political

Former L.A. mayor and current candidate for governor Antonio Villaraigosa wants voters to know that he navigated billion-dollar budgets, cracked down on violent crime and championed the expansion of bus and rail lines.

The onetime state Assembly speaker argues he’s the only Democratic candidate with the experience to do the complicated job of running California.

But Villaraigosa left City Hall in 2013 — eons ago in the world of politics. President Obama was still in office, singer Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” was atop the charts and Apple Watches weren’t yet a thing.

Because of his distance from elected office, combined with a decent but overshadowed fundraising effort, Villaraigosa lacks a high-profile platform to attract attention in today’s fractured media universe, an essential ingredient he needs to remind voters about his experience and accomplishments as mayor and a state lawmaker.

Antonio Villaraigosa gets his photo taken with students from Hazeltine Avenue Elementary School while visiting Placita Olvera in 2013.

(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

Recent polls show Villaraigosa, 73, wallowing at the bottom of the field, though none of the major Democratic candidates have an overwhelming edge.

Villaraigosa also ran for governor in 2018, coming in third in the primary election behind Democratic rival Gavin Newsom, who went on to win and is now serving his second term, and little-known Republican businessman John Cox.

Political strategist Mike Madrid, who worked for Villaraigosa on that campaign, said the former mayor’s absence from politics in recent years is a major liability in this race.

“He’s a dogged, determined candidate,” Madrid said. “But there are pretty stiff headwinds.”

Villaraigosa got a boost last week when the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California pledged $1 million to an outside committee supporting him.

His allies argue voters aren’t paying attention to the governor’s race because eyes are on President Trump, immigration raids and the Iran war.

But the new funding is a pittance compared to some of his rivals. Billionaire Tom Steyer is tapping tens of millions of his own money to pump out ads. Tech companies and billionaire Rick Caruso are supporting Matt Mahan, the mayor of San José, with millions.

Another contender, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin), has the power of incumbency. Swalwell launched his campaign on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and is a regular on cable news shows, while former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, who is also running, recently served in Congress and campaigned for the U.S. Senate two years ago.

With the June primary looming, Villaraigosa’s campaign risks sputtering out.

Angeleno Celine Mares holds a copy of Newsweek featuring newly elected Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa as he is sworn into office on the steps of City Hall July 1, 2005.

(David McNew / Getty Images)

Leaving a Compton church earlier this month, he reacted to Mahan’s support from technology companies, and the billionaire money in the race.

“When you have overwhelming sums of money influencing elections, there’s a great deal of concern for those of us who care about our democracy,” said Villaraigosa. “As much as they say it’s about free speech, it actually drowns out speech.”

(During his 2018 bid for governor, though, Villaraigosa was a major beneficiary of Californians using their wealth to wield political influence. Charter school backers, including Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings and philanthropist Eli Broad, spent around $23 million on efforts to boost his campaign. )

Earlier in the morning, he rallied runners at a 10K road race in L.A.’s Chinatown, lighting firecrackers, posing for photos and looking as energetic as when he was mayor and would dart into the street to personally fill potholes.

Villaraigosa flitted around the racers’ VIP tent, spotted a bowl of fortune cookies and made a beeline. “You have an active mind and a keen imagination,” he read aloud.

“Antonio V.!” a middle-aged man called out as the former mayor passed.

Minutes later, Villaraigosa swapped his black and white Veja sneakers and jeans for dress shoes and a suit for the church service in Compton, at which an overwhelmingly Black audience gave him a warm reception.

Building a coalition of Black and Latino voters helped him win the 2005 L.A. mayor’s race in a dramatic upset of then-Mayor Jim Hahn, and brought wide attention to the one-time high school dropout, who was raised by a single mother on Los Angeles’ eastside.

Newsweek magazine featured Villaraigosa on its cover with the headline, “Latino Power: L.A.’s New Mayor and How Hispanics will change American Politics.”

But national acclaim can be fleeting. Today, voters aren’t as interested in identity-based politics, said Fernando Guerra, a professor of political science at Loyola Marymount University who has known Villaraigosa for decades.

Guerra said Villaraigosa is struggling to differentiate himself in the race because his pitch to voters is not unlike the moderate path taken by Mahan. Another contender, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, overlaps with Villaraigosa when it comes to biographical details: Both are from the L.A. area, Latino and relatively close in age.

“What’s made it so difficult is that [Villaraigosa said], ‘Here’s my path,’” said Guerra. “Well, guess what, there are one to two more candidates who are also on that path.”

Strategist Madrid questioned whether voters even want to hear about a candidate’s experience at a time when anti-Trump messages rally Californians. “They want a fighter,” he said.

Since leaving the mayor’s office, Villaraigosa has enjoyed success in the lucrative private sector. He purchased a $3.3 million home in the L.A. neighborhood of Beverly Hills Post Office in 2020. . A recent campaign filing shows he’s spent the last few years advising companies including the health company AltaMed, financial lender Change Company and crypto currency exchange Coinbase Global.

Then mayor Antonio Villaraigosa holds a news conference at the Department of Water and Power on Hope Street July 22, 2005, urging all of Los Angeles to conserve energy in an effort to ensure Southern California avoids blackouts.

(Ken Hively / Los Angeles Times)

He also worked for a few years for consulting firm Actum and briefly advised the Newsom administration on infrastructure projects.

“It’s not that I didn’t like the public sector,” said Villaraigosa, explaining his decision to run again. As he talked about his desire to serve, he cast a gauzy image of the aughts in Los Angeles, taking credit for the downtown resurgence, skyline full of construction cranes and fewer homeless people on the streets during that period.

“Most people look back on those years and say they were some of the best years we’ve had in the last 25 — at least,” said Villaraigosa.

Stuart Waldman, president of the business group Valley Industry and Commerce Assn., argues Villaraigosa’s experience in the private sector and distance from elected office is a good thing.

“Look at what the economy was like, look at what the city was like” under Villaraigosa, said Waldman. “That’s what he’s going to be judged on.”

Villaraigosa started his career working for labor and civil rights groups before entering politics. Elected to the state Assembly in 1994, he pushed legislation that banned assault weapons and created healthcare coverage for children. His outgoing personality established him as a coveted fundraiser for Democrats in Sacramento and paved the way for him to be chosen as Assembly speaker.

As L.A. mayor, he brought down gang crime through a program that used former gang members to broker truces. Voters backed his ballot measure to expand L.A.’s transit system through new sales tax money in the middle of the Great Recession. He drove down pension costs after a bruising battle with city unions. At the same time, he established himself as a national leader on climate issues and education.

His reputation took a hit after an affair with a television reporter led to the breakup of his marriage.

The media scene that covered Villaraigosa back then is vastly diminished, with young people now getting news from TikTok videos, message boards or Instagram posts.

Weighing in on recent TV news layoffs in Los Angeles, Villaraigosa called himself “lucky” that there were plenty of newspaper and television reporters covering him as mayor, recalling that he’d get a dozen cameras to his press conferences.

Asked to compare his 2018 campaign for governor with this one, he said, “I didn’t have to reintroduce myself last time in quite the way I’ve had to this time.”

Villaraigosa spent a significant time in Mexico in recent years to see his now ex-wife Patricia Govea, a clothing designer. “She was in Mexico 80% of the time, the last six years. So I` went to Mexico a lot.” The pair’s divorce was finalized last year.

During a debate in front of Jewish voters on L.A.’s westside last month, Villaraigosa appeared to seize on the fact that he was the sole Angeleno on the stage, introducing himself by saying, “It’s good to be home.”

He told the crowd about his work as president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and criticized UCLA — his alma matter — for its handling of incidents targeting Jewish students on its campus.

It remains to be seen if he’ll have a hometown advantage. In the 2018 race for governor, Newsom won more votes than Villaraigosa in Los Angeles County. While Villaraigosa did well in Latino communities in central L.A. and on the Eastside, Newsom captured more votes in wealthier, whiter areas.

But at the Compton church, a security guard approached Villaraigosa and told him she’d worked on his 2005 campaign, while others promised to vote for him.

“I know he has a track record,” said Valerie Bland, a 63-year-old former port worker from Long Beach, as she watched Villaraigosa work the pews. “I haven’t even looked at anyone else.”

Former Assembly speaker Fabian Núñez, a longtime friend of Villaraigosa and managing partner at Actum, hopes voters dig into Villaraigosa’s record.

“We have short-term memories in this country,” said Núñez.

Twenty-three years ago, the Oscars were in turmoil. President George W. Bush had just begun an invasion of Iraq after the Sept. 11 attacks, and as the nation’s TV screens filled with the “shock and awe” campaign, many did not know quite how to proceed with Hollywood’s biggest night.

ABC wanted to postpone, presenters begged off, Jack Nicholson urged his fellow actor nominees to boycott (animated feature winner Hayao Miyazaki did), documentary winner Michael Moore attempted to directly shame Bush from the stage (to loud boos) and many of the acceptance speeches acknowledged the war and included pleas for peace.

President Trump’s recent decision to attack Iran is not precisely the same — American troops have thus far not invaded and the Bush administration’s media blitz of rockets lighting up the sky is absent. No one expected the Oscars to be canceled or delayed and there has been no talk of boycotts; whether the war and (if polls are to be believed) its general unpopularity are noted, either by host Conan O’Brien (who has already said he will not be mentioning Trump) or the winners, remains to be seen.

But if recent history is any indication, it could go unmentioned. Which would be something of a political statement in itself: It would be terrible if the false notion that awards shows have become too political had a chilling effect on anyone who wanted to use their platform to speak about something important they care about.

Thus far, film and television awards winners have stayed away from the issues that have prompted widespread public outrage and protests this year — including the often brutal methods of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the ongoing concern over the war in Gaza and the endless revelations of the Epstein files.

Despite complaints from certain quarters, awards shows, particularly the Oscars, rarely have more than one or two truly political moments. But this year, the absence has been notable.

Compared with the Grammy Awards, where Trevor Noah, in his final stint as host, roasted Trump and anti-ICE sentiment reigned in speeches and on pins, this year’s Golden Globes (which aired three weeks before the Grammys) appeared to exist in another world. A few stars wore similar pins and spoke on the red carpet, but aside from a few digs about Epstein and CBS News from host Nikki Glaser, there was no mention of the many issues roiling the nation. (As he was beginning to make late-in-speech remarks about this being an important time to make films, Kleber Mendonça Filho, Brazilian director of the non-English language film winner “The Secret Agent,” ran over time and was played off.)

Has Hollywood lost its spine? Or, having been beset for years by grievances that the Oscars have become “too political” and “too woke,” are filmmakers and actors saving their outrage and passion for social media and bowing to pressure to keep their acceptance speeches grateful and celebratory?

“I know that there are people who find it annoying when actors take opportunities like this to talk about social and political things,” said Jean Smart on the Golden Globes red carpet, adding, when she won for actress in a TV comedy: “There’s just a lot that could be said tonight. I said my rant on the red carpet, so I won’t do it here.”

It was an echo of Jane Fonda’s famous 1972 Oscar speech: “There’s a great deal to say, and I’m not going to say it tonight.” And, perhaps, a response to more recent “shut up and dribble” criticism, as distilled by 2020 Golden Globes host Ricky Gervais, who cautioned the audience: “If you do win an award tonight, don’t use it as a platform to make a political speech. You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world.”

Indeed, as Oscars ratings have plummeted over the last 20 years, some have suggested that political speechifying is to blame. This is patently absurd. Viewership for just about everything except the Super Bowl has dropped dramatically, and the Oscars ratings do not take into account the millions who watch portions of the show on social media. (We’ll see what happens when the Oscars move to YouTube in 2029.)

And the Oscars have never been particularly political.

Speeches that deviate from the ubiquitous laundry list of thank yous always get more attention, whether they’re political or not, for the simple reason that they’re so dang unusual. But taken as a whole, either by decade or particular telecast, the Oscars is mostly, and consistently, apolitical. As in, almost every minute of a three-hour-plus show, year after year after year.

Unless, of course, you consider thanking God to be political. Which I do not. Nor do I categorize as such any speech that underlines the fact of a historic win (as Halle Berry did in 2002), encourages Hollywood to tell more diverse stories (as Cate Blanchett did in 2014) or reminds audiences in a general way that systemic oppression and war are bad (as Adrian Brody did amid his ramblings in 2025).

Many of the speeches that have been branded as “political” are simply underscoring the themes of the films being honored — in 2009, both Dustin Lance Black and Sean Penn advocated for gay rights when accepting Oscars for “Milk,” which chronicled the life of assassinated gay rights activist Harvey Milk. Likewise, John Irving supporting abortion rights and Planned Parenthood after winning for “The Cider House Rules” in 2000 and John Legend and Common speaking passionately about civil rights, past and present, after winning for “Glory,” a song from the civil rights drama “Selma,” in 2015 was only natural.

Sacheen Littlefeather refuses the lead actor Academy Award on behalf of Marlon Brando in 1973.

(Bettmann Archive)

A purely political speech, to my mind, directly calls out specific leaders, policies or crises, which may or may not have anything to do with the film being awarded. The most famous are, of course, Marlon Brando’s decision to send Sacheen Littlefeather to accept his Oscar for “The Godfather” and protest the treatment of Native Americans, and Vanessa Redgrave’s 1978 denunciation of “Zionist hoodlums” who were demonstrating against her involvement in a pro-Palestinian documentary even as she accepted for supporting actress in “Julia.”

In 1993, while many Oscars attendees wore red ribbons to honor those living with HIV/AIDS and call for government assistance, then-couple Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins took it further, using their time as presenters to ask the U.S. government to allow HIV-positive Haitians being held at Guantanamo Bay to be let into the country. That same year, presenter Richard Gere used the fact that “1 billion people” were watching to send “sanity” to Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping in the hopes that he would allow the people of Tibet to “live free.” (Then-Oscars producer Gil Cates quickly denounced the three presenters; Gere did not return to the Oscars until 2013.)

A year after Moore blasted Bush over Iraq, Errol Morris, winning for “The Fog of War,” briefly compared the war in Iraq to the “rabbit hole” of Vietnam (which was the subject of his film). In 2015, “Boyhood” star Patricia Arquette used most of her supporting actress speech to demand equal wages for women. That same year, “Birdman” director Alejandro G. Iñárritu dedicated his award to his fellow Mexicans, with the hope that they would be treated by Americans “with dignity and respect” so that together, they could build a “great immigrant nation.” (Which frankly plays more purely political now than it did at the time.) A year later, Leonardo DiCaprio spoke about climate change after winning for “The Revenant.”

In 2019, Spike Lee, accepting for adapted screenplay (“BlacKkKlansman”), called on voters in the upcoming election to mobilize and “be on the right side of history” and in 2024, “Zone of Interest” director Jonathan Glazer, accepting for international film, riled many by comparing the dehumanization required for the Holocaust to occur with events in Gaza.

Even now, the most notable examples of political speeches, the ones that are always mentioned, are from the freaking ‘70s. Which certainly obliterates the idea that the Oscars have grown more political and undermines the argument that it is a Big Problem.

Put these relatively few moments next to the endless hours of acceptance speeches that, with varying degrees of emotion, honor the art of movie-making and the legions that support those who are doing it (including God, parents, spouses, children, some random but heaven-sent teacher) and it’s difficult to see much “wokeness.”

The people who gather at the Oscars are storytellers, and many of the stories they tell deal with uncomfortable truths about our collective past, present and future (including best picture front-runners “One Battle After Another” and “Sinners”). Of course nominees and winners have opinions about politics, science, social issues, international conflict and those suffering without recourse or voice — that’s why they make movies. So if a few of them decide to skip thanking their manager or the studio head and say a few words about climate change or whatever current law/policy/presidential action they believe is making lives worse for a lot of people, that’s their choice. They just won an Oscar!

For those uncomfortable watching it, just use the 45 seconds to grab a snack and by the time you’re back, the host will be moaning about how long the show is and the next five winners will inevitably cry and smile; praise their fellow nominees; thank the producers; say something sweet about their cast, crew and mamas; before telling their kids they love them and it’s time to go to bed.

And that’s OK too.

Twelve days ago the U.S., a World Cup host country, launched a full-scale bombing campaign against Iran, a country that has qualified to play in the tournament. That’s never happened before.

Five days later, that same World Cup host began military operations inside the borders of Ecuador, another World Cup qualifier, half a world away. That’s never happened before either.

With the tournament scheduled to kick off in three months, those events have soccer scholar Jonathan Wilson questioning whether it’s wise for the World Cup to go on at all.

“It seems to me, for each passing day, it’s less and less likely that the World Cup can happen,” he said.

That take seems unduly alarmist said David Goldblatt, a British sportswriter and sociologist who is a visiting professor at Pitzer College in Claremont. Anything short of a full-scale war inside the U.S. would not be enough to pull the plug on the tournament now, he said. Especially with FIFA expecting revenues of as much as $11 billion.

“I mean, it’s not a good look,” Goldblatt conceded. “And certainly when set against FIFA’s official pronouncements on its role in encouraging world peace and cosmopolitan celebrations of a universal humanity, none of that sits terribly easily.

“But in terms of actually running the World Cup, I don’t think it’s going to make very much difference at all.”

However, with the Trump administration open to engaging in more international conflicts, there’s little doubt this World Cup, the largest and most complex in history, will also be the most political in history as well.

Complicating things further is the fact the current conflict in the Middle East hasn’t been limited to just the U.S. and Iran. Iranian missiles have hit both Qatar and Saudi Arabia, among other countries, and Jordan has fired on U.S. assets.

Those three countries are World Cup qualifiers as well.

The fate of a soccer tournament pales in importance to the death and destruction the conflagration in the Middle East has produced, of course. But the need for unity is the very reason there’s a World Cup in the first place.

When French soccer administrator Jules Rimet founded the tournament 96 years ago, he believed soccer could be a tool for international peace. And in the early years of the tournament, Rimet, FIFA’s longest-serving president and a talented diplomat, was able to limit the impact of geopolitics on the World Cup, watering down Mussolini’s influence on the 1934 World Cup, for example, and steering the 1938 tournament away from Hitler’s Germany.

FIFA President Gianni Infantino has taken a far different approach, courting President Donald Trump’s support despite his growing number of global conflicts.

A week before bombs began falling on Iran, Infantino appeared at the inaugural meeting of Trump’s Board of Peace wearing a red cap with ‘USA’ on the front and the numbers ‘45-47’ — a reference to Trump’s non-consecutive presidencies. That act was so blatantly partisan, IOC president Kirsty Coventry said her organization would investigate whether Infantino, an IOC member, breached the terms of the group’s charter, which requires members to act independent of political interests.

FIFA president Gianni Infantino holds up a USA hat as he attends the inaugural meeting for the Board of Peace at the Institute of Peace in Washington on Feb. 19.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

“Infantino has absolutely breached every FIFA protocol on neutrality,” said Wilson, author of “The Power and Glory: The History of the World Cup.”

“Absolute neutrality is always impossible and not desirable, but it has clearly gone way, way, way beyond. The peace prize looked grotesque at the time. It looks even worse now. And I can’t see how the future will look kindly on Infantino. I think Infantino has to some extent legitimized Trump.”

This is hardly new behavior from Infantino, who had close relationships with Vladimir Putin ahead of the 2018 tournament played in Russia and Qatar’s leaders ahead of the 2022 tournament despite their well-known human rights violations.

The list of countries Infantino is asking to overlook poor relations with the country hosting the majority of World Cup games this summer is growing.

Consider that Denmark, which administers Greenland, an autonomous territory Trump has also threatened to invade, can qualify for the tournament in a European playoff that will take place later this month. Then there’s World Cup qualifiers Haiti, Ivory Coast and Senegal, who aren’t at war with the U.S. but whose citizens have been banned from entering the country to cheer for their teams. That completely contradicts a promise from Infantino, who said “everybody will be welcome” at the 2026 World Cup.

“If I had a crystal ball I could tell you now what is going to happen,” Heimo Schirgi, the World Cup chief operating officer for FIFA, said Monday. “But obviously the situation is developing. It’s changing day by day and we are monitoring closely. [But] the World Cup will go on right? The World Cup is too big and we hope that everyone can participate that has qualified.”

Goldblatt, the Pitzer professor, said Infantino’s action are understandable since he has few cards to play against Trump.

President Trump speaks as he receives the FIFA Peace Prize as FIFA president Gianni Infantino applauds on Dec. 5 the Kennedy Center in Washington.

(Patrick Smith / Getty Images)

“What’s Infantino going to do? What levers can you pull?” he asked. “You can threaten to take it away. That’s not happening. Moral admonishment? Who’s going to take that from FIFA? It is a farcical idea that anybody thinks that the president of FIFA has any kind of collective moral authority or any role as a spokesperson for the progressive part of the world.

“They may fantasize that this is the case. But it is morally and politically absurd that any of us should expect that of these people. So if you are Infantino and that is the case, you know what works with Trump? What works is flattery. So of course he’s gone down that path.”

The games, Goldblatt said, will go on even if bombs are still falling. And that may not be an entirely bad thing.

“Football’s a great distraction. That’s partly why it’s so popular,” he said. “It will be virtually impossible, if the war continues, for that not to be a central element of like, the meaning and the purpose of what we’re all doing here.

“How we’ll feel and what it will look like, I don’t know. It will be very strange. Football is unpredictable and extraordinary. Something will happen that will warm our souls.”

⚽ You have read the latest installment of On Soccer with Kevin Baxter. The weekly column takes you behind the scenes and shines a spotlight on unique stories. Listen to Baxter on this week’s episode of the “Corner of the Galaxy” podcast.

In recent days, tensions over the U.S. war in Iran have steadily mounted.

Polls have shown the campaign is widely unpopular. An entire flank of Trump’s MAGA base has criticized it as a clear departure from the “America First” mantra Trump has long espoused. Leaders within the Trump administration have pushed against claims it was about regime change, framing it instead as a necessary response to imminent threats.

Trump, meanwhile, has struck a decidedly defiant tone — offering few of the reassurances or rationalizations that past presidents have offered in the initial stages of war, and sounding more unbothered than embattled.

He has lamented American casualties but also seemed to shrug them off — along with additional deaths he expects to come and potential attacks on the U.S. homeland — as the simple cost of war, saying, “Some people will die.”

He has ignored concerns the war will turn into another unending Middle East quagmire, while openly flirting with taking over Cuba too.

Undermining his administration’s own messaging that the war is not about regime change, Trump wrote in a social media post Friday that there would be “no deal” with Iran without “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” and new Iranian leadership “ACCEPTABLE” to him.

Sticking a thumb in the eye of his “America First” defectors, he said the U.S. and its allies are going to “work tirelessly” to make Iran “economically bigger, better, and stronger than ever before,” adding, “MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN (MIGA!)”

In the last week, Trump has instigated or been forced to navigate a stunning cascade of political threats. In addition to attacking Iran, he fired his Homeland Security secretary in charge of his signature immigration campaign, faced newly detailed allegations — which he denied — that he sexually assaulted a child alongside Jeffrey Epstein, saw his attorney general subpoenaed by fellow Republicans in Congress, and watched American jobs numbers drop as gas prices spiked.

And yet, Trump has also managed to avoid complex questions about those issues — the most pressing before his administration — and despite Democrats and some of his own supporters lashing out over them.

“I’ve seen a lot of Presidents fall short of their promises but I’ve never seen any President just doing the opposite of everything promised on purpose. Prices, Epstein, wars. Just absolutely racing to betray his voters,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) wrote on X.

“This is Israel’s war, this is not the United States’ war. This war is not being waged on behalf of American national security objectives, to make the United States safer or richer,” said Tucker Carlson, one of Trump’s longtime allies.

Carlson said Trump committed U.S. forces to fighting in Iran for no other reason than because Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “demanded it,” even though it “certainly wasn’t a good idea for the United States” and the Trump administration had “no real plan” for replacing the Iranian leadership it has now toppled.

The White House defended Trump’s actions across the board in statements to The Times on Friday.

On Iran, it said Trump “is courageously protecting the United States from the deadly threat posed by the rogue Iranian regime — and that is as America First as it gets.” On departing Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, it said Trump “has assembled the most talented and competent cabinet in history,” and “continues to have faith in his Administration.”

On the economy, they said the Trump administration “is doing its part to unleash robust, private sector-led economic growth with tax cuts and deregulation,” and that Trump “has already initiated robust action” to control oil prices even amid the Iran war. And on the Epstein files, they said the latest claims unveiled “are completely baseless accusations, backed by zero credible evidence.”

Trump has also spoken out in defense of his handling of the various crises facing his administration — but not nearly with the sort of detail and solemnity that wartime presidents usually speak, experts said.

At his only public event on Friday — a nearly two-hour round-table with national leaders and sporting officials about college athletics — he ridiculed members of the media who asked about Iran and Noem.

“What a stupid question that is to be asking at this time,” he said, when asked about reports that Russia was helping Iran target and attack Americans there. “We’re talking about something else.”

When pressed as to why he was spending so much time talking about college sports when so much else is going on in the country and the world, Trump briefly talked about Iran — saying “people are very impressed by our military” and that the U.S. is now “more respected than we’ve ever been” — before concluding the event.

Jennifer Mercieca, a political historian and communications professor at Texas A&M and author of “Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump,” said she was surprised Trump didn’t make a stronger case for going to war in Iran during his recent State of the Union speech, and that he hasn’t been more aggressive about making the case for war since, including by using traditional language about bolstering American values around the world.

“In comparison to other presidents in a similar situation trying to lead a nation into war, that is surprising to me — and unusual,” she said.

Also unusual is the low public support for the war, Mercieca said, given that, since World War II, there has generally been high public approval for U.S. war efforts at their start.

Mercieca said she wonders if there is a correlation between Trump’s not providing a more vigorous rationale for the war and the low public approval for it — or perhaps between the low approval and the brash descriptions of the war as a merciless campaign of destruction and vengeance from others in the administration, such as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

She said Hegseth and others have shown a “lack of decorum, a lack of honor or dignity [in] their way of behaving, especially when we’re talking about warfare and human lives.”

Jack Rakove, a Stanford University professor emeritus of history and political science, said Trump’s posture is fitting with his character since he first entered politics and before, as he “can never take responsibility for anything that appears to be a mistake” and is “obsessed with the idea of appearing tough and tough-minded.”

Rakove said he does not believe, as some critics have suggested, that Trump launched the war in Iran specifically to distract from the Epstein files, which as of Thursday included newly released FBI descriptions of several interviews in which a woman accused Trump and Epstein of sexual assault in the 1980s when she was a child. Her accusations have not been verified.

But Rakove said he does wonder to what degree Trump is consciously pushing chaos in order to ensure that no one detrimental issue for him politically captures the public’s attention for too long.

Mercieca said Trump has always been “uniquely good at controlling the public conversation,” but that power has been tested recently by the Epstein files — which have held the public’s attention despite his repeatedly saying that “we should move on from that, that we should stop talking about it, that he’s been exonerated.”

She said Trump’s instinct in the current moment to push ahead aggressively despite waning support for his economic policies, his immigration policies and his war in Iran could be related to his desire to return people’s attention to his agenda, but is also in line with his long-held desire to go down in history — including by making big moves.

“I think he’s very much trying to leave his mark on the White House, I think he’s trying to leave his mark on the nation, I think he’s trying to leave his mark on the world, and I think war is a way that leaders have traditionally done that throughout history,” she said.

On its own, the phrase “Christ is king” sums up a core tenet of the Christian faith, that Jesus is the divine ruler of the universe. Catholics and many Protestants celebrate a Christ the King Sunday each year.

But the ancient proclamation can morph into something political, controversial or even sinister, depending on who says it and how it’s said.

In recent years, “Christ is king” and similar phrases have been chanted at political rallies, posted on social media and proclaimed in speeches by voices on the right.

At times the phrase is used to support the notion of America as a Christian nation or as one that owes its allegiance specifically to the Christian God. Some current Cabinet officials and recent members of Congress have used the phrase in speeches and on social media.

But other times, political activists have paired “Christ is king” with anti-Zionist statements or negative Jewish stereotypes.

The phrase has gained popularity among far-right figures and their followers. Conservative influencer Candace Owens, who shares antisemitic conspiracies, sells branded “Christ is King” coffee mugs and T-shirts.

The controversy connects to a larger schism on the right, with some conservatives pushing back against an increasingly vocal faction whose denunciations of Israel, critics say, often combine with blatant antisemitism. Some of the latter group insist they’re not antisemitic, just anti-Zionist. That itself is a sharp break from what was once a near-consensus of pro-Israel sentiment among Republicans.

But there are times when the use of the phrase “Christ is king” is unquestionably hostile toward Jews, said a 2025 report by the Rutgers University-affiliated Network Contagion Research Institute.

Analyzing social media postings between 2021 and 2024, the institute reported a dramatic increase of the phrase “Christ is king,” often used as a hate meme targeting Jews. The report lamented this deviation from its historical use as a hopeful, sacred affirmation with biblical roots.

“The weaponization or hijacking of ‘Christ is King’ represents a disturbing inversion of its original intent. Rather than sacralizing shared values, extremists have exploited this religious expression to justify hatred,” the report said.

Controversy spotlighted at religious liberty hearing

A recent meeting of the Religious Liberty Commission, a group President Trump created and appointed, put the phrase and related controversies in the spotlight.

At a Feb. 9 hearing focused on antisemitism, a witness, Seth Dillon, spoke of often hearing people use the phrase “Christ is king” followed immediately by a highly contemptuous slur toward Jews.

“This should offend every Christian,” said Dillon, the CEO of the conservative satirical site The Babylon Bee.

Commission member Carrie Prejean Boller repeatedly grilled witnesses about whether opposing Zionism could be construed as anti-Jewish. She said that as a Catholic she opposes Zionism but that this is not antisemitic. She asked Dillon if he thought “saying ‘Christ is king’ is antisemitic.”

Dillon said no and that, as a Christian, he regularly declares that “Christ is my king” — but context matters.

He testified that the phrase has been co-opted by Groypers, alluding to the followers of far-right influencer Nick Fuentes, who has spread antisemitic views.

It’s “using the Lord’s name in an abusive manner,” Dillon said.

Fuentes’ supporters chanted “Christ is king” at the Million MAGA March, a November 2020 rally denying the Republican Trump’s defeat to Democrat Joe Biden in that year’s presidential election.

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Republican who chairs the Religious Liberty Commission, announced Prejean Boller’s removal from the panel after the meeting. He asserted that she tried to “hijack” the hearing for her own agenda.

Following the commission meeting, Prejean Boller has posted prolifically on X, denouncing “Zionist supremacists” and repeatedly using the phrase “Christ is King.” She also has denounced the war launched by the U.S. and Israel against Iran.

A recent Catholic convert, she said she opposes a popular evangelical view that modern-day Israel exists in fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

A religious phrase ‘co-opted by extremist figures’

The commission hearing was hardly the first forum to air controversy over “Christ is king.”

The Network Contagion Research Institute’s 2025 report noted that while many “Christ is king” references on social media are strictly religious, the phrase has been “systematically co-opted by extremist figures.”

The report said Fuentes and other extremists use the phrase as a “white supremacist mantra publicizing their antisemitic beliefs.”

Fuentes has said the Holocaust was exaggerated, and he has denounced “organized Jewry in America.” He has claimed to be in battle with “satanic, globalist elites,” an antisemitic trope.

The religious phrase “Christ is king” is not inherently political, said Brian Kaylor, president and editor-in-chief of Word&Way, a progressive site covering faith and politics.

But that fact provides a “deniability” to those politicizing it, he said.

“We’re at a dangerous point with the phrase ‘Christ is king’ because of the heavy activity and use of it on the far right in very fascist, antisemitic ways,” said Kaylor, a Baptist minister and author of several books on religion and politics. “We’re at the danger of that phrase losing its meaning to where this new antisemitic use is the dominant definition.”

The phrase has also gained popularity in political settings with some on the Catholic and evangelical right who are strongly pro-Israel and have repeatedly denounced antisemitism, such as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Kaylor said the phrase is often used as “a declaration of Christian nationalism ” asserting that “the nation should be brought under the dictates of Christ.”

A dispute over politics and religion

The controversy has highlighted both religious and political fissures.

The Vatican has diplomatic relations with Israel and has also recognized a state of Palestine. Pope Leo XIV has called for a two-state solution while denouncing antisemitism. During the Israel-Hamas war, popes Francis and Leo denounced the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas and Israel’s massive military response, with Leo demanding a halt to Israel’s “collective punishment” of Gaza’s population.

Other Catholics on the Religious Liberty Commission noted that Jesus and his followers were Jews and that a seminal 1965 Vatican document rejects antisemitism and the blaming of all Jews, including those alive today, for Jesus’ crucifixion.

Patrick, the commission chairman, said the dispute with Prejean Boller reflects “a real problem with a very small group in our Republican Party.” Antisemitism needs to be repudiated or “this is going to destroy our party,” he said on “The Mark Levin Show,” a podcast.

But Prejean Boller has galvanized supporters from a staunchly conservative group called Catholics for Catholics, a lay-led, self-described “militant organization dedicated to the evangelization of this great country.”

It plans to honor Prejean Boller at a March 19 event with a Catholic Champion Award in Washington featuring speakers such as Owens.

Prejean Boller has reposted announcements of the event on X, including one post that shared a Spanish-language statement that translates to “We will not rest until we convert the USA into a Catholic nation.” The post concluded in English with “Christ is King!”

Smith writes for the Associated Press.

March 4 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s prosecution service is facing criticism from legal experts after abandoning appeals in several major cases, including those involving President Lee Jae-myung and figures from the ruling party.

Legal analysts say the trend raises concerns about the erosion of prosecutorial independence amid pressure from the government and political circles.

Prosecutors declined to appeal the first-instance ruling in the Daejang-dong development corruption case involving President Lee in November last year. Reports later suggested that senior leadership at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office overruled recommendations from the investigation and trial teams to pursue an appeal.

The decision also effectively halted efforts to recover approximately 780 billion won ($585 million) in alleged illicit profits from developers linked to the Daejang-dong project.

Prosecutors also chose not to appeal a similar case involving alleged corruption in the Wirye new town development project.

Appeal decisions have also drawn attention in other politically sensitive cases.

In the first-trial verdict related to the 2020 West Sea shooting of a South Korean fisheries official, prosecutors filed what observers described as a “partial appeal” against former National Security Office Director Seo Hoon and former Coast Guard Commissioner Kim Hong-hee.

In a separate case involving allegations of illegal political funding tied to former Democratic Party leader Song Young-gil, prosecutors did not file an appeal to the Supreme Court even after the appellate court overturned the earlier ruling and issued an acquittal.

Prosecutors also declined to appeal rulings involving current and former Democratic Party lawmakers connected to a National Assembly fast-track legislation dispute. Officials said the decision was based on a judgment that further appeals would have “limited practical benefit.” Prosecutors likewise did not appeal convictions involving lawmakers from the opposition People Power Party in the same case.

Under South Korean law, prosecutors are required to perform their duties independently. However, some legal experts argue that recent decisions suggest political pressure may be influencing prosecutorial discretion.

President Lee previously criticized prosecutors during a cabinet meeting in September last year, saying prosecutors sometimes file indictments even when cases lack legal grounds and pursue appeals after acquittals to avoid responsibility.

Lee also ordered an internal inspection after prosecutors staged a collective walkout during the trial of former Gyeonggi Province Vice Governor Lee Hwa-young.

Following those developments, lawmakers from the ruling party introduced legislation to revise disciplinary procedures for prosecutors and pushed for amendments to the Criminal Act aimed at punishing judges and prosecutors who intentionally distort legal interpretation or misjudge facts during investigations or trials.

The ruling party has also formed a parliamentary group advocating for the withdrawal of charges against President Lee and for a national investigation into what they claim were politically motivated indictments.

Cha Jin-ah, a professor at Korea University Law School, said prosecutors appear increasingly reluctant to challenge the administration.

“Prosecutors who might once have pursued investigations or maintained indictments against the government with conviction are now watching the political climate,” Cha said. “This risks subordinating prosecutorial decisions to political power.”

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260304010000994

Across advanced and emerging economies, central bankers are confronting an increasingly assertive political class. Populist leaders and fiscally strained governments are pressing for lower interest rates, easier financing and, in some cases, greater influence over monetary authorities themselves.

The response from central banks has been firm but not without risk. In defending their independence, they risk appearing political, blurring the very boundary they are trying to protect.

The U.S.: Digging In at the Federal Reserve

In the United States, the confrontation has been direct. Jerome Powell has faced repeated criticism from President Donald Trump over interest rates, with Trump arguing that tighter policy undermines economic growth.

Rather than soften its stance, the Federal Reserve has emphasized its legal independence and data-driven approach. Powell has repeatedly stressed that decisions will be based on inflation and employment data, not political preference.

The stakes are high. With U.S. federal debt at $36 trillion and large refinancing needs ahead, pressure to keep borrowing costs low is intensifying. Any perception that the Fed is yielding to political demands could unsettle bond markets and erode confidence in its anti-inflation mandate.

Europe: Pre-Emptive Exits and Institutional Defense

In Europe, resistance has taken a subtler form. François Villeroy de Galhau is stepping down from the Bank of France months before elections that polls suggest could benefit the far right. Though officially described as a personal decision, the move is widely seen as an attempt to preserve institutional continuity before a potential political shift.

Similarly, Christine Lagarde has not ruled out the possibility of leaving the European Central Bank before completing her term, even while stating her baseline intention is to stay.

Such pre-emptive departures highlight a paradox: central banks are trying to shield themselves from politicization, yet early resignations can themselves be interpreted as political maneuvers. Critics argue this risks undermining the perception of neutrality.

European institutions are legally insulated by treaties, but they are not immune to democratic pressures particularly as high debt levels in countries such as France and Italy fuel debates over whether central banks should help finance public spending.

Japan: Market Discipline as a Shield

At the Bank of Japan, the dynamic is slightly different. Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi appointed dovish economists to the board, a move seen by some as an effort to temper rate hikes.

Yet the BOJ has maintained its commitment to policy normalization. In Japan’s case, currency markets have provided reinforcement. A weakening yen during earlier periods of ultra-loose policy heightened political sensitivity to inflation risks. Market volatility effectively strengthened the central bank’s hand, illustrating how investor reactions can discipline governments as well as monetary authorities.

Why Independence Matters

The battle is about more than institutional pride. Central bank independence emerged in the late 20th century as a response to the inflationary spirals of the 1970s. Countries that subordinated monetary policy to political cycles often experienced runaway prices and capital flight.

More recent examples underscore the danger. In countries such as Turkey and Argentina, political interference in rate-setting has coincided with surging inflation and currency instability.

For advanced economies now grappling with record sovereign debt and rising defense spending, the temptation to lean on central banks is clear. Lower rates ease fiscal pressure. But if investors believe policy is being distorted for political convenience, borrowing costs may ultimately rise rather than fall.

The Blurred Line Between Mandate and Mission Creep

The past decade has complicated the picture. Massive bond-buying programs during the global financial crisis and the pandemic pulled central banks deeper into fiscal territory. In Europe and Britain, limited climate-related initiatives sparked accusations of overreach.

Critics argue that such expansions of mandate have made central banks more politically visible and therefore more vulnerable.

This creates a delicate trade-off. Remaining silent in the face of political pressure may preserve appearances but risk policy distortion. Publicly resisting may safeguard inflation credibility but invite accusations of entering the political arena.

Markets as Final Arbiter

Ultimately, financial markets may determine how much room politicians have to maneuver. Governments can pressure central banks, but they cannot easily compel investors to finance deficits at artificially low rates.

If markets sense that independence is eroding, they may demand higher yields, weaken currencies or pull capital outcomes that raise inflation and undermine growth. In that sense, investor discipline can reinforce central bank autonomy more effectively than legal protections alone.

A Costly Defense

Central bankers today face a more hostile and fragmented political landscape than their predecessors. The old assumption that technocrats could quietly manage inflation while politicians handled everything else no longer holds.

By fighting back, they defend hard-won credibility. But in doing so, they risk appearing as participants in political struggles rather than neutral arbiters of economic stability.

The challenge is no longer simply setting interest rates. It is preserving trust in institutions designed to stand above politics at a time when politics increasingly refuses to stand aside.

With information from Reuters.

President Trump headed into Tuesday night’s State of the Union speech projecting confidence in his personal power to “Make America Great Again,” despite the woes he says he’s been saddled with by his Democratic predecessors.

He also stood in a uniquely precarious position — facing some of his lowest approval ratings ever, plummeting support on his signature issue of immigration, unrelenting pressure from the slow rollout of the Epstein files, a sluggish economy, mounting international tensions and looming midterm elections in which Democrats appear poised to make gains, possibly even retaking control in Congress.

Trump remains popular among his base and remarkably infallible in the eyes of his loyalist administration and still commands extraordinary deference from many leaders in his party. Many of his supporters share his confidence and suggest polls showing slipping support are bogus.

“This is what ‘America first’ looks like,” said Paul Dans, former head of the conservative Project 2025 playbook, which Trump has largely adopted. “The last year has been phenomenal. He has done more in one year than most presidents would accomplish in a whole term.”

Nonetheless, political observers see a landscape of vulnerabilities for the second-term president heading into the 2026 elections.

“He stands at a moment of rapidly declining political capital,” said Rob Stutzman, a Republican consultant in California. “From a historical perspective, a president in year six, heading into what looks like a rough midterm, is probably not going to rise any higher again, in terms of their political equity — so he’s probably past his peak of power.”

Trump is in “about as weak a position” as any president heading into a State of the Union address in recent memory, agreed Bob Shrum, a longtime Democratic strategist and director of the Dornsife Center for the Political Future at USC. “I don’t think the country sees Trump as the solution to anything at this point.”

At the same time, however, Trump is not acting like other weakened presidents, Shrum noted.

Instead of taking stock and turning away from unpopular policies, including on immigration and the economy, he is signaling that he simply won’t accept major midterm losses for his party — which leaves the nation in “completely uncharted waters,” Shrum said.

“We have a president who by all traditional standards has been weakened seriously, but who acts as though he had maximum strength,” he said. “We have a president who is deeply unpopular, who by every measure should see his party do very poorly in the midterms, but who seems determined to interfere in the midterm elections in any possible way that he can.”

In the polls

A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll released Sunday showed 60% of Americans disapprove of Trump’s job performance, with 39% saying they approve. The last time Trump fared so poorly in that poll was shortly after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

A CNN poll by SSRS released Monday found that Trump’s job approval rating stood at 36%, with a 19-point drop in approval among Latinos in the last year, an 18-point drop among Americans younger than 45, and a 15-point drop to just 26% approval among political independents — the lowest it has ever been during either of his terms.

Shrum said such sharp declines in support among Latino and independent voters do not bode well for Trump or for other Republicans on the ballot in November — especially given that the president, who often dismisses polling not in his favor, does not appear inclined to alter his policies.

Dans, who is running for Senate in South Carolina against Republican incumbent Sen. Lindsey Graham, dismissed Trump’s slumping polling numbers as “fake or engineered,” and said if anything, the president should “go full Trump” — doubling down on his agenda.

On immigration

Trump has polled well on immigration in the past. But his heavy-handed crackdown — with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agents arresting people without criminal records, detaining U.S. citizens and legal immigrants and killing U.S. citizens in Minneapolis — has shifted that. The Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll found 58% of adults disapprove of his handling of immigration.

Stutzman said Trump and his team obviously realize their approach has rubbed voters the wrong way, which is why they recently shuffled the leadership team in Minneapolis. But the broader policy has remained in place and “the numbers are still cratering on them,” he said.

Shrum said that if Trump “were intent on improving his situation, he would change the way ICE behaves, and might put some different faces on the effort that he’s making, and might focus on people who are actually convicted criminals,” but instead, he and other administration officials “seem determined to plow ahead.”

Dans said Trump received “a clear mandate in 2024 with respect to the mass migration, and it was to reverse and end that flow,” and that’s what he’s doing. “Everyone is going back home.”

On Epstein

Trump has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing involving the late disgraced financier and convicted sexual abuser Jeffrey Epstein, a onetime acquaintance. However, questions about Epstein’s ties to Trump and other powerful men have persisted as evidence from multiple investigations into Epstein’s abuses continue to be released.

Republicans in Congress broke with the president and joined Democrats to pass a bill requiring the records’ release last year. Justice Department officials have slow-walked the release by redacting and withholding records, further dragging it out.

The records contained unproven accusations of wrongdoing by Trump, which he has denied. Democrats and Republicans alike have argued more records need to be released.

On the economy

Trump was dealt a blow last week when the U.S. Supreme Court blocked a sweeping set of tariffs he’d imposed on international trading partners.

Trump has said his administration will use other legal authorities to impose similar or even stiffer tariffs, despite polls showing his tariffs are unpopular.

The Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll, which was taken before the court ruling, found that 57% of respondents disapproved of Trump’s managing of the economy, and 64% disapproved of his handling of tariffs.

Dans said that Trump has already tempered inflation and that “the economy is ready to take off like a rocket ship,” especially if Congress gives the president the space to continue rolling out policies aimed at returning jobs to the U.S. that long ago went overseas.

“We’re really focused on reindustrialization,” Dans said. “This isn’t going to happen overnight, but all the building blocks are being put in place.”

Looking ahead

Stutzman said there is already evidence that Trump “doesn’t quite have a grip on Congress” like he used to, given recent votes on the Epstein files and tariffs, and that the conservative-leaning Supreme Court is still willing to rule against him, as it did on his tariffs.

If Democrats win back control in the midterms, Trump will see his influence wane even further as “the next two years turn into a quagmire,” with Democrats stymieing his agenda and launching one investigation after another, Stutzman said.

Dans said people standing in Trump’s way, including in Congress, need to clear out, because they’re “flouting” the will of the electorate. “It’s always about what the people want, and that’s what he’s going to deliver.”

Shrum said Trump trying to avoid losing power by interfering with the vote, including through the handling of mail-in ballots, is a major concern, as is Trump entering the U.S. into an armed conflict overseas in a “Wag the Dog” move — a reference to a 1997 movie of the same name in which an unpopular president uses a foreign war to salvage an election.

However, Shrum said he doesn’t think the latter would actually benefit Trump — “I don’t think that at this point another foreign incursion would make any president more popular” — and that, interference or not, a Republican drubbing in November is likely.

Trump, then, “will just try to govern by executive order,” will get sued and will have his agenda mired in court battles straight through the end of his presidency, Shrum said — a product, in part, of his confident despite all indications, “my way or the highway” approach to governing.

This essay is excerpted from Gov. Gavin Newsom’s new memoir, “Young Man in a Hurry: A Memoir of Discovery.”

On January 20, 2004, I took a seat in the gallery of the House of Representatives to hear President Bush deliver his State of the Union address. The seat came courtesy of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Ten months earlier, Bush had made the decision to invade Iraq after his administration’s historic campaign of lies convinced the American people that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. We would not extricate ourselves from that costly conflict for another seventeen years. Much of his speech that night was a further attempt to sell to the nation the justification for his war. “Had we failed to act, the dictator’s weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day,” Bush said. He characterized the Patriot Act, which had unleashed a new magnitude of spying on American citizens, as “one of those essential tools” in the war on terror.

“Young Man in a Hurry: A Memoir of Discovery” by Gavin Newsom

(Penguin Press)

The rest of his speech was standard fare, ho-hum really, until he reached a section near the end about American values and the need for us to “work together to counter the negative influences of the culture and to send the right messages to our children.” He said he was troubled by activist judges in activist states who were threatening to undo the Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by his predecessor, President Bill Clinton. We had to “defend the sanctity of marriage” as the union of one man and one woman, he said. If need be, he would seek a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

As I was leaving the chamber, a middle-aged couple next to me was talking about how pleased they were that their president was finally confronting the “homosexual agenda.” The word homosexual came out of their mouths bent by contempt. I was supposed to head downstairs for a reception with Congresswoman Pelosi and a delegation of California Democrats, but I needed a breath of fresh air. Outside the Capitol, I kept walking and muttering to myself. “These are my people Bush is attacking. My constituents. My staff. My closest advisers.” In the cold and dark of Washington, I called one of my aides back in San Francisco and pledged that I was “going to do something about it” as soon as I returned home.

The law in our state was no different from the law in every other state. Same-sex unions could not be recognized by the local assessor-recorder’s office. They were illegal. As I explained to aides my willingness to now defy that law, I held up a copy of the California Constitution. In Article I, the first section promises that “all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights.” Among these rights are pursuing and obtaining “safety, happiness and privacy.” It was not until Section 7.5 that these rights were then abridged: “Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This not only contradicted the first section but was discriminatory on its face.

My top staff didn’t disagree with my reading, but almost to a person they were opposed to my taking on the issue. Steve Kawa, my chief of staff, a gay Bostonian whose accent cut through all nonsense, pulled me aside and spoke from his heart. His father had renounced him for being gay, and he wanted nothing more than to live in an America where homophobia was no longer the norm. But swinging open the doors to the city clerk’s office and inviting gay men and lesbian women to the marriage altar was political suicide, he argued. We were new to office, for one thing. And polls showed that less than one third of Californians supported gay marriage.

The “go it slow” admonition was the mother’s milk of Democratic politics. In the endless battle for the hearts and minds of moderates, it seemed the only feasible way for a Democrat to get elected and govern. But this was San Francisco, and we were talking about equal protection under the law for a class of people whose ostracism by family, friends, and community had brought them to San Francisco in the first place. If not here, where? Eric Jaye, one of my campaign consultants, could see my quandary. I was caught between my conscience and the sound political advice of the people closest to me. We had several late-night conversations on the phone. “What the f— are you doing here? Why did we work so hard to win if you can’t do something bold?” he asked. “This is a short life, Gavin. Your time as a politician to get things done is just a blip.”

I thought back to my model for the wine store. The entire purpose was to turn the staid on its head and create a new reality. I called Joyce Newstat, my policy director, who was also gay. “We need to do this,” I told her. She could hear in my voice that I had made up my mind. “OK, but we can’t afford to take a wrong step,” she said. “Gays and lesbians have a history of being blindsided, and you don’t want to become part of that narrative. Give me a week or two to reach out to the community.” Joyce sat down with Kate Kendell, the brilliant executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, based in San Francisco. “Who is this guy?” Kendell wondered. “He can’t just come waltzing in here and upset the delicate balance we’ve taken years to achieve.” Joyce told her I couldn’t be talked out of it, that it had become internalized after I had gone to Washington and heard the words of bigotry ring out in the Capitol. “Well, OK. But if he’s going to do it, he has to do it right,” Kendell said. She directed her attorneys at the center to work with our team on fashioning a plan.

I then went to Mabel Teng, my former colleague on the board of supervisors who was now the assessor-recorder of San Francisco. I asked her what complications would be presented to her official duties if we allowed same-sex marriages at city hall. Mabel, who began her career in politics as an activist with Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition, did not surprise me with her reply. “It would be no problem at all, Mayor.” The marriage of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, would require hardly any change to the paperwork. Rather than “man and wife,” they would show up in her computer as “Applicant One” and “Applicant Two.”

Alarmed by my plans, my father and Uncle Brennan and their close friend Joe Cotchett — each one steeped in law and politics but only Joe standing six foot four and a former Special Forces paratrooper —attempted a last-minute intervention. They lured me to the Balboa Cafe for dinner and wine. They weren’t the kind to beat around the bush. Did I realize that I was about to torpedo my political career?

Joe got right in my face. “Why are you doing this, Gavin?”

“I’ll tell you why I’m doing this,” I said defiantly. “Because it’s the right thing to do.”

I could not have given him a more simple and true answer, and it seemed to hit Joe, who had built his career out of representing the underdog, right in the gut.

“OK,” he said in a different voice. “Then let’s do it.”

With that, my father and uncle went quiet. Not another word was said about it. I left there that night thinking that even my Newsom kin, the ones who had my best interests at heart, could get it wrong from time to time. While I was open to skepticism and second-guessing, indeed I welcomed such a process, in the end I had to trust my own gut. On the matter of civil rights for all Californians, there was no turning back. As for big Joe Cotchett, he ended up joining the ranks of lawyers fighting for the legal right to same-sex marriage.

From “Young Man in a Hurry: A Memoir of Discovery” by Gavin Newsom, published by Penguin Press, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House LLC. Copyright © 2026 by Gavin Newsom.

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.