania of Jordan to discuss helping foster children and comforts former Hamas hostage Aviva Siegel. Siegel, whose husband, at the time of filming, is still a hostage, provides the film’s one real emotional moment, despite having been clearly included as an opportunity for Trump to reveal a bit of personal kindness (and some political messaging).

We follow Trump as she and her husband attend Jimmy Carter’s funeral, during which her narration describes the pain of her mother’s death the year before, and as she “sneaks” the cameras into a room where her husband is rehearsing his inaugural speech.

There she suggests, with a completely straight face, that he add the word “unifier” to “peacemaker” in his description of what he hopes to be his legacy, a term he then uses in his speech the next day.

Throughout it all, the first lady remains relentlessly poised and personally inaccessible, lending new and literal meaning to the term “statuesque.”

Given the nature of the film’s subject, and the fact that she is the one literally calling the shots, no one with half a brain could expect to see any interesting or authentic “behind-the-scenes” moments (Melania wearing sweats or counting her breakfast almonds or, I don’t know, sneezing). A brief scene in which the remarkably tone-deaf Ratner attempts to get her to sing along to her favorite song, Michael Jackson’s “Billie Jean,” elicits (finally!) a genuine laugh from her, and while his decision to repeatedly zoom in on her admittedly well-shod feet becomes increasingly creepy, it at least offers drinking-game potential.

Even so, “Melania” is as cynical a piece of filmmaking as exists since the art form began.

Listening to her describe the seriousness with which she takes her duties; her love, as an immigrant, for this great nation; and her dedication to making life better for all Americans — especially children and families — I was reminded of the climactic scene in “A Wrinkle in Time,” when young Charles Wallace has been ensnared by the soothing rhetoric of the evil brain-washing IT.

The superficial blandness of “Melania” isn’t boring; it’s calculated, infuriating and horrifying.

The first lady is describing an alternative universe of peace, love and unity while her husband has unleashed armed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to terrorize and detain children and adults (many of whom are citizens or here in this country legally) and, in at least two cases, kill American citizens who protest their actions. She wants to help children and families while her husband slashes federal assistance programs and holds school funding hostage. She would have us believe she is battling cyberbullies while her husband, the president of these United States, regularly engages in lies, direct threats and character assassination on social media.

President Trump is many things but he is not a unifier — he believes, as he has assured us time and again, in winning, and, as he has also said and shown, he will choose retribution over reconciliation every time.

Melania Trump is, of course, not her husband. But this film is little more than a 90-minute campaign ad. Which, given the fact that Trump cannot legally run for president again, should be cause for much concern.

Many criticized the decision to release “Melania” mere days after federal agents killed Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis, and excoriated those notables, including Apple CEO Tim Cook, who chose to attend an early celebratory screening that included “let them eat” cookies with “Melania” scrawled in the icing.

For the kind of person who makes, and buys and distributes, a film that purports to be a “documentary” and is really just old-fashioned, through-the-looking-glass propaganda, however, it’s actually the perfect time.

Why worry about the federal government killing its own citizens when we can all ooh and aah over the fact that the first lady’s inaugural gown is constructed so that none of the seams show? Especially if it makes her husband happy.

After several years of suspension, political parties in Burkina Faso have been formally dissolved by the military government, which has also seized all their assets in a move analysts say is a major blow for democracy in the West African nation.

In a decree issued on Thursday, the government, led by Captain Ibrahim Traore, scrapped all laws which established and regulated political parties, accusing them of failing to comply with guidelines.

The troubled West African nation is struggling with violence from armed groups linked to ISIL (ISIS) and al-Qaeda. It is one of a growing number of West and Central African nations to have undergone coups in recent years.

Traore seized power in September 2022, eight months after an earlier military coup had already overthrown the democratically elected President Roch Marc Kabore.

Despite strong criticism by rights groups and opposition politicians of his authoritarian approach, 37-year-old Traore has successfully built up an online cult-like following among pan-Africanists, with many likening him to the late Burkinabe revolutionary leader, Thomas Sankara.

Traore’s anti-colonial and anti-imperial pronouncements are often shown in high-definition, AI-generated videos that have gained him widespread admiration across the internet.

But the decision to ban political parties does not sit well for democracy, Dakar-based analyst Beverly Ochieng of the Control Risks intelligence firm, told Al Jazeera.

“The military government will [remain] highly influential, especially after a recent decree appointing Traore in a supervisory capacity in the judiciary,” Ochieng said, referring to a December 2023 constitutional change which placed courts directly under government control.

Going forward, “there will be very limited division of powers or autonomy across the civic and political space,” Ochieng said, adding that the military government will likely keep extending its stay in power.

Why have political parties been banned?

The Burkinabe government claims the existing political parties were not following the codes which established them.

In a televised statement following a Council of Ministers meeting on Thursday, when the new decree was approved, Interior Minister Emile Zerbo said the decision was part of a broader effort to “rebuild the state” after alleged widespread abuses and dysfunction in the country’s multiparty system.

A government review, he said, had found that the multiplication of political parties had fuelled divisions and weakened social cohesion in the country.

“The government believes that the proliferation of political parties has led to excesses, fostering division among citizens and weakening the social fabric,” Zerbo said.

He did not give details of the political parties’ alleged excesses.

How did political parties operate in the past?

Before the 2022 coup, which brought the current military leadership to power, Burkina Faso had more than 100 registered political parties, with 15 represented in parliament after the 2020 general elections.

The largest was the ruling People’s Movement for Progress (MPP), which had 56 of 127 seats in parliament. It was followed by the Congress for Democracy and Progress, with 20 seats, and the New Era for Democracy with 13 seats.

But the civilian government faced months of protests as thousands took to the streets to demonstrate against growing insecurity from armed groups in large parts of the country.

In 2022, Traore took power, promising to put an end to violence by armed groups. He also promised the regional Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) bloc that his government would hold elections by 2024.

But political parties were banned from holding rallies after the 2022 coup and, a month before the 2024 deadline, Traore’s government postponed elections to 2029 after holding a national conference, which was boycotted by several political parties.

Burkina Faso, along with Mali and Niger, withdrew from ECOWAS to form the Alliance of Sahel States, a new economic and military alliance in January last year. They also withdrew from the International Criminal Court (ICC).

In July 2025, Traore’s government dissolved the Independent National Electoral Commission, saying the agency was too expensive.

Has insecurity worsened under Traore?

Landlocked Burkina Faso is currently grappling with several armed groups which have seized control of land in the country’s north, south and west, amounting to about 60 percent of the country, according to the Africa Center for Strategic Studies (ACSS).

The most active groups are the al-Qaeda-backed Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM) and Islamic State Sahel Province (ISSP), which also operate in neighbouring Mali and Niger.

The groups want to rule over territory according to strict Islamic laws and are opposed to secularism.

By December 2024, all three Alliance of Sahel States countries had cut ties with former colonial power France and instead turned to Russian fighters for security support after accusing Paris of overly meddling in their countries.

Between them, they expelled more than 5,000 French soldiers who had previously provided support in the fight against armed groups. A smaller contingent of about 2,000 Russian security personnel is now stationed across the three countries.

But violence in Burkina Faso and the larger Sahel region has worsened.

Fatalities have tripled in the three years since Traore took power to reach 17,775 – mostly civilians – by last May, compared with the three years prior, when combined recorded deaths were 6,630, the ACSS recorded.

In September, Human Rights Watch accused JNIM and ISSP of massacring civilians in northern Djibo, Gorom Gorom and other towns, and of causing the displacement of tens of thousands since 2016.

HRW has also similarly accused the Burkinabe military and an allied militia group, Volunteers for the Defense of the Homeland, of atrocities against civilians suspected of cooperating with armed groups. In attacks on northern Nondin and Soro villages in early 2024, the military killed 223 civilians, including 56 babies and children, HRW said in an April 2024 report.

Mali and Niger have similarly recorded attacks by the armed groups. Malian capital Bamako has been sealed off from fuel supplies by JNIM fighters for months.

On Wednesday night, the Nigerien military held off heavy attacks on the airport in the capital city, Niamey. No armed group has yet claimed responsibility.

Is the civic space shrinking in Burkina Faso?

Since it took power, the government in Ouagadougou has been accused by rights groups of cracking down on dissent and restricting press and civic freedoms.

All political activities were first suspended immediately after the coup.

In April 2024, the government also took aim at the media, ordering internet service providers to suspend access to the websites and other digital platforms of the BBC, Voice of America and HRW.

Meanwhile, authorities have forced dozens of government critics into military service and sent them to fight against armed groups. Several prominent journalists and judges have been arrested after speaking out against increasingly restrictive rules on press and judiciary freedom.

Abdoul Gafarou Nacro, a deputy prosecutor at the country’s High Court, was one of at least five senior members of the judiciary to be forcibly conscripted and sent to fight armed groups in August 2024 after speaking out against the military government. Nacro’s whereabouts are currently unknown.

In April 2025, three abducted journalists resurfaced in a social media video 10 days after they went missing, in one example. All three – Guezouma Sanogo, Boukari Ouoba, and Luc Pagbelguem – were wearing military fatigues in an apparent forced conscription. They have all since been released.

However, several others, including some opposition politicians, are still missing.

Interior Minister says multiplication of political parties has fuelled divisions and weakened social cohesion.

Burkina Faso’s military-led government has issued a decree dissolving all political parties that had already been forced to suspend activities after a coup four years ago.

The West African nation’s council of ministers passed the decree on Thursday amid the government’s ongoing crackdown on dissenting voices as it struggles to contain insurgencies linked to al-Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS).

Burkina Faso‘s Interior Minister Emile Zerbo said the decision was part of a broader effort to “rebuild the state” after alleged widespread abuses and dysfunction in the country’s multiparty system.

Zerbo said a government review found that the multiplication of political parties had fuelled divisions and weakened social cohesion.

The decree disbands all political parties and political formations, with all their assets now set to be transferred to the state.

Before the coup, the country had more than 100 registered political parties, with 15 represented in parliament after the 2020 general election.

Burkina Faso is led by Captain Ibrahim Traore, who seized power in a coup in September 2022, eight months after an earlier military coup had overthrown democratically elected President Roch Marc Kabore.

The country’s military leaders have cut ties with former colonial ruler France and turned to Russia for security support.

In 2024, as part of its crackdown on dissent, the government ordered internet service providers to suspend access to the websites and other digital platforms of the BBC, Voice of America and Human Rights Watch.

As it turned away from the West, Burkina Faso joined forces with neighbouring Mali and Niger, also ruled by military governments, in forming the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) in a bid to strengthen economic and military cooperation.

The United States Federal Reserve is holding interest rates steady in its first rate decision of 2026.

Rates will remain at 3.5 to 3.75 percent, the Fed said on Wednesday, defying US President Donald Trump’s calls for more aggressive interest rate cuts.

“The Committee seeks to achieve maximum employment and inflation at the rate of 2 percent over the longer run. Uncertainty about the economic outlook remains elevated,” the central bank said in its release announcing the decision.

Wednesday’s decision was widely expected. CME FedWatch, a tool that tracks expectations for monetary policy, forecast a more than 97 percent chance that the central bank would hold rates steady.

The tracker also expects two rate cuts in 2026, with the highest probability for the first cut occurring in June at the earliest.

“Available indicators suggest that economic activity has been expanding at a solid pace. Job gains have remained low, and the unemployment rate has shown some signs of stabilization,” the central bank said.

The decision comes amid signs of stabilisation in the US labour market. The US economy added 584,000 jobs in 2025, marking the lowest annual job growth since 2003. Payrolls rose by 64,000 jobs in October and 50,000 in December. While job growth remains weak, December’s figure represents a modest rebound from October, when the economy lost 105,000 jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

There are indications that the labour market may cool further in the months ahead. This week, both Amazon and UPS announced tens of thousands of job cuts, some of which were driven by a push towards increasing the use of artificial intelligence in the workplace.

Another threat to the US economy and the job market comes in the form of a looming government shutdown. That can happen as early as Saturday, and depending on its duration, it could slow spending as federal workers are temporarily left without paycheques.

Political tensions

The decision to hold interest rates steady comes despite Trump’s increased pressure on the central bank to cut rates. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell has long stressed the Federal Reserve’s independence, and Wednesday’s decision is the first since Powell’s rebuke of a criminal Department of Justice investigation into him. The central bank chair, whose term expires in May, called the inquiry a “pretext” to pressure him.

“The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president,” Powell said in remarks in early January in response to a subpoena.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case examining whether Trump has the legal authority to remove Fed Governor Lisa Cook amid allegations of mortgage fraud.

Meanwhile, Fed Governor Stephan Miran’s term is set to expire this week. Trump picked Miran to temporarily fill the seat vacated by Adriana Kugler in August while seeking a more permanent replacement.

Miran was one of two central bank governors who voted to lower interest rates alongside Christopher Waller.

The developments come as Trump searches for a new Fed chair. He has explicitly called for further interest rate cuts and for a chairman who shares his views.

“Anybody that disagrees with me will never be the Fed Chairman!” Trump said in a post on Truth Social in December.

The political pressure has caught the attention of global central banks as well.

“The Federal Reserve is the biggest, most important central bank in the world, and we all need it to work well. A loss of independence of the Fed would affect us all,” Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem said on Wednesday. Canada’s central bank held rates steady ahead of the US central bank’s decision.

Macklem was one of the central bank heads who earlier this month issued a joint statement backing Powell. Last September, Macklem said Trump’s attempts to pressure the Fed were starting to hit markets.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average is flat, as is the Nasdaq, and the S&P 500 is down 0.1 in midday trading.

The upcoming series charts the high-profile romance of John F. Kennedy Jr. and Carolyn Bessette

An intense new drama about a private romance that became a national obsession is coming to our screens very soon.

Ryan Murphy’s latest series, Love Story: John F. Kennedy Jr. and Carolyn Bessette, tracks the high-profile romance between its titular celebrity couple.

Spanning nine episodes, the drama will be available to stream on Disney+ from February 13 for UK audiences. Three episodes will release upon its debut, with the rest of the season set to air weekly until March 27.

Kennedy and Bessette married in an intimate ceremony in 1996 and tragically died in a plane crash in July 1999.

Paul Anthony Kelly steps into the role of John F. Kennedy Jr. opposite Sarah Pidgeon as Carolyn Bessette

According to its synopsis, the forthcoming drama will explore “the undeniable chemistry, whirlwind courtship and high-profile marriage of one of the most iconic couples of the 20th century”.

Disney Plus has teased viewers with a glimpse at the story set to unfold, writing: “It was a love story that captured the attention of the nation: John F. Kennedy Jr. was the closest thing to American royalty.

“The country watched him grow from a boy to a beloved bachelor and media sensation.”

Get Disney+ from £5.99

This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more

£5.99

Disney+

Get Disney+ here

A Disney+ subscription is now available from £5.99 per month, offering hit shows like Andor, The Bear and Alien: Earth, plus countless titles from Star Wars and Marvel.

The streaming giant continued: “Carolyn Bessette was a star in her own right. Fiercely independent and with a singular style, she rose from being a sales assistant to an executive at Calvin Klein, and became a trusted confidante of its eponymous founder.

“John and Carolyn’s connection was immediate, electric and undeniable. As their love story unfolded on a national stage, the intense fame and media attention that came along with it threatened to rip them apart.”

For the latest showbiz, TV, movie and streaming news, go to the new **Everything Gossip** website.

The series was inspired by Elizabeth Beller’s 2024 bestseller, Once Upon a Time: The Captivating Life of Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy.

The rest of the cast features Grace Gummer (in the role of Caroline Kennedy), Naomi Watts (as Jackie Kennedy Onassis), Alessandro Nivola (as Calvin Klein), Leila George (as Kelly Klein), Sydney Lemmon (as Lauren Bessette) and Constance Zimmer (Ann Marie Messina).

Love Story: John F. Kennedy Jr. & Carolyn Bessette premieres on February 13 on Disney+.