political

Africa has shown itself in the past week again as a continent of dramatic contrasts, in which moral leadership, political turmoil, and financial aspiration come into collision in a manner that would not only chart its own future but also that of the world. The continent is going through a time that is both precarious and radical, as the potent moral rhetoric of a papal visit gives way to an ever-worsening political persecution and systemic economic disparities.

A Moral Voice in a Fractured Continent

The visit of Pope Leo in some parts of Africa, such as Angola and Cameroon, has been one of the most intriguing this week. His message attracted crowds of more than 10,0000 people, and it was not only religious but also very political, declaring Africa a beautiful but wounded continent and demanding unity, justice, and an end to violence.

It is not only the size of the meetings but also the content of the message that is important. The Pope was outspoken in an attack on corruption, inequality, and exploitative governance systems—the problems that are at the core of most of the struggles in Africa today. His words about people being more important than corporate interests are well-received in a continent where natural resource wealth has not always translated into widespread prosperity.

This visit was, in a sense, a symbol of a greater fact: Africa is not merely economically or politically challenged; it is morally and structurally challenged. The unity cry in Angola, the nation that is yet to overcome the adverse effects of decades of civil war, is a symptom of the bigger continental necessity to mend the wounds of the past and deal with the inequalities of the present.

Political Tensions and Disappearance of Space of Dissent

As the moral pleas of unity reverberated in stadiums, political realities on the ground painted an even more disturbing scenario. The South African arrest of activist Kemi Seba is part of an increasing trend in some parts of Africa, where there is an increased crackdown on dissenting voices.

Seba, the anti-colonial and anti-Western rhetoricist and critic of Western influence, now risks extradition to Benin on charges of inciting rebellion. His detention highlights a broader conflict: the fight between state power and political activism in an area where the democratic institutions are not yet balanced.

This is not a one-time event. Governments all over the continent are striking a fine balance between ensuring stability and political expression. In other instances, this equilibrium is leaning towards control over being open, and this leaves one worrying about the future of democratic governance.

The consequences are not confined nationally. The political situation in Africa is a topic of keen interest to the rest of the world, not just due to its size and population but because it offers one of the final avenues of democratic growth in the 21st century. Political space is reduced here, causing ripples way beyond the continent.

Structural Gaps in Economic Promise

Africa is still a puzzle economically. On paper, the figures are encouraging. Recently, South Africa obtained the promise of billions of investments, which indicates a great interest of other countries in the areas of green energy, infrastructure, and digital development. But the facts speak otherwise. Of these promised investments, only around 42 percent have been translated into real economic activity—much less than world averages. This delivery gap is indicative of an ongoing problem: it is one thing to attract investment and another to implement it.

Simultaneously, the recent climate financing agreement of South Africa with Germany that provides hundreds of millions of euros of loans and green energy assistance reminds us about the increased role of the continent in the global climate plan. Africa is also being increasingly viewed not only as a beneficiary of aid but also as a prime actor in the shift to sustainable energy.

However, structural problems are quite rooted. The effectiveness of economic initiatives is still hampered by policy inconsistency, poor infrastructure, and governance issues. Even the most ambitious plans of investment have a chance of failing without these underlying problems being addressed.

The Overlooked Crisis: Environment and Illicit Economies

The other trend of importance this week has been the further increase in wildlife trafficking in Nigeria, even though the legislation has been taking measures to reduce it. A lack of complete legislation on wildlife protection has allowed the illegal trade to continue, with several seizures of endangered species over the past few months.

The problem is indicative of a larger problem: that of a nexus between environmental degradation and ineffective enforcement. Africa has one of the most biodiverse regions in the world, but it is rapidly being threatened by illegal trade, climate change, and the exploitation of resources.

The inability to adequately deal with such problems not only damages the ecosystems but also weakens the governance and the stability of the economy. In places where there is poor regulation, illegal economies flourish and, as a result, establish parallel economies that undermine state power and promote corruption.

Africa: Moment between Opportunity and Uncertainty

Collectively, what happened this last week shows a continent at a crossroads. On the one hand, there is an increasing international appreciation of the significance of Africa, be it in climate policy, economic investment, or geopolitical strategy. Conversely, internal threats persist to restrict its ability to exploit these opportunities to their full potential.

The message of unity and justice that the Pope is calling for is the spirit of this moment. Africa is not poor in resources, talent, and potential. The greater challenge it confronts is alignment itself, leadership and citizens, economic growth and social equity, and global engagement and local realities.

Conclusion: A Turning Point, Not a Passing Moment

The events of this week do not represent one-off headlines, but they are evidence of larger trends that are defining the future of Africa. The continent is not just responding to the global events—it is steadily becoming one of the main arenas where the global issues are acted out.

The doubt now arises whether Africa will be able to utilize this moment of attention to become a changed continent. Will investment be translated into development? Will politics become more open? Do ethical demands of cohesion result in practical change?

The responses are unclear. Nevertheless, there is one thing that is clear: Africa is never at the periphery of world affairs any longer. It is here in the center, and what occurs here during times of this kind will make the continent and indeed the world.

Shawna Thomas, who exited CBS News earlier this year, has joined MS NOW as political director.

The cable network formerly known as MSNBC announced Wednesday that Thomas will lead the organization’s political unit and direct coverage of campaigns and elections. She will also appear as an on-air analyst.

Thomas lands at the progressive-leaning MS NOW after five years as executive producer for “CBS Mornings.” She announced her departure from the program last month, just as co-host Gayle King was signed to a new deal.

Thomas is among a number of executives and on-air talent who have left CBS News since the arrival of editor-in-chief Bari Weiss, although she told colleagues her decision was about getting away from the grind of early morning television.

MS NOW is owned by Versant, a company created out of the cable assets spun off by Comcast. The new company chose not to rely on the news-gathering resources of NBC News, which oversaw MSNBC, and is building its own editorial operation.

Last month, MS NOW poached long time NBC News White House correspondent Peter Alexander, who will have a daily program on MS NOW and handle extended breaking news coverage starting later this year.

Thomas is a veteran of political coverage. She is a former Washington bureau chief for the news division at Vice Media, overseeing politics and policy stories for the HBO series “Vice News Tonight.”

Thomas spent a decade working for NBC News in various production roles, including planning its election coverage. She also had a stint as an executive at Quibi, the short-form streaming video platform.

The real test of Venezuela’s current political moment will not be institutional, but political. It will not lie in the appointment of a new prosecutor, or in any decision taken by a parliament that, by design, reflects the preferences of those in power. It will lie in something far less controllable: the return of María Corina Machado.

For months, there has been talk of normalization, of technocratic adjustment, even of a transition managed from within. It is an appealing idea, but an illusory one. As usual, chavismo does not administer space, it occupies it. The notion that it would suddenly evolve into a system governed by technocratic restraint, even under US pressure, was always more wishful thinking than analysis.

What has changed is not the nature of the system, but our understanding of it. For years, it was assumed that power rested on a rigid internal balance, a kind of tripod between civilian leadership, party machinery, and the military. The uneventful sidelining of Vladimir Padrino López suggests otherwise. Now relegated to an almost theatrical role as Agriculture Minister, he makes appearances at cattle shows in Borsalino hats and Panerai watches. We have long known that chavismo’s superpower is its adaptability. It can reshuffle, absorb shocks, and reallocate power without fracturing, even at its highest levels, and carry on.

That adaptability cuts both ways. It helps explain why Delcy Rodríguez has been able to consolidate authority despite presiding over the country under the tutelage of the “yankee devil”, and despite earlier doubts about her staying power. It also explains why the government has been able to pursue a limited opening without losing control. But it also sets the limits of that opening.

Because the one problem the system has not been able to solve is credibility.

An empty pitch

The effort to attract investment has run into a wall that legal reforms and external signaling cannot easily overcome. Investors are not simply looking for incentives, they are looking for guarantees, that power is legitimate, that rules will be upheld, that today’s opening will not be reversed tomorrow. So far, those guarantees do not exist.

As I have argued before, none of this means that capital will stop flowing into Venezuela altogether. It won’t. There are firms that know how to operate in this environment, firms that have built their business models around political risk rather than in spite of it.

Take Grupo Cisneros, which is moving to secure a $1 billion investment fund aimed at Venezuela’s recovery. Or Chevron, which has doubled down on its presence through a major asset swap with PDVSA, expanding its stake in key projects in the Orinoco Belt.

What is not arriving, at least not yet, is transformational capital, the kind that requires predictability, legal certainty, and a credible political horizon.

These are not naïve entrants. They are actors with long experience navigating the Venezuelan system. Cisneros has remained a player despite fines and suspensions over the years. Chevron, for its part, has effectively become the most important American economic partner of the current government, maintaining operations through multiple political cycles and regulatory frameworks.

But that is precisely the point.

This is not the kind of capital Venezuela needs.

What is arriving, or staying, is adapted capital, capital that knows how to survive volatility, negotiate through informal institutions, and operate without full guarantees. What is not arriving, at least not yet, is transformational capital, the kind that requires predictability, legal certainty, and a credible political horizon.

And that gap cannot be closed through reforms alone. It cannot be legislated into existence, nor negotiated deal by deal. It requires something more fundamental: confidence that power in Venezuela is not entirely discretionary.

The pressure map

The timing of this becomes even more significant in light of Venezuela’s re-engagement with the IMF and the World Bank. After years of isolation, the country is once again being folded back into the international financial system, opening the door to technical assistance, debt restructuring, and eventually, fresh financing. It is the clearest signal yet that normalization, at least at the institutional level, is moving forward.

But this only sharpens the underlying problem.

These institutions can help stabilize accounts, restructure liabilities, and provide liquidity. What they cannot do is manufacture credibility where it does not exist. Their return signals that Venezuela is being treated, once again, as a country with which business can be conducted. It does not guarantee that the rules of that business will hold.

In some ways, Delcy has the easier hand to play. The current arrangement in Venezuela has become useful to Donald Trump in ways that go beyond the country itself. With the Iranian campaign failing to deliver the results he had anticipated, Venezuela has quietly taken on the role of a foreign policy success story, something tangible he can point to, both in terms of energy security and geopolitical leverage.

That utility is not uniform across his coalition. For more isolationist voters in what is often referred to as flyover country, a stable Venezuela that does not require further military involvement, and that contributes to stabilizing US energy prices, is a net positive. 

Detaining Machado, after appearances at CERAWeek and high-level meetings in Europe and Washington, would send a clear and immediate signal to the very actors the government has been trying to court.

Venezuelan crude is already easing pressure on US fuel costs, reinforcing the perception that the current arrangement delivers practical benefits.

But in South Florida, the picture is different. Latino voters, particularly Venezuelans, are already uneasy with the administration’s immigration policies, and are far less inclined to accept stability under a reconfigured chavista leadership as an acceptable endpoint. They are drawn instead to Machado’s message, and increasingly wary of what a prolonged Delcy Rodríguez-led government would mean. For them, the issue is not stability alone, but the absence of a credible electoral horizon.

This creates a tension within Washington’s own political logic. On one hand, there is an incentive to consolidate what appears to be working: restored oil flows, renewed financial channels, and growing international engagement with Caracas. On the other, there remains a constituency that expects something more, a path toward elections, not just normalization.

Machado, in this context, faces a more complex task than it might appear. She is not only trying to pressure the Venezuelan government, she is also trying to persuade a cautious administration that pushing beyond the current equilibrium is worth the risk, that the next step is not to stabilize the system as it is, but to open it further.

And she is doing so with limited institutional backing. Much of the Venezuelan civil society ecosystem aligned with MAGA politics appears more focused on maintaining its own access to the White House than on advancing a coherent strategy for Venezuela itself. That leaves Machado in a familiar position, carrying the burden of political escalation largely on the legs of her own prestige, but now within a much tighter set of constraints.

This is where María Corina Machado reenters the picture, not just as a political actor, but as a structural variable. Her return forces a choice that cannot be deferred. Allow her back into the country, or stop her.

Detaining her, after appearances at CERAWeek and high-level meetings in Europe and Washington, would send a clear and immediate signal to the very actors the government has been trying to court. These are not abstract observers, they are the same executives and investors now being asked to commit capital. Arresting her would not simply be a domestic political decision, it would be read as a statement about the limits of the current opening.

Allowing her to return is not costless either. It risks projecting weakness toward a base that has been conditioned to expect control. It creates space for mobilization, for coordination, for a reactivation of political pressure that the system has worked hard to contain.

But at this stage, that is a more manageable risk.

A constrained confrontation

Chavismo has shown that it can absorb internal contradictions. It can tolerate limited openings while maintaining overall control. What it is less equipped to manage, at least at this point, is a collapse in external credibility at the precise moment it is trying to rebuild it.

This is also not a confrontation between unconstrained actors. Machado is operating within limits of her own. She understands that an uncontrolled escalation could be interpreted in Washington as an attempt to derail a strategy that, for now, tolerates the current arrangement. Her leverage depends not only on mobilization, but on preserving her external legitimacy.

What emerges from this is not a clean confrontation, but a constrained one. Both sides are pushing, but neither is free to push all the way. Machado needs to generate pressure without triggering a rupture that works against her. The government needs to contain that pressure without closing the space in ways that undermine its own economic strategy.

That is what makes her physical presence in the country so consequential. Without it, the reactivation we are beginning to see, student movements regaining traction, party structures reopening, political figures cautiously returning, remains fragmented. With it, that energy has a focal point. 

And that is precisely why her return has become the real test. Not whether the system can produce institutional outcomes aligned with its interests, but whether it can tolerate, and ultimately absorb, the presence of the one actor it does not fully control, without undoing the fragile equilibrium it is trying to build.

The election victory of Hungary’s Tisza party on April 12 marks the end of the 16 year rule of Viktor Orbán, a figure who has long defined Hungary’s contentious relationship with the European Union. His tenure reshaped Hungary’s domestic institutions and repeatedly placed the country at odds with EU norms, laws, and political consensus.

The incoming leadership under Péter Magyar now inherits not only a domestic mandate for change but also the complex task of rebuilding trust with the EU after years of institutional confrontation.

A fractured relationship with Brussels

Under Orbán, Hungary frequently clashed with EU institutions over rule of law, judicial independence, media freedom, and migration policy. One of the most controversial measures was the lowering of the retirement age for judges and prosecutors, which critics argued enabled political reshaping of the judiciary.

Tensions escalated further after 2022, when Hungary’s stance on sanctions against Russia and support for Ukraine created repeated deadlocks within EU decision making processes.

Financial pressure also became a key tool of EU leverage. The European Commission suspended billions of euros in funding to Hungary, citing concerns over corruption and democratic backsliding, deepening the political divide.

Allegations and escalating mistrust

Relations deteriorated further following leaked reports alleging that senior Hungarian officials coordinated with Russian counterparts during sensitive EU discussions. These claims intensified accusations within parts of the EU that Hungary had undermined collective decision making during a period of heightened geopolitical tension.

While Budapest has rejected many of these allegations, they contributed to a climate of mistrust that severely weakened Hungary’s position within the bloc.

A new government with a reform mandate

The Tisza party’s victory signals a clear domestic demand for change, particularly around governance and corruption. The new administration has strong incentives to restore relations with the EU, not least because of the approximately 17 billion euros in suspended funding that could be unlocked if conditions are met.

EU leaders, however, have made it clear that financial normalization will depend on compliance with a wide set of governance and legal reforms. These include anti corruption measures, judicial independence safeguards, and adjustments to policies affecting migration and minority rights.

Structural constraints on reform

Despite political momentum for rapprochement, significant obstacles remain. Hungarian society remains more socially conservative and more sceptical of the EU than many of its Western counterparts. This limits the political space for rapid liberal reforms, particularly in sensitive areas such as LGBTQ+ rights and asylum policy.

Economic pressures further complicate the situation. The new government will inherit fiscal strain linked to years of disputed EU funding and broader geopolitical uncertainty, including the economic effects of the ongoing war involving Iran, which has disrupted global energy markets and increased financial volatility.

Ukraine and the Russia question

One of the most sensitive areas in Hungary’s future EU relationship will be its position on Ukraine. While Péter Magyar has signaled a willingness to improve relations with Ukraine and align more closely with NATO and EU policy, key ambiguities remain.

His stated openness to continuing Russian energy imports for the foreseeable future, combined with proposals for a referendum on Ukrainian EU membership, suggests that strategic continuity with aspects of the previous government may persist.

Given public scepticism toward Ukraine within Hungary, any referendum could significantly complicate EU enlargement plans.

Analysis

The end of Orbán’s long tenure represents a clear political inflection point in EU Hungary relations. It removes a persistent source of institutional confrontation and opens the possibility of renewed cooperation with Brussels.

However, the assumption that relations will automatically normalize is overly optimistic. The structural sources of tension between Hungary and the EU extend beyond one leader. They include divergent political cultures, competing interpretations of sovereignty, and deep disagreements over migration, rule of law, and foreign policy alignment.

The new government’s dependence on EU funds gives Brussels significant leverage, but also creates domestic political risk if reforms are perceived as externally imposed. This creates a delicate balancing act between compliance and legitimacy.

On foreign policy, Hungary’s position on Russia and Ukraine will remain the most consequential test. Even partial continuity with previous policies could reintroduce friction at a time when EU unity is under pressure from multiple geopolitical crises.

Ultimately, Orbán’s departure may mark the end of one chapter, but it does not resolve the underlying tensions that have defined Hungary’s relationship with the European project. The reset, while possible, will be gradual, conditional, and politically contested.

With information from Reuters.

Re “Asian Population Surges in County,” Feb. 12: Assemblywoman Carol Liu (D-La Canada Flintridge) suggests that the reason Asian Americans lack political influence in the U.S. is Asian American cultural characteristics. Although I have the greatest respect for Liu and her work in the Legislature, I disagree. The culprit is not culture but many Asian Americans’ ineligibility to vote as they make their way through the citizenship process, and parties’ and candidates’ failure to mobilize the Asian American community.

Contrary to a public image of political complacency, Asian Americans have a long history of participation in American politics. They have participated through lobbying, litigation, petitioning, protesting, boycotting, civil disobedience and contributing to political campaigns. Liu herself is an example of such involvement. In a multi-city, multiethnic, multilingual survey of Asian Americans, my colleagues and I find that, contrary to assumptions of political apathy, Asian Americans are not culturally disadvantaged when it comes to politics. In fact, they are not at all apathetic. Only 13% express a lack of interest in American politics.

Janelle Wong

Asst. Prof., Political

Science, Program

in American Studies

and Ethnicity, USC

Thrift store millionaire Ray Ellison leaned back in his office chair and laughed.

He knows a liar when he sees one, he said. And he knows a liberal. He doesn’t like either.

“I called him a slimeball, scum-sucking liar,” said Ellison, 65, reciting a description of then-Ventura Mayor Dennis Orrock that he painted on a truck parked near a freeway in 1984.

Ellison took on the mayor’s ally the following year, dubbing Councilwoman Pati Longo “The Phony with The Toni” in full-page newspaper ads that declared her a liar, too.

In 1991, Ellison’s large ads depicted Councilman Donald Villeneuve astride a defecating bull, stating: “Screw the Marketplace.” Last fall, two councilmen and a challenger were featured as smiling fish in ads titled: “A Fish Stinks From The Head. Take A Sniff of These.”

Of the forces that have reshaped Ventura’s political landscape in recent years–pushing campaigns to increasingly personal attacks–none has been consistently harsher than Raymond W. Ellison.

Spending tens of thousands of dollars, including at least $14,000 last fall, Ellison has been described by critics as Ventura’s godfather of mudslinging.

“Based on the ads he ran, I would judge him to be venal and mean, coarse and crass,” said former Councilman Todd Collart, defeated Nov. 5 after he was caricatured as a smelly fish. “He continues to set lower and lower standards to be aimed for by others. And that works against good people seeking elective office.”

Councilman Gary Tuttle–also featured in the “fish ads”–said he considered not running for a second term last year because of Ellison.

“I knew he was going to come after me, and I had to think, ‘Do I want to put my family through this?’ ” he said. “My mom, my wife, my sisters, they got very upset. The Tuttle name has always been a positive in this community.”

Even some candidates backed by Ellison distanced themselves from his methods. Newly elected Councilwoman Rosa Lee Measures called a press conference before the election to say she was not associated with Ellison, and asked that he cancel future ads.

Councilman James Monahan, a recipient of Ellison political assistance for 16 years, said recently that he does not condone his friend’s advertisements, because they “can have a negative effect on everyone. You can turn people off.”

But to many of Ellison’s political allies and friends, the Ventura businessman is far more complicated and admirable than his crude public persona might suggest. And his opinions–though presented in a blunt style–air the frustrations of Ventura’s business community, they said.

Supporters say Ellison holds work, family and religion most dear–that he is generous in his donations to church and charity and in his employment of society’s least employable.

A high school dropout turned business whiz, Ellison says he started the nation’s first privately owned thrift store in 1948 with money he earned as a paratrooper in World War II. Now semi-retired, he claims about 1,300 employees in the 28 stores he and his two sons own or operate in seven states.

Officials at organizations for war veterans say Ellison’s thrift stores keep them in business by paying the charities millions of dollars a year for donated goods or by operating charity-owned stores at a healthy profit.

“The United States could use more Ray Ellisons,” said Jim Pechin, business manager for the Vietnam Veterans of America in Washington. “We probably wouldn’t be here today without Ray, because he developed our funding base.”

Locally, Ellison donates to charity golf tournaments and gives time and money to the First Baptist Church of Ventura. In recent days, he helped decorate the church for Christmas dinners–then washed dishes afterward.

“He’s just a very helpful, generous man,” said Nick Bailey, a church associate pastor. “He’s not afraid when he sees needs in the church community and in the ministry here to be a part of the solution.”

*

Ventura attorney William D. Fairfield, who has known Ellison for 20 years, said of his friend:

“I have tremendous respect for this man–for his integrity, for his business acumen, for him as a family man. And I think he’s done more for this community than any single individual by asking public officials to be accountable.”

Banker Bob Alviani, president-elect of the Ventura Chamber of Commerce, said the comments of Ellison–whose philosophy is pro-growth, pro-business and anti-government waste–reflect the sentiments of others.

“I don’t think Ray Ellison is alone in his feelings or alone in how he expresses his opinion,” Alviani said. “If he wants to pay the price to say what he’s saying, fine. If you take it to heart, fine. If you choose to ignore it, fine too.

“The wonderful thing about our politics in this country is that a person has a right to say whatever they want,” Alviani said.

Gruff, lean and balding, Ellison is skittish about public attention. He wants to have his say every so often in political advertisements and letters to the editor, and leave it at that.

But the nature of his business–and his family’s pioneer role in it–have prompted a series of television and newspaper reporters to knock at his door.

“I’ve had lots of stories,” Ellison said in a recent interview. “You name it–NBC, CBS, ’60 Minutes,’ ‘The Today Show.’ . . . It’s a big pain in the ass.”

The theme of those stories, including a 1987 investigation by The Times, has been that private thrift store operators such as Ellison use charities’ names to collect tax-deductible donations of clothes and household goods, then sell them for large profits, most of which go into the pockets of the operators and not the programs of charities.

*

The Times’ investigation found that private thrift store operators nationwide typically made $1.50 for each $1 the charities got. Ellison, his extended family and the Ellisons’ former employees dominate the private thrift store industry, The Times found.

But in Ray Ellison’s case, the charities generally have not complained about the revenue they receive from the stores he owns or manages for them. They say their share of profits is higher than industry standards. For instance, charity profits reach about $1.45 million a year–about two-thirds of the total profit–at five stores owned by the Disabled American Veterans organization of Colorado and operated by Ellison.

“Ray runs the Cadillac of the thrift store management,” said Fred Friedrich, president of the DAV’s Colorado thrift store committee. “The guy’s good. He’s got a lot of respect out here.”

Ellison’s Ventura-based M & M Management wrote checks totaling $7 million to veterans’ groups last year, including $4 million in profit from the 28 stores, he said. He won’t say how much his company earned, but he has prospered.

Ellison and his family valued M & M at $5 million in 1985, according to public records. His two sons, Matthew and Mark, and the husbands of his two daughters all work in the family business, Ellison said.

Ellison’s 142-acre ranch just north of Ventura is for sale for $3 million. He has a condominium in Colorado, where he spends summers and holidays. His family owns most of the 28 stores they operate. He’s a real estate developer in Texas, where he recently sold 40 acres to Wal-Mart, and in Washington state, where he’s building a 180-house subdivision and shopping center.

Ellison’s prosperity is surely greater than he could have imagined as a Depression-era son of a Salvation Army officer. As a boy, he said he struggled in school because of frequent family moves along the West Coast, and dropped out in ninth grade.

*

But he began to learn the skills that would make him rich. He remembers watching his parents directing teams of men sorting salvaged goods for the Salvation Army.

Family lore credits his mother, Stella, with coining the term “thrift shop” as the Ellisons helped the Salvation Army transform its bulk salvage operation into a retail one in the 1930s.

Eventually Ellison’s father, Orlo, and four uncles all entered the private thrift store business. But it was young Ray and one uncle who Ellison said started the first private thrift store 46 years ago in Santa Ana with $3,500.

By 1965, Ellison, who lived in Ventura briefly in 1947, had returned to the city with his wife, Sue, a Westmont College graduate, to raise his two sons and two daughters, Ellison said.

Since then, Ellison has left a legacy of hard work and hard feelings.

Even in semi-retirement, the Montana-born Ellison said it is not uncommon for him to arrive at M & M’s national accounting office on Main Street in Ventura by 4 a.m.

“Get your buns out of bed, get your work done before the traffic gets too heavy, then go home and enjoy your family,” Ellison once wrote.

In a recent written statement, Ellison described his children and their spouses, all Ventura residents, as loving and hard working. “Neither they, or my wife and I attend social functions, bridge parties, or have our names associated in any way with playing Santa Claus. Our lives focus around our families, church, friends and business,” he wrote.

Despite such tendencies, Ellison has become well known, first as the Ventura Keys homeowner who led a successful seven-year legal battle against the Ventura Port District to force dredging at the mouth of Ventura Harbor.

The 1968 case cost Ellison $50,000 in fees, but is now cited in law school textbooks as an example of a citizen forcing government to keep its word, he said. More recently, he lost two lawsuits that challenged Ventura County’s General Plan and rezoning policies because of changes he claimed lowered the value of his ranch.

“I have no use for people who lie or abuse their authority to rule over me,” he said in a written explanation of the lawsuits. “I give due respect to every type of authority until that body proves unworthy.”

*

Ellison’s dramatic public entry into Ventura politics came in 1984, when he warned the Ventura City Council not to appoint attorney Dennis Orrock mayor, then attacked Orrock so tenaciously that the new mayor asked the council to appoint an ethics committee to investigate the charges.

On one large sign he placed near a freeway on-ramp, Ellison wrote: “For sale cheap, slightly used mayor. Outstanding qualifications. Unethical. Deceitful. Lies Frequently.”

“I still have the sign,” Ellison said with a laugh.

Ellison claimed Orrock, who years before had represented Ellison and other investors in an ill-fated business deal, knew or should have known that the deal’s promoter had failed elsewhere with similar proposals.

Orrock denied the accusation. And after hours of testimony, all carried on local cable television at Ellison’s expense, the ethics committee cleared Orrock of any wrongdoing.

“That was the first time it got nasty,” remembered John McWherter, a councilman for 18 years ending in 1991. “That was the first time that a personal vendetta had come into City Council politics.”

Orrock said he has not seen or spoken with Ellison since. And despite the “hurtful memories,” he even jokes about the experience.

“In 1984, he elevated me to one of 10 movers and shakers in the area, because I was on the front page of the newspaper for 23 days,” Orrock said. “I don’t know what motivates Mr. Ellison. The guy is kind of an enigma.”

Ellison said his motive was that Orrock was not fit to be mayor. The hearings were a whitewash, Ellison said, but that was OK because Orrock did not seek another council term.

“It was my intention that he never run again for anything,” Ellison said. “I didn’t care about the (lost investment). The money didn’t mean squat. I cared about who would represent the city.”

In 1985, Ellison took on Pati Longo. The councilwoman–whose politics were conservative and pro-business like Orrock’s and Ellison’s–had defended Orrock in his squabble with Ellison.

*

Ellison bought a series of newspaper ads attacking her as a phony who had lied to the grand jury. He cited her admissions that she had been evasive when asked if she’d discussed the closed-door proceedings with others.

“I figured the public had a right to know, because she would have been mayor,” Ellison said.

Longo, who lost her bid for reelection, said she thinks Ellison’s reason for challenging both her and Orrock, and in opposing Villeneuve in 1991 and Collart last year, was to improve Monahan’s chances of being mayor.

“Ray Ellison’s motivation was that Jim Monahan had always been his resident politician,” Longo said. So when Monahan had a chance at the mayoralty, Ellison attacked the favorite, she said.

Villeneuve said he also sees a connection between Ellison’s attacks and Monahan’s political fortunes and agenda.

“His interest in politics is in the form of personal vendetta for somebody he disagrees with in ideology or most often in a very personal sense,” Villeneuve said. “He attempts to parallel his protege, Jim Monahan. I’ve had to sit and listen to Jim Monahan extolling the virtues of Ray Ellison. It’s almost hero worship.”

Both Monahan and Ellison said they are friends who generally see eye-to-eye politically. Ellison will occasionally check with Monahan on issues, they said. Ellison said he doesn’t follow politics closely and will ask Monahan about his reelection plans and the voting records of other council members. But he said he doesn’t ask Monahan’s advice.

“I know that Jim can fill me in if I’m wrong on how somebody has voted,” Ellison said. “I don’t even take the (local) newspaper. I don’t go to council meetings any more. I haven’t for many years. I can get behind on my facts. So I call Jim, or somebody else, but normally Jim.”

Monahan said he has never recommended who Ellison should oppose or support in an election.

“Believe me, he knows how to make up his own mind,” the councilman said. “Ray’s the kind of guy who’s a loner. He does everything on his own.”

*

Monahan said Ellison has helped Ventura politics by bringing information to voters, but he said he didn’t care for the recent fish ads, and thought the Orrock hearings were an unnecessary “dog-and-pony show. That was a sad day for everybody.”

If Ellison opposed Orrock and Longo for perceived ethical shortcomings, he said he opposed Villeneuve two years ago and Collart, Tuttle and environmentalist challenger Steve Bennett this year because he did not agree with their politics.

“They’re discouraging almost carte blanche what needs to be done to rejuvenate the city. What it amounts to is no growth,” he said. “They don’t allow anything that will generate money. They spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on stupid studies.”

That was as detailed as Ellison got in critiques of his political opponents during two recent interviews. He had trouble remembering what he had written about them in campaign ads. At one point, he read his Villeneuve ad to refresh his memory about the councilman’s principal flaws.

“Let’s see what I had to say here,” he said. “Well, yeah, I did look up his votes. I ought to keep this crap (advertisements). . . . I don’t remember them. I just make them up and forget about them.”

In the Villeneuve ads–as with his fish ads–Ellison stated his pro-business philosophy and lashed his “liberal” opponents. He said his colorful headlines were only a way to grab voters so they will read his full message.

“You have to get people’s attention,” he said.

He does that. For example, in a Villeneuve ad segment titled “To Wee or Not to Wee,” Ellison repeated a second-hand comment Villeneuve allegedly made at a City Hall urinal during a break in a hearing about dredging the Ventura Keys.

Villeneuve and former Mayor Richard Francis, who had battled Monahan before leaving the council in 1991, said they responded with their own negative campaign this fall.

*

Some of their “Anyone but Monahan” ads were more personal and biting than Ellison’s fish ads, especially a radio spot late in the campaign.

“I knew his ads were coming,” said Francis, a Ventura attorney. “I didn’t want to start slinging mud, but if mud is going to get slung and you’re going to get dirty anyway, you may as well get into the fray.”

Monahan doesn’t accept that explanation. “Richard Francis took a personal attack on me that was far worse than Ray’s comments about these other three,” he said.

Nor does Monahan think it’s fair that Ellison is seen as “the special interest in the black hat,” while Patagonia, an environmentalist clothing company that spent about $15,000 in the last campaign, “is seen as the special interest in the white hat.”

Patagonia owner Yvon Chouinard “doesn’t give a damn about anybody else’s business but his own,” Monahan said. “Ray Ellison cares about everybody’s business, and he’s willing to stick his neck out for it.”

Patagonia spokesman Paul Tebbel said the big difference between the two is that Patagonia endorses candidates positively, while Ellison attacks them personally.

“He’s strongly within his rights to do that,” Tebbel said, “I just hate to see Ventura politics reduced to who can put out the strongest negative ad.”

Ellison did also buy some endorsement ads last fall, backing Measures, Monahan and Clark Owens.

Whether Ellison has had much impact on election results is an open question. Longo, Villeneuve and Collart, who all lost their races after Ellison’s criticisms, think he has. Tuttle, who placed only fourth last fall, does too.

Others, including McWherter and Monahan, said that Longo, Villeneuve and Collart were vulnerable anyway.

As for himself, Ellison thinks his types of ads work. “I think it’s very effective,” he said.

Ellison said he recognizes the personal pain his ads may cause. Public criticism following news stories about his thrift stores has hurt his family too, he said.

“I feel sorry about that,” he said. “They all have kids. Just like our kids went to school and had to put up with having negative things said about their dad. It’s hard on them. But they become accustomed to it over a period of time. . . . It goes with the territory.”

Yet Ellison felt compelled to write a letter of explanation to Collart shortly after the councilman lost in November.

“I imagine you consider me a callous and insensitive disgrace to society,” Ellison wrote.

He said he respected Collart and considered him truthful. “I wish you well, apologize if you took personal offense to my methods, and thank you for your service,” he wrote.

But within the same letter may be an indication of things to come during the campaign of 1995.

While praising Collart for being true to campaign promises, Ellison chastised those “who forgot . . . what they were elected to do.” He pointedly mentioned Mayor Tom Buford and former Mayor Greg Carson as examples of two who have “breached their stated positions.”

*

Carson and Buford, both originally backed by the business community, have been criticized by some businessmen for votes over the last two years. And Ellison referred to Carson in his fish ads as a weak conservative enticed by liberals with the promise of the mayor’s job.

Nursery owner Carson, who describes himself as a moderate and insists he’s broken no promises, said he first felt Ellison’s sting after council members chose him mayor two years ago.

Ellison immediately telephoned Carson to tell him he had considered him “a nice young man,” but now believed he was a jerk, Carson said. “He was upset because Jim Monahan didn’t become mayor.”

Carson said he considers Ellison’s ads detrimental to Ventura politics, and he said the specter of Ellison would not deter him in 1995.

“Somebody like Ray Ellison doesn’t scare me,” Carson said. “If anything, people like Ray Ellison would be a reason I would run.”

Congress versus the presidency

Experts like Tuesta argue that the last decade of political instability has all but rendered Peru’s executive branch a secondary power.

By contrast, its unicameral Congress has expanded its might, though its members are largely unpopular among Peruvians.

Part of its influence comes from its impeachment powers. Peru’s Congress can remove presidents for “moral incapacity”, a catch-all term that has been used to denounce anything from undisclosed meetings to security crises.

Paulo Vilca, a researcher at the Institute of Peruvian Studies, explained that the shifting power dynamics have made it difficult for presidents to remain in office.

“In the past, we used to elect presidents for five years. Now, what’s more likely is that they will not last five years,” said Vilca.

But Peru’s unicameral Congress will come to an end this year. On Sunday, Peruvians will vote for a second congressional chamber, a Senate, for the first time since 1990.

Vilca argues that the congressional election may be even more important than this year’s presidential race. But it will also likely deepen Peru’s ongoing political crisis, he added.

He predicts that Congress’s chambers will soon be in conflict with each other, as well as with the president, in a three-way battle for power.

“It is very likely that those who are elected deputies, for example, will not be very satisfied with having a subordinate position in front of the Senate,” Vilca said. “So we’re going to move from a crisis of two to a crisis of three.”

The Senate was eliminated in 1992 by the late President Fujimori, Keiko Fujimori’s father, after he dissolved Peru’s bicameral Congress and implemented military rule.

The younger Fujimori has sought to build on her father’s legacy, and her right-wing party, Fuerza Popular, has become a deciding force in the unicameral legislature.

Keiko Fujimori even pledged to use her party’s power to “govern from Congress” after her defeat in the 2016 presidential race.

Since then, analysts have argued that Fuerza Popular has led efforts to change governmental processes to maintain or expand its power, even at the expense of democratic participation.

One change that it championed and passed in 2025 requires parties to earn at least 5 percent of the overall vote and a minimum of seven seats in the lower chamber to maintain their official political registration. For the Senate, parties must get at least three seats and 5 percent of votes.

Critics have said the measure creates a nearly insurmountable threshold.

“This whole system has been designed by the parties that are currently in Congress. And in particular, the one that has controlled the Constitutional Committee all these years has been Fuerza Popular,” said Vilca.

“I think the purpose of designing this whole model has been to maintain a status quo, which the Fujimori wing has also created in the last five years.”

Vilca is not optimistic that a new Senate will resolve the erosion of power away from the presidency. If anything, he anticipates more conflicts to come.

“My most likely scenario is that the crisis continues,” he said, “that whoever is elected president will enter into confrontation with the Senate”.

European Parliament member Rima Hassan says she’s facing “genuine judicial and political harassment” for her political opinions. She was detained in France on suspicion of “apology for terrorism”.

March 31 (UPI) — Three former FBI agents filed a lawsuit against FBI Director Kash Patel, Attorney General Pam Bondi and their departments Tuesday for firing them, claiming it was for political retribution.

The suit includes a proposed class-action of all FBI employees already fired or potentially fired in the future for political reasons. It was filed in the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C.

Former FBI agents Jamie Garman, Blaire Toleman and Michelle Ball served on a public corruption squad at the FBI that investigated President Donald Trump‘s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Special counsel Jack Smith eventually took over the investigation code named Arctic Frost. He dropped the charges against Trump after he was elected in 2024.

The three agents were fired last fall.

“Our removal from federal service — without due process and based on a false perception of political bias — is a profound injustice that raises serious concerns about political interference in federal law enforcement,” they said in a statement released by their lawyer, Daniel M. Eisenberg. “We bring this lawsuit to protect the rule of law and to allow our former colleagues to do their jobs without fear of retaliation.”

A federal judge will have to decide if the case can be a class-action suit. The three agents are seeking to include more than 50 FBI employees who have been fired since Trump took office.

Since taking control of the FBI in February 2025, Patel and the other defendants “have summarily terminated members of the proposed class because of their perceived political affiliation, without legitimate investigation, finding of misconduct, pre-termination notice of charges to the employees, an opportunity for the employees to present a defense, and/or any compelling or exigent circumstances,” the suit said.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference in Texas Thursday, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a speech that Patel had “cleaned house” at the FBI.

“There isn’t a single man or woman with a gun, federal agent, still in that organization that had anything to do with the prosecution of President Trump,” the lawsuit alleges Blanche said.

NASHUA, N.H. — The problem for Patrick J. Buchanan, the silver-tongued Republican who would be President, is people like George Anthes.

“It seems that Pat Buchanan has truly caught fire,” says Anthes, the king of talk radio at station WMVU, introducing the candidate to a listening audience of flinty New Englanders. “There seems to be a change brewing.”

And so Buchanan begins his spiel: The national polls–three of five in August–that peg him No. 2 behind Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas in the race for the GOP nomination. His recent endorsement by the Manchester Union Leader, the paper of record for New Hampshire’s hard-core conservatives. A credible showing in the recent Iowa straw poll–in his eyes, No. 3 with a bullet.

“We have crossed the threshold,” said a confident Buchanan, “of credibility and electability.”

Not so fast. Thirty minutes later, with the microphone off and the candidate heading quickly for the door, Anthes gets a little more honest. “I’d love to see Pat as President, but I have my doubts.” A pause. “He is picking up though.”

Well, sort of. Somehow, even when they suffer setbacks or fail to make headway in the polls, Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, ex-Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander and California Gov. Pete Wilson get taken seriously as potential nominees. Even when Buchanan is on a roll–like the one that fuels his hopes today–he is rarely accorded the same respect.

The reasons are plentiful. Buchanan rose to prominence as a commentator and author; although he ran for President in 1992, he has never won an elected office. He is an unabashed, uncompromising conservative, and thus a polarizing figure to many. And the disdain he does not hide for some in his own party has cut into his ability to raise money.

Buchanan and his followers are “outsiders, they’re populists,” said political analyst Kevin Phillips. “In terms of the Republican power elite, they’re not Buchananites. He could never be the nominee.”

Striving for Second

Buchanan, 56, is undeterred by such naysayers. And his quest, at least for now, is not to be No. 1, but to come in second in the early primaries and caucuses of 1996–a crucial three weeks, Buchanan contends, that will decide if he can raise the money to continue campaigning.

“I’ve got the resources to go three weeks,” said the candidate, who so far has raised about $3 million and spent an estimated $2.5 million. A bad showing in those crucial contests and contributions will dry up, leaving him at great disadvantage to his cushier competitors who have the money “to sustain the kinds of defeats I can’t.”

Indeed, as of June 30, in the most recent Federal Election Commission statistics available, Dole had raised $13.5 million and had $6.5 million cash on hand; Gramm had raised $16.8 million and had $7.3 million left.

Dole’s and Gramm’s years in public office have given them extensive lists of big-money campaign donors. Buchanan, on the other hand, appeals to ideologically inspired small donors and reports an average contribution of less than $40. “We are appealing to the grass-roots,” said K. B. Forbes, Buchanan’s deputy press secretary.

Buchanan is struggling mightily to claim the crown of true conservative in a crowded field of candidates, to fuse together the disaffected, the religious, the working class, Ross Perot voters, gun owners, the Christian Coalition. He is striving to be second.

“Dole might be ahead of me,” Buchanan contended, “but then the conservatives will say: ‘It’s Buchanan or Dole.’ If they say that, then I can beat Bob Dole.”

Hanging over the upbeat campaign for the past month was the ill health of Buchanan’s mother, Catherine, 83, who was injured in a fall. She died Monday, and Buchanan headed home from a campaign swing in the West.

One recent Sunday morning, he could be found striding into Washington’s National Airport, fresh from a hand-clapping, foot-stomping success at the Christian Coalition’s annual meeting. He was armed with a newspaper and briefcase, garbed in the politician’s standard-issue blue suit. He was headed to New Hampshire for three days of campaigning. No one paid a bit of attention.

This is the conservative made famous by his 1992 declaration of a cultural war “for the soul of America,” a battle that he will likely wage as long as he can breathe–and talk.

“Have you read that U.N. report?” he asked supporters at a Republican town hall meeting in New Hampshire later the same day. “They say there aren’t two sexes, there are five genders.”

He paused for laughter, warmed to his crowd and continued: “They started with heterosexual; I followed them there. They went on to homosexual; I was slowing down. They said transsexual, that’s the third one. I don’t understand the last two. I tell you this: God created man and woman, I don’t care what Bella Abzug says.”

In the circles Buchanan travels, that one always goes over well. So do his stands on affirmative action (against), abortion (vehemently against), the death penalty (oh, yes), the Department of Education (oh, no).

He would bury the North American Free Trade Agreement and erect an ideological wall around the nation to rival the actual wall he would build along the U.S. border with Mexico. No more foreign aid, no more global free trade. In Buchanan’s brand of economic nationalism, “we must stop sacrificing American jobs on the altar of transnational corporations.”

And he would tell the nation about his economic platform, unveiled in a recent Wall Street Journal essay, if only people would tear their attention away from his stand on social issues. His program, he contends, will make America “the enterprise zone for the entire industrialized Western world.”

The highlights: A flat tax on personal income. A flat tax for big corporations. A much lower tax for small ones. No more inheritance tax on family businesses and family farms. He will pay for the plan with a 10% tariff on Japanese imports and a 20% tariff on Chinese goods.

In New Hampshire, with its recent memory of economic privation, of local industries fleeing oversees, the Buchanan plan resonates.

Norma Moreau, 38, stands in front of Martha’s Exchange restaurant and brew pub here in Nashua, waiting for a friend so they can map out the future of her small-business career. Moreau said that she is likely to cast her ballot for Buchanan, even though she disagrees with his rock-solid stand against abortion. Everything else, she says, she likes–particularly the tariffs.

“I think there should be tariffs put on anything from another country,” said the owner of Imprints Ink, a struggling silk-screening firm. “We have to protect our own jobs. All we do is help other countries. Why don’t we take the money and help the United States?”

She has too many friends who have lost their jobs, run out of unemployment assistance, lost their homes. “It’s sad,” she said.

Familiar Territory

Buchanan used this New Hampshire despair, coupled with Republican anger at the 1991 tax increase shepherded by then-President George Bush, to garner an unimaginable 37% of the vote in the 1992 GOP primary here.

He still considers the region his, with its picket fences, clapboard houses, and guys named Charlie who wear shirts and ties when they go to work pumping gas at the local Shell station.

People here still smoke in restaurants; adults are not required to wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets. The state motto is, “Live Free or Die.”

At St. Marie Parish in industrial Manchester, where Buchanan took in Sunday Mass, the homily began with a tale about how burdensome laws in New York City required Mother Teresa to install an elevator for the handicapped in her refurbished community center. The result, according to the priest: She left.

“I notice Pat Buchanan is here,” said Father Marc Montminy to great applause. “Welcome in our midst.”

Charles M. Arlinghaus, executive director of New Hampshire’s Republican State Committee, contends that the race here is still wide open and that Buchanan still has a shot. “Anyone could win New Hampshire,” he said, “with a couple of exceptions I won’t name.”

Phillips concedes that Buchanan was underestimated in New Hampshire in 1992.

But the author of the American Political Report figures that a GOP presidential nomination for the conservative commentator and author is “unlikely.” Chances are, Phillips says, Buchanan will not even win 25% of the vote in the upcoming New Hampshire primary.

“I think 25% would be doing very well,” Phillips said. “It would probably put him second place, clearly put him third. He does have a chance of going that high. On the other hand, the chance of Pat lasting with a lot of pep into March is not very good. He doesn’t have the budget.”

But the lengthy race to choose a President is still in its very early stages, as was painfully evident as Buchanan campaigned in Concord Sept. 11.

Performing the mandatory New Hampshire dance of meet and greet the voters, he introduced himself to Bea McGinnis, 76, a loyal Republican, shook her hand and went on his way. And who does McGinnis like in the Republican race? “Well, you got Bill Wilson, running, right? He’s a Republican. And I like John over there,” she said, glancing at Buchanan’s receding back. “That’s his name, right?”

La Ganga reported this story while on assignment in New Hampshire.

The six-part hostage drama is based on a “must-read” novel.

Netflix’s latest thriller was inspired by a story hailed “quite brilliant in its twists and turns”.

Fans of political thrillers are in for a treat as Netflix has announced a brand new drama from the creators of Humans and the author of House of Cards.

The series, which will be led by British actor and entrepreneur Damson Idris and is one of Netflix’s many hit thrillers, centres around a “nightmare scenario” which sees the government of the United Kingdom taken hostage.

Parliament is now enemy territory and ex-spy Harry Jones (Idris), is the perfect man to save the government if it were not for one problem – he is also a convicted traitor.

The title of the new series is The Lords’ Day, and it is based on the book by Michael Dobbs, who also happens to be a member of the House of Lords.

Netflix promised the thriller will be “an electrifying ride through England’s halls of power.”

The synopsis reads: “On the State Opening of Parliament, British spy Harry Jones finds himself inside the Palace of Westminster amid a lockdown.

“As a hostage siege escalates, loyalties are tested and selfless sacrifices are made, leading to a desperate fight for survival where not everyone will emerge alive.

“Can Harry use his skills and training to be the country’s saviour?”

Actor Idris, 34, is best known for his roles in Snowfall, Outside the Wire and F1, and he is the only casting announced so far. Production will begin soon in the UK.

Get Netflix free with Sky

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

£5.99

£0

Sky

Get the deal here

Sky is giving away a free Netflix subscription with its new Sky Stream TV bundles, including the £15 Essential TV plan.

This lets members watch live and on-demand TV content without a satellite dish or aerial and includes hit shows like Stranger Things and The Last of Us.

Fans of the original source material took to Goodreads to share their thoughts, with one commenting: “A must read book by Michael Dobbs that was equally as good as the Francis Urquart series!”

Another shared: “Excellent read, I was engrossed with every page. Again, Harry Jones at his best.”

A third called it “fascinating”, adding: “Quite brilliant in its twists and turns and details. Utterly plausible in it’s plot and characterisation. I have found a new favourite author.”

Another reader shared: “A real page turner. Never a dull moment with plenty of action and political intrigue. Edge of the seat thrills and twists.”

The book reviews suggest the TV adaptation will be one of Netflix’s most gripping thrillers.

The Lords’ Day will air on Netflix

Published on
27/03/2026 – 17:47 GMT+1

EU lawmakers have overcome a key political hurdle in the negotiations of digital euro, making the project closer to approval, according to a draft text seen by Euronews.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The Parliamentary rapporteurs involved in the legislation have found an agreement on the design of the digital euro, which will be able to function both online and offline.

The digital euro would be an electronic form of cash issued by the European Central Bank, designed to sit alongside banknotes and the payments services offered by commercial banks.

It has taken on new political weight as economic tensions between the EU and the US sharpen the debate over Europe’s reliance on American payment giants, such as Visa and Mastercard.

Under the European Commission’s proposal, digital euro users would have a wallet for both online and offline payments, with transactions designed so they are not trackable.

The situation in Parliament changed on Wednesday evening, when the centre-right politician Fernando Navarrete, who is the leading rapporteur on the file, announced the withdrawal of his position to reduce the scope of the digital euro to offline use only.

His position blocked the advancement of negotiations for months, jeopardising the whole legislative process, according to three sources familiar with the negotiations.

The political deadlock has pushed EU leaders to accelerate progress on the digital euro. At the European Council meeting on 19 March, they set a goal to have the digital euro legislation approved by the end of 2026.

With the Council, representing EU countries, having already adopted its position, the European Parliament is now the only institution left to advance the law.

“Thanks to our amendments and firm stance, we have finally broken the political deadlock on the digital euro. The distinction between online and offline has been removed, and it is now established as a single payment system,” Pasquale Tridico, the rapporteur for The Left, told Euronews.

However, lawmakers still need to agree on two key aspects: the “hold limits” and the “compensation.”

The hold limits determine the maximum amount a user can store in a digital euro wallet, while compensation sets out a model for reimbursing commercial banks that provide digital euro services.

Although negotiations are not yet complete, the text is expected to be voted on in the Parliament’s economy committee before the summer, according to a source familiar with the matter.

While in Australia, members of Iran’s women’s football team found themselves at the centre of an international political storm. As several players choose to return home, difficult questions are being raised about athlete safety, agency and Western intervention. Samantha Johnson looks at how Iran’s women footballers became caught in the middle of something they had nothing to do with, and asks whether they were being used as political pawns.

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.