political

SAN FRANCISCO — Every election produces a campaign strategist whose victory bestows upon them, for at least a little while, the unofficial title of reigning political genius.

James Carville, Karl Rove, David Axelrod and Stephen K. Bannon have all worn the crown.

For many years, and many election cycles, California’s reigning political genius was Clint Reilly.

In an age before the internet, before social media, before the cable-TV chat shows and before Carville and the like, Reilly came as close to celebrity as a political operative possibly could. He was the subject of fear, admiration, contempt, envy and lengthy newspaper and magazine treatments.

His cherry-red Jaguar, Italian suits, designer eyewear and seaside mansion made Reilly an influencer before there even was such a thing. (A connoisseur of the finer things, he served visitors coffee in bone china when they called on his San Francisco office.)

“It used to be that political consultants and political mechanics were something that only a handful of people thought about,” said Eric Jaye, one of generations of campaign strategists who were trained or inspired — directly or indirectly — by Reilly. “Clint was the original star consultant who made news himself and shaped the political discussion.”

Reilly, a working-class product of Oakland who crossed the Bay and scaled the heights of San Francisco business, culture and politics, died earlier this month at age 79.

For someone who never held political office — a 1999 bid for San Francisco mayor was a notable flop — Reilly wielded considerable influence.

A list of the many Democrats he helped elect — among them Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer — reads like a scroll of modern California history. At one time, the sitting mayors of both San Francisco and Los Angeles were clients of Reilly.

He wasn’t flawless as an election strategist. Like any political operative, he had his share of defeats.

Reilly’s particular genius lay in the methodology — vertical integration — he brought to campaigns. Typically, one consultant would handle television advertising, another direct mail, another polling, another big-picture strategy, and so on.

“Everything was in-house with Clint and, at least in San Francisco, he was the first to do that,” said Jerry Roberts, who was a scruffy reporter for the city’s alt-weekly when he met a shaggy-haired Reilly more than 50 years ago. At the time, campaigns were a sideline for Reilly, who supported himself selling doodads and other salvaged wares in a movable flea market he operated on Fisherman’s Wharf.

“It was a smart business model,” said Roberts, who went on to lead two major California newspapers.

It made Reilly very rich.

In 1988, he managed what, at the time, was the most expensive political campaign in California history, a $64-million effort by the insurance industry to beat back a Ralph Nader-inspired reform initiative. Reilly lost, but his firm cleared at least $6 million on that contest alone — or about $17 million in today’s dollars.

“So that’s where our premiums went,” one guest observed with a low whistle as he arrived at the state-of-the art headquarters Reilly built not long after the Proposition 103 campaign. (Naturally, he threw an open house; for all his affluence, Reilly never did entirely shake the proletariat chip on his shoulder.)

A onetime seminarian — he left three years shy of being ordained a Catholic priest — Reilly was no saint.

He was hot-tempered, profane and egotistical. He embraced the nickname “Satan,” which a former client affixed after Reilly went to work for an archrival, as a reflection of his reputation for intimidation and mastery of the political dark arts.

In one fit of pique, Reilly took the unheard step of firing a client — Feinstein — via faxed press release because, he said, the former San Francisco mayor lacked the requisite fire to run for governor. The two eventually reconciled, though Feinstein stuck with members of the team that replaced Reilly and helped guide her to successive terms in the U.S. Senate.

If Reilly was at times overbearing — and known for being the kind of hellacious boss who gave employees night sweats — he was also generous and a genuine bleeding heart.

Before his career took off, Reilly volunteered for the United Farm Workers and lived an ascetic life, sheltering in church halls, as he ministered to the poor. Once he established his high-end consulting firm, Reilly retained his political staffers at no small expense, even during the lull between campaigns, rather than hiring and firing them as seasonal workers, which was the norm.

After leaving professional campaign consulting in the mid-1990s, and making a substantial fortune in real estate, Reilly gave prolifically to various charities and assorted civic caucuses. He started a charitable foundation of his own, Bay Scholars, which helps poor and underserved youth attend Catholic high schools throughout the area.

In 1987, when Reilly arguably resided at the height of his power and influence, he took on Pelosi as a client.

She was running for a rare open congressional seat in San Francisco and, though well known in political circles as a prodigious Democratic fundraiser and high-level activist, Pelosi was a blank slate to many voters. Reilly came up with a slogan that played on Pelosi’s Washington connections and many important friendships: “A voice that will be heard.”

More than that, he made a key tactical decision in the waning days of the campaign.

Pelosi was one of 14 candidates, several of them well-known Democratic officeholders. Ignoring Pelosi’s objections, Reilly sent out a mail piece to the city’s vastly outnumbered Republicans suggesting that a Democrat was bound to win the congressional seat and arguing that Pelosi was the best — or, at least, not the worst — of the bunch.

On election day, Pelosi lost the Democratic vote to Harry Britt, who succeeded Harvey Milk on the Board of Supervisors after Milk’s assassination. Still, Pelosi prevailed, by less than 4,000 votes out of nearly 108,000 cast. The winning margin was her Republican support.

The rest, as they say, is history.

WASHINGTON — With Whitewater investigations likely to continue well into next year’s presidential campaign, the White House has decided on a hard-line legal and public relations counterattack that carries serious political risks for President Clinton.

On the legal front, the White House is relying on executive privilege as well as lawyer-client confidentiality to justify withholding notes on a November 1993 meeting at which the president’s lawyers and aides discussed Whitewater.

The notes have been subpoenaed by the Senate Whitewater investigative committee, and White House aides fear that they will be demanded by special counsel Kenneth W. Starr as well. Today the committee will vote to enforce the panel’s subpoena for the notes. Panel Chairman Alfonse M. D’Amato (R-N.Y.) said that the full Senate would vote on the matter before adjourning later this month and that he plans to seek an expedited court review.

Republicans have suggested that the 1993 meeting, which occurred when several federal agencies were investigating the activities of Clinton associates in Arkansas, may have dealt with ways to cover up damaging facts and obstruct justice.

And such charges, whatever their substantive merits, create a politically dangerous problem for an already embattled president going into an election year.

Some sources who have seen the documents insist that they contain no incriminating revelations. They say that the president is invoking executive privilege because waiving it would open the administration to a massive fishing expedition by partisan investigators. Executive privilege is the constitutional principle that a chief executive can maintain the confidentiality of internal communication involving the legal pursuit of his duties.

Yet even if the meeting notes are innocuous and the White House is holding them back only to protect a larger principle, the failure to make full disclosure can raise voters’ suspicions. Already, political opponents and some newspaper editorial writers are using such Watergate-isms as “stonewalling” to describe Clinton’s reaction.

Said a former Clinton White House official knowledgeable about Whitewater: “The problem here is that the courts might ultimately sustain the president but politically it’s a loser.

“In cases like these, the political dimension quickly overwhelms the legal dimension,” said this source. He predicted that Clinton eventually would find a way to release the documents in some form while continuing to assert that they are protected by either attorney-client privilege or executive privilege.

The Senate panel revealed Wednesday that in addition to the notes of the Nov. 5, 1993, meeting, the White House has not turned over four other Whitewater-related documents:

* A draft chronology of the Whitewater saga prepared by the Clintons’ personal lawyer, David E. Kendall. It was drafted five days after the Nov. 5 meeting.

* A letter written Jan. 4, 1994, to the president from Washington attorney James Hamilton, who has represented the family of the late Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster and who worked for the 1992 campaign.

* A New York Times article from Dec. 20, 1993, with notations Clinton wrote in the margin.

* Undated notes of White House aide Joel Klein.

Democrats said that the Clintons have every right to invoke privilege in this matter, and they suggested that the Republicans should try to negotiate a compromise rather than move toward a court battle. D’Amato described the Clintons’ position as “extraordinary and troublesome.” Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes of Maryland, the committee’s ranking Democrat, accused D’Amato of trying to provoke a confrontation for political reasons.

The White House is more concerned that waiving confidentiality would open the door for Starr to seek notes and testimony from Clinton’s attorneys.

Lawyers, including White House Counsel Jack Quinn, have advised Clinton that he cannot waive the privilege for only one meeting. If he waives it once, he cannot reassert it on another Whitewater issue.

While the White House public relations campaign is aimed at explaining Clinton’s case and marshaling support for it, it also is designed to discredit D’Amato as a political enemy with ethical problems of his own–a ploy guaranteed to stir more controversy and criticism of the president.

Times staff writers John M. Broder and Sara Fritz contributed to this story.

Clint Reilly, a Bay Area milkman’s son who rose to manage the campaigns of California’s most influential political figures, has died at age 79.

A savvy political consultant, Reilly spearheaded early winning campaigns for some of the most recognizable names in California politics: former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Brandon Heist, Clint Reilly Organization’s head of business operations, said in a statement to The Times that Reilly died over the weekend in San Francisco. He died surrounded by family, which requested privacy. The San Francisco Examiner newspaper, which Reilly bought in 2020, earlier announced its owner’s death Sunday.

“I will always be grateful for Clint’s friendship and counsel over so many years,” Pelosi said in a statement. “As the manager of my first campaign for Congress in 1987, he brought his unmatched strategic mind to help create and amplify my slogan: A Voice That Will Be Heard.”

In a 1987 article, The Times attributed the success of Pelosi’s congressional bid to money — her campaign spent $1 million, more than her 13 opponents combined — and a sophisticated voter turnout program devised by Reilly. At the time, Pelosi was a 46-year-old mother of five children and a party activist known for raising large sums for Democratic candidates.

Reflecting on Pelosi’s rise last November, Reilly wrote in a San Francisco Examiner op-ed, “The mystery of being a political consultant is that you never know how your winning candidate’s career will turn out.”

Reilly’s legacy went beyond catapulting politicians into office.

He helped transform modern campaigning, said Oakland political consultant Jim Ross, who worked for Reilly throughout the ’90s, including on the election and reelection campaigns of San Francisco Mayor Frank Jordan.

In the ‘80s, Reilly was among the first consultants to merge grassroots organizing with new technology: using voter roll data to segment and target pivotal voters for turnout and persuasion, Ross said.

“It was a way to make sure that he spent resources effectively,” Ross said.

Reilly’s data-driven voter targeting tactics helped Feinstein, then-San Francisco mayor, beat a recall effort in 1983. They later had a public falling-out in 1989 during Feinstein’s failed campaign for governor.

Reilly’s portfolio wasn’t strictly Democratic. In 1993, he coordinated businessman Richard Riordan’s successful campaign for Los Angeles mayor by targeting homeowners’ anxieties about unemployment, crime and other symptoms of urban decay. When elected, Riordan became the first Republican mayor of Los Angeles in 36 years — and no Republican has been elected to that office since.

Reilly also advised the California insurance industry.

In 1988, he led the insurance industry’s losing $60-million initiative campaigns for Propositions 104 and 106. The pair of insurance industry-sponsored measures was designed to compete with Propositions 100 and 103, initiatives backed by trial lawyers and consumer advocates who wanted to reform the industry.

Voters ultimately passed Proposition 103, which promised insurance rate roll-backs and created the elected state insurance commissioner role. But Ross said it was one example of how Reilly would search for creative ways to achieve his client’s goals.

“Clint really pioneered in that election the idea of running competing ballot measures,” Ross said. “The reform measure was extraordinarily popular, it was going to pass, so instead of going at it directly, he ran a competing measure.”

A 1994 profile in The Times, from when Reilly was running Democrat Kathleen Brown’s bid for governor, described him as “one of the most powerful–and feared–political operatives in California.”

“When the opponent knows you have (him) on your side, a chill goes up their spine,” former San Francisco Mayor Frank Jordan told The Times. “He’s certainly better to have inside the tent than outside.”

Born in Oakland in 1947, Reilly was drawn to politics from an early age. He ran successfully for class president during fifth grade, with a campaign slogan his sister devised: “Take a Hint, Vote for Clint.”

Reilly’s relationship with Eugene Boyle, a Bay Area Catholic priest and liberal activist known for supporting the Civil Rights Movement, shaped his political views. He was passionate about supporting “the underdogs,” Ross said.

Reilly spent nine years in seminary before switching to pursue politics. His big break came in 1979, when he ran San Francisco Supervisor Quentin Kopp’s campaign for mayor. Kopp lost, but Reilly’s name stuck.

He soon developed a reputation for charging top dollar for his campaign strategy services and for his heavy campaign spending. In 1982, after Reilly brought Boxer to a decisive primary victory in her first congressional race, she fired him over excessive campaign spending, the Times reported in the 1994 profile.

As a boss, Reilly was “extraordinarily demanding,” Ross said, adding, “I reread pieces of direct mail five and six times now because of him.”

He also had a generous side, Ross said. Reilly spent time teaching young staffers the art of campaigning, a rarity in politics. Even after he left political consulting and shifted his focus to real estate, Reilly continued to help candidates with fundraising and messaging.

Reilly ran unsuccessfully for San Francisco mayor in 1999 and later turned his attention to local media and philanthropy, founding a nonprofit in 2008 to offer scholarships for low-income students to attend private college-preparatory high schools.

Reilly’s passing will not change the structure or current operations of the Clint Reilly Organization, Heist said. The organization’s media division includes the San Francisco Examiner — which Reilly acquired in 2020 alongside its now-defunct affiliate SF Weekly — and the Nob Hill Gazette, which he bought in 2016. The organization also has a hospitality company and real estate division.

“The organization’s commitment to its employees, partners, and the community remain firmly in place,” Heist said.

Condolences poured in from leaders across California on Monday.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and his wife Jennifer Siebel Newsom in a statement honored Reilly as a “San Francisco institution” with a brilliant mind and generous heart.

San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie said on social media the city “lost a civic leader who left a lasting mark on our city.”

Reilly is survived by his wife Janet and two daughters, Jill and Ava. Memorial arrangements will be announced later.

Mérida, July 21, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Trump administration has vowed to play an active role in upcoming negotiations between the Venezuelan government and a US-backed opposition faction.

The government-aligned National Assembly and a group of opposition lawmakers from the 2015–2020 legislature recently announced a joint working agenda scheduled to begin August 1, with explicit support from the US State Department.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio addressed the initiative during a press briefing on July 19, calling it “a very powerful offer.” 

“We’ll see where it goes, but we think that that agreement was broadly met in Venezuela as very good news, and obviously something we’re going to be very engaged in,” he told reporters.

Rubio emphasized that the upcoming talks are “a forum to begin the transition process, which is what the people of Venezuela need”. In the same way, the State Department, via a July 16 official statement, had pledged to back efforts “toward a peaceful and democratic electoral transition.”

Since the January 3 US military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Rubio and other Trump officials have insisted on a “three-phase plan” that ends with a political transition.

The latest dialogue initiative emerged following a June 18 meeting between National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez and Dinorah Figuera, who leads an opposition-majority legislature whose term ran from 2015-2020.

The defunct parliament retained US recognition as the Caribbean nation’s legitimate authority after the conclusion of its term in 2021, and has retained control over Venezuelan state assets frozen abroad.

According to statements from both sides, the working agenda prioritizes strengthening democratic institutions, reforming the electoral system, and restoring guarantees for political participation.

Figuera welcomed Rubio’s latest comments and argued that “active participation” from the Trump administration will be “essential to generate concrete progress.”

“We will invite all democratic sectors to participate and bring proposals toward a peaceful and democratic electoral transition,” she wrote on X. For their part, government officials, including Acting President Delcy Rodríguez, have not offered further comment on the talks since last week’s announcement.

In recent days, Figuera addressed criticism of her role in the negotiations, rejecting accusations that she was acting outside the opposition’s institutional framework.

The former lawmaker has faced scrutiny from other opposition sectors, particularly following her June 18 return to Caracas with US backing. Her meetings with Rodríguez and subsequent travel to Washington occurred weeks after far-right leader María Corina Machado had announced at a Panama gathering her intention to head negotiations with the government over future electoral processes.

On July 16, Machado met with high-ranking opposition figures from the Democratic Unitary Platform (PUD) coalition to assess the new dialogue initiative. The meeting was reported as a venue to “gather information” regarding the announced negotiations and “define a public position.” However, neither Machado nor the PUD have taken a stance on the upcoming talks.

Rubio’s influence over Venezuela was highlighted in a recent New York Times article that detailed the Trump administration’s involvement in the country’s day-to-day affairs. The report highlighted that US officials have sought to engage with institutional actors they consider manageable, including the 2015 National Assembly faction, as part of a strategy to reduce volatility in bilateral relations.

However, according to the Times, the approach has generated tensions within the opposition camp given the recent protagonism assumed by far-right Machado.

Caracas and Washington fast-tracked a diplomatic rapprochement following the January 3 attacks, with embassies reopening in both capitals. The Trump administration has seized control of Venezuelan oil export revenues and exerted influence over recent pro-business energy and mining reforms.

The US has also undertaken a significant military deployment in the country following the June 24 double earthquake, with US forces running logistical operations out of the Simón Bolívar International Airport and La Guaira port.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

A message attributed to Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has promised “unforgettable lessons” to Washington during their escalating conflict. But it also homed in on another theme that tempered some of the fire of his warnings against the US, amid eight nights of renewed fighting between the two countries.

Khamenei, who has not been seen or heard from since being made supreme leader in March, said Iranians must uphold “sacred unity” as a fundamental imperative, particularly against the United States.

His message also stated that it was a duty for the Iranian population and officials to refrain from “division, political disputes, and increases in social differences”. Iran’s enemies, he said, likely referring to the US and Israel, “must not detect any sign of weakness from us”.

The call for national unity comes against the backdrop of events in June, when another Khamenei statement stirred debate and controversy among some of the most hardline supporters of the Islamic Republic regarding the recently signed memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the US.

Khamenei said that although he “held a different view” about the agreement to pause four months of fighting, he approved it after President Masoud Pezeshkian, as chairman of the Supreme National Security Council, accepted responsibility for the deal.

This fired up unyielding supporters of the Islamic Republic who continue to take to city squares and streets at night with backing from armed security forces, angered about the deal.

Critics believe Khamenei was being forced into accepting a bad deal, and hardline clerical lawmaker Mahmoud Nabavian even resorted to reading from classified material on live television in an apparent attempt to derail the arrangement. He was removed from the parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee earlier this month.

Others went as far as accusing officials of treason, and the president and other officials linked to the deal were heckled during the funeral ceremonies for assassinated Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei earlier this month.

The MoU has been suspended by Tehran but was already effectively on the verge of collapse after Iran and the US traded fire over control of the strategic Strait of Hormuz over the past week.

Projection of military and political unity

Since Mojtaba Khamenei’s statement on Saturday, other officials have strived to present a united front between armed forces and the political and diplomatic apparatus, each with their own views on the MoU.

Ali Abdollahi, the head of Iran’s wartime joint command, vowed that the armed forces will heed Khamenei’s directive for “sacred unity and national cohesion”.

But he also warned the US, which he referred to as a “big Satan and criminal enemy”, that it will face a “decisive and destructive response” for its recent attacks on Iran, which has seen bridges, roads, and other civilian infrastructure destroyed.

President Pezeshkian thanked the supreme leader’s “wise” message and highlighted the part where he urged “trust” in the heads of government, parliament and judiciary.

“Adherence to the means of sacred unity and refraining from division and discord is the key to victory at this historic juncture,” he wrote on X.

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the parliament speaker who has faced harsh criticism from hardliners as chief negotiator in talks with the Americans, said following Khamenei’s directive is critical to Iran’s success.

“We must regard obedience to this religious and national decree of the supreme leader of the revolution as an important part of our historical role in national resistance and governance of the country,” he also tweeted in Persian on Sunday.

These messages appeared aimed at foreign audiences, coming shortly after senior US officials, anonymously briefing media in Washington, tried to blame the Hormuz escalation on an “errant” hardline faction inside Iran seeking to obstruct negotiations.

The state-linked Khorasan newspaper published an editorial on Sunday saying that Khamenei’s latest statement carried the message that “criticism is accepted, but never accusations” against officials.

“To those who claim to be revolutionaries, the supreme leader’s message was an ultimatum for you: Stop telling lies about the authorities,” the article read.

Iran’s military and political officials did not directly address the claim earlier this month, but released more statements proclaiming a unified view on how to address the conflict and regarding control of the Strait of Hormuz.

Speaking during an interview released on Sunday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi continued to back a negotiated end to the war, which has seen Iran’s civilian infrastructure systematically targeted in US air strikes over the past week.

“If we had reached the [April] ceasefire 10 days earlier, we still had Larijani, Khatib, Asaluyeh and Foolad Mobarakeh,” the chief diplomat said in reference to assassinated security chief Ali Larijani, intelligence minister Esmail Khatib, and the country’s heavily bombed petrochemical facilities and steel plants.

But as tit-for-tat strikes continue between the two sides, there is no sign of both parties returning to the negotiating table.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Thursday convened leaders from more than 60 countries to take part in the Trump administration’s latest effort to quell what it calls “left-wing” political terrorism, a marquee issue for Republicans heading into the midterm elections.

This focus comes even as studies show that there are very few reported cases of such incidents in the U.S., especially compared to historically higher levels of far-right violence.

With sweeping statements about the “alarming rise” of political violence by the left, Rubio and other U.S. officials painted a dark image of the future if the “communists and Marxists” perpetrating these supposed acts are not defeated. He urged officials in attendance — mostly from European and Latin American countries — to unite to address the issue, which he says has been a “blind spot” in counterterrorism doctrine.

“So many people in positions of power have repeatedly dismissed acts of violence and even terrorism as legitimate forms of political expression, so long as they served a left-wing cause,” Rubio said in opening remarks. “A bomb planted by a neo-Nazi group was ‘a nefarious and murderous act of evil.’ It is, but a bomb planted by a Marxist revolutionary, well, that’s just merely a tragic excess of idealism.”

A report published last year by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that left-wing terrorism attacks as of July 4, 2025, had surpassed those from the far right for the first time in more than 30 years. However, a closer look at the data reveals that the uptick reflects a very low starting level and a concurrent drop on the far right.

There was an average of 0.6 left-wing incidents annually from 1994 through 2000, compared with an average of 20.6 on the right, the report shows. From 2016 to 2024, there was an average of four per year on the left and 22.7 per year on the right. Those numbers had dropped dramatically on the right as of early July 2025, with only one incident. Meanwhile, there had been five from the left.

But the report’s authors note that right-wing terrorism could easily return to elevated levels and that it is important to fight terrorism on both sides of the political spectrum.

President Trump and his allies have prioritized talking points against the far left ahead of the congressional elections this November. Trump has repeatedly stated that the Democratic Party’s ascendant left are communists who want to “completely destroy the traditional American way of life” and even engage in assassinations.

Vice President JD Vance has similarly called out communism as a political shift that is “something we haven’t seen in the U.S.” House Speaker Mike Johnson has decried “radical candidates” who are “self-described, self-identifying Marxists.”

For Rubio, his worldview on this issue has been largely shaped by his own history: he is the son of Cuban immigrants who arrived in Miami in May 1956, a few years before communist leader Fidel Castro rose to power in Havana. The former Florida senator said Thursday that it was that same government’s sprawling intelligence and ideological network that “helped to build the far left in our country and in our hemisphere.”

Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff and main architect of the administration’s immigration policy, followed Rubio’s remarks, aiming to drive home the immediacy of the perceived threats he saw to American institutions coming from the left, and what response is needed in return.

“If your civilization is your home, you must defend it with the same passion and force as if an enemy intruder is inside your own house where your family lives,” Miller said. “That is the level of dedication and urgency that is required.”

This ideological focus has repeatedly conflated democratic socialism — which often centers on securing universal healthcare, higher taxes on the wealthy and stricter corporate regulation — with communism, under which private ownership is largely eliminated.

It has only intensified in the last year, after the election of democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani to become New York City mayor and several of his proteges who won their New York City congressional primaries last month, beating out incumbents.

One of the ways the administration has started to target left-wing efforts is through sanctions. In November, the State Department designated four antifa or anti-fascist groups in Europe as foreign terrorist organizations. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in his remarks Thursday that targeting these entities’ financial networks is the best way to circumvent their efforts.

“We have spent decades developing the world’s most sophisticated financial counterterrorism capabilities, and now we are mobilizing some of the same tools that we have deployed against terrorists abroad to confront this emerging threat here at home,” he told the conference.

Amiri and Kinnard write for the Associated Press. Amiri reported from New York and Kinnard from Columbia, S.C. AP writer Melissa Goldin in New York contributed to this report.

A senior North Korean party official and China’s top political adviser have met in Pyongyang and discussed ways to strengthen bilateral exchanges and cooperation, the North’s state media said Thursday.

Jo Yong-won, a secretary of the Central Committee of the Workers’ Party of Korea, and Wang Huning, chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), held talks Wednesday, according to the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).

Wang, China’s fourth-ranking official, is leading a Chinese party and government delegation on a three-day visit to North Korea through Friday to commemorate the 65th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance between the two countries.

During the talks, Jo said the rapidly changing international political situation “has required the two countries to further strengthen the militant unity, support and solidarity and steadily intensify and develop the friendly and cooperative relations” based on the spirit of the treaty.

Jo also said bilateral ties have entered a new stage of development under the leadership of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and Chinese President Xi Jinping, expressing Pyongyang’s willingness to expand strategic communication and cooperation across various sectors.

Wang said the friendship treaty has provided a legal foundation for consolidating the “militant friendship formed at the cost of blood” between the two countries.

He also reaffirmed China’s commitment to elevating bilateral ties to a higher level in line with the consensus reached by Xi and Kim during their summit in Pyongyang in June, according to the KCNA.

The two sides discussed ways to deepen party-to-party exchanges and expand cooperation in various fields, including the economy and culture, with the aim of promoting the well-being of their peoples, the report said.

Wang’s visit comes days after North Korean Premier Pak Thae-song traveled to China to attend events marking the treaty anniversary, where he met with Xi and other senior Chinese leaders.

The exchange of high-level delegations has highlighted increasingly active contacts between Pyongyang and Beijing as the two sides seek to reaffirm their traditionally close ties and deepen cooperation.

“We are closely monitoring the possibility of a meeting between Wang and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, as well as any follow-up cooperation that may emerge from the talks,” an official at Seoul’s unification ministry told reporters.

He added the government is also paying attention to the presence of officials involved in urban management at the talks, saying it could signal discussions on cooperation in the economic and urban development sectors.

The latest exchanges reflect efforts by Pyongyang and Beijing to strengthen strategic communication and party-to-party ties, though it remains to be seen whether the current pace of high-level exchanges will continue beyond events marking the treaty anniversary, the official said.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

July 13 (UPI) — Yulia Svyrydenko has resigned as prime minister of Ukraine, as President Volodymyr Zelensky announced that she would be assuming a new position amid a shift in the war-torn country’s political strategy.

Svyrydenko stepped down on Sunday, five days short of serving a full year as prime minister. No reason was given.

Her resignation came as Zelensky said in a statement that “Ukraine is changing its political strategy.”

Though he did not detail specifically how or why the change was necessary, he indicated the new strategy would prioritize implementing the agreement with the United States for Ukraine to manufacture Patriot missile systems, advancing Europe’s anti-ballistic missile defense project, progressing Kyiv’s European Union membership, improving relations with Poland and Hungary and creating ties with the Middle East for security and economic cooperation and with China to help Russia’s War.

“Accordingly, personnel changes will begin in Ukraine to ensure the implementation of the updated political strategy,” Zelensky said in a statement.

He said he discussed the details with Svyrydenko and together, “we determined that these changes require a renewal of the Cabinet of Ministers.”

“I am grateful to Yulia for her clear, steady and effective work as prime minister, for her years of productive service on Ukraine’s team, and I have offered her the opportunity to lead a new and important area of relations with a key partner,” he said.

“I expect that, together with MPs, we will make the corresponding changes in the government of Ukraine. There will also be changes among the heads of law enforcement agencies.”

Svyrydenko said in a separate statement that she was grateful to Zelensky and was proud to have led the government as the country defended itself against Russia’s invasion.

“At this moment, it is critically important to unite all our strength and resources to make Ukraine stronger,” she said.

“I remain ready to serve the Ukrainian state and carry out every task aimed at strengthening Ukraine’s position, defending our national interests and bringing a just peace closer.”

The announcement also came about seven months after Zelensky’s administration underwent a major reshuffle after 11 officials quit following a mass corruption scandal that rocked the government.

Zelensky separately said Sunday that he met with Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko, Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov, Energy Minister Denys Shmyhal and Kharkiv Mayor Ihor Terekhov, among other officials.

The Daily Mail also recounts the details of the suspect in Widdecombe’s murder, describing him as a “loner” who “left his house with a pole”. The paper’s Bryony Gordon has written about “why so many women like me have fallen for Jude Bellingham”. Meanwhile, Prince George and Princess Charlotte are pictured in the royal box at Wimbledon.

Nexstar Media Group’s The Hill, the political web site that started as a free newspaper read in most congressional offices in Washington, is launching a new direct-to-consumer streaming service that will be behind a paywall.

Starting Wednesday, Nexstar will offer The HIll Insider, which will carry daily streaming video programs and newsletters. Subscribers will also be able to interact with The Hill’s journalists and analysts, who will take questions live.

The service, available for $5.99 a month or $59.99 a year, is the first digital subscription product for the Irving, TX-based Nexstar, the largest owner of television stations in the U.S. Premium memberships are available for $9.99 a month, or $99.99 a year, which will be ad-free and offer access to live events presented by The Hill.

The endeavor is the first subscription streaming service offered by Nexstar. The Hill already produces a free ad-supported streaming channel distributed on such platforms as Roku.

The free version of The Hill is the most viewed political web site in the U.S. with 1.24 billion page views in 2025, a year-to-year increase of 7%, according to Comscore. The Hill is known for offering brisk, up-to-date reports out of each branch of government in Washington, and is often linked to on other websites.

Nexstar, which also owns the cable network NewsNation, acquired The Hill in 2021 from New York-based entrepreneur James Finkelstein for $130 million. NewsNation adapted The Hill brand name for its Washington-based programs, including a Sunday roundtable show with Chris Stirewalt, politics editor for The Hill and NewsNation.

NewsNation politics editor Chris Stirewalt on the set of “The Hill Sunday.”

(NewsNation)

Stirewalt and the Washington journalists and commentators seen on NewsNation programs will be featured on The Hill Insider. The service will also use the resources of Decision Desk HQ, the political media firm that was the first to call President Trump’s victory on election night in 2024. Decision Desk will be involved in a streaming show called “Data Nerds.”

The Hill Insider will be aimed at the political junkie who wants to go deeper on polling data and hear longer, in-depth discussion on issues. Bill Sammons, senior vice president of editorial content for Nexstar, said the company’s research shows there is a national appetite for such content, as only 5% of The Hill’s current audience is based in Washington.

The Hill has long touted itself as non-partisan and Stirewalt hopes users will gravitate to the subscription version to become better informed about legislative and political issues and not reaffirm their existing opinions.

“My imagined audience is of people in America who are not addicted to politics but are addicted to good citizenship and the idea of fulfilling their civic virtue,” Stirewalt said in a recent interview. “And they would like to do it in a way that doesn’t insult their intelligence.”

While the free version of The Hill has been growing, the new subscription product enters a crowded field of digital programs and platforms aimed at the consumers of political news.

The launch comes as journalists from legacy media such as former CNN anchor Jim Acosta, former ABC News correspondent Terry Moran, and Chuck Todd, the longtime moderator of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” have launched their own daily podcasts and newsletters as second acts in their careers.

MS NOW, the progressive-leaning cable news channel, is entering the direct to consumer market later this year making the channel available outside of pay-TV packages for the first time. Like The Hill Insider, the MS NOW streaming product is expected to offer users additional benefits, such as access to live events and content not seen on the cable network.

Original topical programming that does not have a shelf life is challenging to sustain on a streaming service. When Fox News Media launched its streaming service Fox Nation in 2018, it carried a line-up of live, politically-oriented shows aimed at its conservative-leaning audience. The service eventually pivoted to documentary, movies and lifestyle programming and became the home of the annual Fox News fan event, The Fox Nation Patriot Awards.

July 6 (UPI) — The White House marked Independence Day by releasing a scathing report on the Smithsonian Institution, particularly the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History, for what it called “extreme political activism.”

The report, “Saving America’s Story: How Ideological Capture at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History Erases Our Heritage,” accuses the museum of anti-white bias and claims it “no longer treats the American story as a shared national inheritance to be taught or celebrated but as a political instrument to divide, dispirit and discourage our citizens.”

The report takes exception to display language that “refuses to affirm the exceptional courage of the American people” and displays that connect the Founding Fathers with slavery, along with many other complaints.

It also says the museum endorses illegal immigration, advocates transgender issues and focuses on Christianity as “an instrument of conquest, exclusion or cultural erasure.”

Julissa Marenco, a spokeswoman for the Smithsonian, said in a statement, “For more than 180 years, the Smithsonian has served the American public with nonpartisan and independent scholarship, and we remain committed todoing so,” The New York Times reported.

The report was written by the Domestic Policy Council, a White House organization tasked with the president’s domestic agenda. Vince Haley, its leader, was in charge of the administration’s celebration of the nation’s 250th anniversary.

The report particularly criticizes Anthea Hartig, the Smithsonian’s director, saying she has “advanced an ideological agenda contradictory to museum’s founding purpose of fostering patriotism.”

According to the Smithsonian’s website, the institution was founded in 1846 to be “an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge.” It oversees 21 museums and The National Zoo.

This new report is a follow-up to President Donald Trump‘s executive order in March 2025. In that order, “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” Trump tasked Vice President JD Vance with overhauling the Smithsonian with Congress.

The White House also ordered the institution to turn over thousands of pages of documents, threatening it with budget cuts. The Smithsonian has been independent of the president and executive branch but derives more than half of its budget from federal sources.

Trump’s executive order in 2025 ordered Vance to “prohibit expenditure on exhibits or programs that degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with federal law and policy.”

July 4 (UPI) — Thousands of protesters on Saturday blocked roads in Erfurt, Germany, in an effort to prevent members of the far right Alternative fur Deutschland party from meeting.

The gathering of the party’s delegates to choose new leaders garnered the large protest at least partially because of the date of the conference, which coincides with the date that Adolf Hitler introduced the Hitler Youth, as well as the Hitler salute, The Guardian reported.

The AfD, which finished with roughly 20% of the vote in the most recent German federal election, has been regarded by many in Germany to be too extremist, with Politico reporting that other European far-right parties — including France’s National Rally — have cut ties with it.

“Who’s making headlines today? WE ARE,” the anti-AfD group Widersetzen, which organized the protests, said in a post on Instagram.

“Who’s hiding in glass halls?” the group said in its post. “The fascists of the AfD. 17,000 people in the blockades and the tens of thousands in the demonstrations are a powerful counterforce. We are ready to stand up for social justice and security.”

In a speech, AfD national leader Alice Weidel said that “troublemakers out there at the door: you won’t bring us down.”

The protesters, as well as many historians and politicians, in Germany said that AfD deliberately held its conference on the centennial of the Nazi conference in Weimar where Hitler introduced both the youth “movement” and salute.

The party previously has been accused of racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim policies, as well as downplaying Nazi actions during their rule in Germany and World War II.

WASHINGTON — President Trump ushered in the 250th anniversary of American independence on Friday with soaring rhetoric about American exceptionalism before veering into a darkly political speech with warnings about a sinister threat of communism that evoked one of the country’s ugliest chapters.

“Communism is a mortal threat to American liberty,” he said from Mt. Rushmore. “It is the greatest threat to our country, including World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor or even 9/11.”

While the language was similar to several other speeches Trump has given in recent days, it was notable for being delivered in a national park that commemorates some of America’s most prominent presidents. And it swerved from the typically apolitical, unifying speeches past presidents like Gerald Ford or Ronald Reagan have delivered during earlier high-profile Independence Day celebrations.

Indeed, Trump’s language evoked the Red Scare of the 1950s, when purported communists were persecuted and blacklisted from jobs across America, from Washington to Hollywood.

In New York City, Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, delivered his own address that cast America as a nation of contradictions “working each day towards the perfection in which it was conceived.”

The president’s speech capped an Independence Day eve that was otherwise most notable for a brutal heat wave that gripped much of the eastern portion of the country. Officials have warned those celebrating the holiday to stay hydrated and take air-conditioned breaks as needed.

Philadelphia canceled its Salute to Independence parade Friday. The Great American State Fair in Washington shut down in the early afternoon before reopening at 5 p.m. The Capitol Fourth concert, a mainstay of the holiday in Washington, opened its gates a little later than normal but ultimately moved forward with appearances from Patti LaBelle, Trace Adkins, members of the Artemis II space mission and fireworks over George Washington’s Mount Vernon. An Independence Day parade scheduled for Saturday in Washington was canceled.

Looking for a place to cool off

By early afternoon Friday in Washington, hundreds of people were roaming the grounds of the National Mall, home to the Great American State Fair. They snapped photos of the flyovers and tried to cool off inside tents that offered $9 lemonades and $23 turkey legs. Many were dressed in patriotic colors, their faces glistening with sweat.

Glenn Brooks, who was pardoned by Trump for his participation in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, said he was “thankful to be participating in this grand event.”

The activity culminates in the main event Saturday, when fireworks will erupt in communities across the U.S., along with backyard cookouts and block parties. Trump will deliver another speech at the National Mall in Washington before what is being billed as a historically massive fireworks show.

As the rest of the country struggled under stifling heat, the Pacific Northwest enjoyed temperatures in the 60s with even a few light showers.

World Cup soccer fans in Seattle were staying cool Friday as they got psyched up for Monday’s big game between the U.S. and Belgium. In the nearby suburb of Issaquah, Megan Kurowski, 31, brought her two dogs to the dog park so they could get some exercise before she went to work.

Kurowski said she was feeling positive about America’s 250th anniversary and was planning a possible paddleboard to watch the fireworks.

“Everyone’s just, from what it seems, been pretty excited about celebrating 250 years,” she said.

The holiday is unfolding at a unique time in the U.S. The anniversary has served as an opportunity for the country to reflect on its history while also reminding it of the political polarization of the moment.

On a holiday of unity, there is an undercurrent of division

In New York, Mamdani, a Democrat, did not mention Trump by name, but parts of his speech appeared aimed at the president’s divisive rhetoric.

“For generation after generation, we have been told that when the world has sent its people to our shores, it has not sent its best,” Mamdani said in an apparent reference to a common criticism from Trump. “Those ideals upon which our nation was built — they are strong enough to endure any authoritarian regime, but only if we reach for them.”

Freedom 250, an organization aligned with the White House, has come to rival America250, a bipartisan group founded by Congress a decade ago. Freedom 250 has organized much of the activity in Washington, including the Great American State Fair. America250 is behind the ball drops unfolding in many cities, including New York, and will host a concert in Los Angeles on Saturday.

About 4 in 10 U.S. adults feel “proud” about the country’s 250th anniversary, according to an April survey from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Roughly 3 in 10 said “excited” describes their emotions.

Ahead of the holiday, auto technician Joe Fuqua-Bejarano in Topeka, Kansas, sized up “what makes us awesome” as a people. It is clearly not the politics, in his view, but rather resilience.

“We’ve just all got to find unity somewhere, whether that’s in laughter or perseverance, and keep everybody cool,” he said from the fireworks stand where he is doing a booming business as a side hustle.

Christina Zhou, a 25-year-old research assistant from Cambridge, Mass., said she would aim to “think about just things that are happening locally.”

“It feels a little bit more like within our own personal control,” she said.

Jerry Chin of Newcastle, Wash., said he wasn’t aware that the U.S. was celebrating its 250th anniversary and planned to stay low-key around the holiday. He and his wife generally skip the fireworks and instead stay home with their fearful dogs to keep them calm.

“America’s a great place, but there are some concerns,” he said. Chin, 55, and his wife worry about healthcare and issues around staying healthy, but they also stress about politics.

“We’re Democrats, so kind of given up hope,” he said. “Just feel that it is the way it is. I don’t know if there could be change.”

At the National Archives in Washington, visitors made their way through the Rotunda to look at the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights — and to escape the heat outside.

Michael Dresdner, 60, traveled from West Orange, N.J., with his wife, Cindi, 57, and about two dozen other people to be part of the America 250 celebrations. He said their group of travelers included people on both sides of the political aisle — and that is what gave him hope for the future of American democracy.

“We are all here, and we all love America,” he said.

Sloan, Peoples and Price write for the Associated Press. Peoples reported from New York. Associated Press writers Martha Bellisle in Seattle, Anthony Izaguirre in New York, John Hanna in Topeka, Kan., Michael Casey in Cambridge, Mass., and Calvin Woodward, Didi Tang, Gary Fields and Nathan Ellgren in Washington contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down Watergate-era limits on how much political parties can spend in a coordinated campaign with their candidates.

By a 6-3 vote, the court said the restrictions on parties and their campaign ads violate the 1st Amendment.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said the court was restoring broad free speech protections for parties and their candidates.

“For nearly 200 years after the ratification of the 1st Amendment, parties could spend freely to support their candidates during campaigns and could do so in coordination with the candidates,” he wrote. “Notably, no one suggests ‘that these elections were not functional or that they were marred by corruption’.”

The decision is a victory for the National Republican Senatorial Committee and is likely to give a boost to Republicans this year in their bid to maintain control of Congress.

That’s because the national Republican committees that support their Congressional candidates have $230 million available to spend this year, while the struggling Democratic committees have less than $120 million.

The party funding limits were challenged in 2022 in a lawsuit filed by JD Vance, who was then running in Ohio for a Senate seat, along with the Republican party committees.

Republicans argued these restrictions on parties were outdated and unwise in an era when “SuperPACs” can raise and spend huge amounts of money to promote candidates because they are independent.

If so, they asked, why shouldn’t the parties be free to raise money and coordinate their campaign ads with the candidates?

Under the current limits, the Federal Election Commission says an individual donor may give only $3,500 to a candidate seeking a federal office, but $132,900 to the national party committees.

Since the 1970s, however, federal election law has limited the parties from funding the campaigns of their candidates on the grounds that it could allow wealthy donors to buy influence.

But the court’s conservatives have repeatedly ruled that campaign money is protected as free speech under the 1st Amendment.

In the Citizens United case of 2010, they struck down the laws that restricted election spending by individuals, companies, unions and other groups.

Left standing were the rather low limits on direct contributions to candidates as well as the limits on how much parties could contribute to directly support candidates.

The limitations on parties and how they support their candidates have been disputed for decades.

The Supreme Court upheld the limits by a 5-4 vote in 2001 and said these “coordinated expenditures” were more like contributions than independent spending, and therefore, could be limited to protect against corruption.

Two years ago, the Biden administration defended the law, and an appeals court upheld it based on the court’s 2001 decision.

But last year, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the new challenge in National Republican Senatorial Committee vs. FEC.

Rather than defend the law, the Trump administration sided with the GOP and said the party limits should be struck down.

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan looked back to the history of the Watergate era.

“For over half a century, a federal statute has guarded against actual and apparent quid pro quo corruption in our political system by limiting the amount of money a donor can contribute to a candidate,” she said. “The law’s theory is simple: A candidate may be induced to trade official acts for campaign contributions—and the bigger the contribution, the stronger both the candidate’s temptation and the public’s suspicion.

“But today, the court rewrites the rules, to allow circumvention of the contribution limits … and ushers back in the same opportunities for quid pro quo corruption that the contribution limits were meant to check.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed.

The Democratic National Committee and attorney Marc Elias had stepped in to defend the limits.

He said the parties are free to speak in favor of their candidates but he argued that allowing them to “subsidize the campaign expenses of their candidates” is a contribution that can be regulated.

Otherwise, the “potential for actual or apparent corruption is is obvious,” he said.

The ruling is another election-year boost for the GOP.

Last month, the court’s conservatives ruled the Voting Rights Act did not prevent Republican-controlled states in the South from redrawing congressional districts that favored Black Democrats.

New maps in Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee and Florida are expected to flip several seats in favor of the GOP.

They are the warrior class of politics. The consultants, the Bob Shrums and Paul Maslins and Roger Stones and Roger Aileses and Ray Strothers and the others–Washington masters in the dark arts of campaigns, mercenaries holding sway over our dreams and our dreads. Only a few outsiders recognize them by name. Mostly they are known, in the romanticized jargon of their trade, as simply the hired guns of democracy–gloried, feared and hated.

And they are on their way to do battle in California.

For better or worse.

Drawn by tales of incredible riches to be made, of trendy and prolific initiative campaigns, and also drawn by the looming possibility that California will become the presidential “Super Tuesday” of 1992, a gold rush of political consulting is under way. It is a westward-ho migration of professional campaign talent without precedent.

Looking to Expand

Some of the biggest names in the business have moved their homes here from Washington. Others are opening Western offices or looking to expand. Still others are scouting for opportunity. Some are willing to work on the cheap just to get a toehold.

And with this new wave of national consultants comes renewed debate and alarm over familiar concerns.

Are consultants growing too numerous and expensive? Do they swallow up so much of the campaign budget that they weaken the candidate or the cause that they were hired to promote? Is there enough work in the elections of 1990 and 1992 in California, or will consultants have to bird-dog more candidates and ballot initiatives to pay the bills? And the most stubborn riddle of all: To what extent are consultants at the root of the negative, cynical, blow-with-the-wind, overly technological campaign politics of today?

Low Voter Turnout

More than just questions, these are expressions of simmering frustration. Around the world democracy is grabbing big, inky headlines–in China, in Russia, in Poland. But domestically, the news is of record-low voter turnouts and declining voter registration. And anyone close to the process is a target for blame. Consultants, because of their win-at-any-cost bravado, are easy to locate in the cross-hairs.

“Don’t come!” snaps Pat Caddell by way of advice to his former colleagues in the consulting business. “Stay home!”

In the course of a career as pollster and strategist in five Democratic presidential campaigns, Caddell has been everything from the creative boy genius of politics to its temperamental Darth Vader. As much as anyone, he is responsible for the flamboyant gunslinger mystique of the celebrity consultant: the man and woman who can mix polling and advertising and sheer cunning into electoral victory, never mind the attributes of the candidate.

Now living in Los Angeles, Caddell has angrily turned his back on the business, forswearing politics-for-profit. He is now one of the most colorful and energetic critics of Washington political consultants.

“These people are not coming out here for the good of California,” Caddell growls.

“Sometimes politics is a clash of ideology and ideas. But that’s not what this is about. This is about coming out here and making money. And if the consulting corps does for California what it’s done to the nation’s politics, it will be an unmitigated disaster. . . .

“What voters here are going to get is going to horrify them. Campaigns in California aren’t particularly edifying anyway. And they’re going to get worse–the kind of smear, mud and sleaze that we’ve already seen is nothing compared to what’s coming.”

Caddell represents the most astringent view, to be sure.

But most everyone in the political community has something to say, or fret about, as he beholds the invasion of the consultants:

* Bob Shrum (speech writer for Edward M. Kennedy, and media consultant for Richard Gephardt for President, Alan Cranston reelection, Leo T. McCarthy for Senate, John K. Van de Kamp for governor) moves from Georgetown, where he is one of the most storied names in the Washington business, to Los Feliz.

* Paul Maslin (baby-boomer pollster for Gary Hart for President, Paul Simon for President, Michael S. Dukakis for President, Cranston, McCarthy, Van de Kamp) likewise moves from Washington to Venice, Calif.

* Roger Stone (George Bush political lieutenant) signs up at a nominal fee to assist GOP state treasurer candidate Angela Bay Buchanan.

* Roger Ailes (Bush national television advertising, George Deukmejian reelection) is courted by GOP Treasurer Thomas W. Hayes. One political pro believes that Ailes, probably the most celebrated Republican consultant in the nation right now, will be asked to handle up to six campaigns in California before 1990 is over.

* Ray Strother (who has moved from a specialist in Southern campaigns to be a national figure in Democratic politics) is opening a Beverly Hills office. Strother is willing to work at “negotiable,” reduced rates as he tries to work his way into the state’s political network. Sergio Bendixen (Bruce Babbitt for President) is spending an increasing share of his time in California and is actively looking for work. John Russonello (Babbitt, Cranston) is anxious for work here.

* A broad assortment of other, perhaps lesser-known consultants are joining in the gold rush. Philadelphia’s Campaign Group, headed by Doc Sweitzer (Al Gore for President), has opened a San Diego office under Bill Wachob. Pollsters Mark Mellman and Ed Lazarus of Washington (Gore and Ohio Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum and former California gubernatorial contender state Sen. John Garamendi) are actively shopping for work here. Pollster Alex Evans (former Caddell associate) has moved from Washington to San Francisco. Celinda Lake of Greenberg-Lake pollsters in Washington (Dukakis campaign in California and Texas) is working for state treasurer candidate Kathleen Brown and pushing for a statewide initiative on children’s issues. And so on.

“The only thing that surprises me is that it has taken this long for the migration to take place,” Los Angeles lawyer and political adviser Darry Sragow said.

“And if there is a silver lining, it’s that with all the national talent and attention, California is bound to benefit as an originator of political ideas and trends, much as it is now viewed in the consumer arena as where trends start.”

Two men are most responsible for the migration.

One is a home-grown product, Clinton Reilly of San Francisco.

Prop. 103 Battle

Reilly (now managing Democrat Dianne Feinstein for governor) was the full-service consultant–strategy, polling, advertising, the works–for insurance companies in their $63.8-million California ballot initiative campaign of last year.

Reilly lost. The initiative backed by his insurers was defeated, and the rival Ralph Nader-backed rate-rollback Proposition 103 passed. But as the most expensive single-state campaign in U.S. history, jaws of consultants everywhere went agape.

It is assumed that Reilly set a record for consulting fees. Estimates of his earnings range from $6 million to $9 million, and occasionally higher.

“You put those kind of millions around anything that people vote on and consultants will swarm all over it. They’ll flatten the Rockies to get out there,” said James Carville, a Washington-based strategist who is not working here, at least not yet.

Reilly will not discuss specifics about his earnings. But he calls the estimates inflated, and says it is unfair to publish guesses of fees without considering his full-time staff of 20 to 25 who must be paid in off-years the same as in the heat of battle.

Still, Reilly’s campaign stands as an important milepost in the brief history of professional politics, starting back in those days when campaign work came mostly from the heart. Those were the days when the individual made the choice–if he wanted to make money, he went elsewhere; if he believed in something or someone, he threw himself into politics.

Career Option

Now, consulting is a career option just the same as accounting or law. Wholly self-made, Reilly at age 42 bears the fruits of such labors with ownership of his own three-story office building in downtown San Francisco, a showcase home in tony Sea Cliff, a luxury car, fine suits and a cultivated palate.

“I am rich. I have made money. Sometimes when I look at my assets they surprise me. And other times, like (when being interviewed) now, they embarrass me. But I tell you, my motive has never been just money. I am more interested in the professionalization of this business.

“I wanted people to get a fair fee rather than what I saw. Which was a politician waiting until the last minute, hiring you and asking how little could he pay you. Then, expect you to work crazy hours, seven days a week. And then fire you the day the election is over.”

But Reilly is also among a growing number of consultants with a twinge of doubt about how they have altered American politics.

“All this increasing emphasis on political money seems to have been detrimental to the public interest, where interest groups who have the money to give have created a paralysis in the system,” Reilly says. “It’s a byproduct of this professionalism that I didn’t anticipate.”

Gilded Reputation

The second person who has stimulated the migration of fellow national consultants to California is Bob Shrum.

Former speech writer to Sen. Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy (D-Mass.), Shrum and his partner, strategy guru David Doak, built their gilded reputation on the strength of the campaign they designed for Cranston’s uphill reelection to the Senate from California in 1986.

Since then, they have become one of the dominant forces in California Democratic politics, producing the advertising and strategy for Lt. Gov. McCarthy’s 1988 run for the Senate, Atty. Gen. Van de Kamp’s 1990 gubernatorial campaign, and for Occidental Petroleum’s Los Angeles ballot proposition campaign in 1988 to drill for oil in Pacific Palisades. They also were on retainer for Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley in his easy reelection this year.

As he spent more and more time on business in California, the unexpected happened.

“I fell in love and got married, that’s why I moved here,” he said. His wife is Times society columnist MaryLouise Oates, now on leave writing a book.

Cupid aside, Shrum proved a pathfinder among the national consulting corps. Not only is it possible for a Washington consultant to be successful, and quickly, in California, Shrum showed that a California homestead does not necessarily reduce one’s clout in the Capitol. And he showed that an Easterner can survive here without changing habits. Shrum refuses to learn to drive.

Target of Criticism

Because of his high profile and his strong, lingering connection to the Kennedy wing of the Democratic Party, Shrum gets more than his share of criticism for work on behalf of non-Kennedyesque clients. In particular, he is criticized in some liberal circles for his campaign on behalf of Occidental’s proposal to drill in Pacific Palisades, which was venomously opposed by environmentalists.

In truth, though, political professionals long ago ceased being driven solely by their devotion to a cause. Increasingly like lawyers, they are willing to sell their skills to a greater range of clients even though they remain sensitive to the charge they are selling out.

“There are certain basic guidelines,” explains Shrum about his approach to the business. “No Republican campaigns. No campaigns for someone I disagree with on a fundamental issue. . . . Occidental was not a litmus test.”

In the face of this westward migration of consultants, California’s home-grown corps of political professionals is sounding a game note.

“Bring ‘em on!” says Richie Ross, a combative strategist who earned his stripes in Democratic legislative races and San Francisco municipal elections. He is now state manager of Van de Kamp’s 1990 Democratic gubernatorial effort.

He’s Not Impressed

“They’re the guys who swagger around doing stuff we’ve done 10 years ago. Now we get a chance to beat them. I’ve seen their stuff. They don’t know anything about direct mail or targeting. Their TV (advertising) is pedestrian. And none of their strategic thinking knocks me away,” Ross said.

“The field of national politics is rotating west. Now we get an opportunity for visibility. I want people to say, ‘Hmmm, who is this guy who beat Atwater.’ ” (In this case, Atwater being Republican National Chairman and former Bush campaign manager Lee Atwater.)

Many in the consulting community agree that Californians are ahead of the nation in the sophistication of computerized direct mail. In its simplest form, it is nothing more than identifying a narrow community of interest–say, Greek-American voters. Then, these voters are sent special appeals pointing out that one’s candidate is endorsed by some Greek religious leader or that one’s opponent once cast a vote supporting Turkey, Greece’s adversary.

One reason why California consultants are unruffled by the added competition here is that they are moving direct mail and other technologies eastward just as rapidly and eagerly as Washington consultants are galloping west.

One firm, Winner/Wagner/Mandabach Associates, is a California company that drifted away from direct lobbying and campaign consulting here. But it has become heavily involved in ballot proposition campaigns in other states.

Where It’s At

“The things you learn in California you can take elsewhere. . . . It’s not like California was first with the initiative. But there is no question this is the ground where the technology has been developed,” says the company’s Scott Fitz-Randolph.

Still, for the money and thrills, California’s biannual orgy of ballot initiatives is tops in the consulting world, both for the home-staters and the newcomers. Here is a chance to get rich and do battle over driving issues of the day–insurance, political reform, transportation–all without distraction of a candidate.

So refined have initiatives become, they are promoted in classic congressional “pork barrel” fashion. The cases in point are a 1988 park bond and a proposed 1990 rail bond issue sponsored by the environmentalist Planning and Conservation League. In both instances, sponsors of the huge bond issues solicited campaign funds and political support from those who would benefit from the measures.

GOP consultant Dick Dresner, who has been spreading himself between San Diego and New York for seven years, says some national consultants are in for a surprise.

“You may think this a vast, open place. But you’ll be disappointed. You’ll find that whatever you do, there is somebody just as good already doing it here,” Dresner says.

Instant Credibility

On the other hand, there is an undeniable Washington cachet about these big-name consultants.

Candidates seek them out. Just by hiring one, a candidate can gain credibility with the press. If the press takes one seriously, so do campaign contributors. And, quickly, they are on their way.

“That’s what we’re selling,” says consultant Strother.

Pat Caddell believes the cozy relationship between the political press and consultants has subtly shielded the consulting business from the probing scrutiny given politicians, lawyers and other groups that wield substantial influence in society.

“Nobody questions the money, nobody questions the win-loss records, or what they will do to win. Nobody questions anything,” he grumps.

Aside from money, power is a sure draw on consultants. And there is an emerging view that the West, no longer the South, will be the site of the decisive presidential power play in upcoming elections. The political arithmetic of 1988 seems unchanged for 1992 and beyond: A Democrat will have tremendous trouble reaching the White House without California.

That is in the general election. In the primaries, California political leaders of both parties seem determined to move up the June primary, and some consultants figure an early vote here will become the “Super Tuesday” of 1992.

Taking Inventory

Given that, many consultants are taking inventory of their knowledge and contacts here. And they are worried. Looking back on 1988, there is considerable evidence that national consultants of both parties were weak in their understanding of the state.

Both Republican Bush and Democrat Dukakis often seemed slightly uncertain where to go or what to say. Dukakis finally showed how little his campaign understood the state when he decided to make his famous I-am-a-liberal-and-proud-of-it statement in the San Joaquin Valley, an act of geographic silliness not unlike a candidate going to San Diego and announcing his plan to mothball the Navy.

“National consultants know there is a need to get out here and become familiar with California if they’re really going to be effective,” says Kam Kuwata, a Santa Monica consultant of rising stature.

There is something else drawing consultants out of Washington. Call it the need for fresh perspective.

“I felt that to stay clearheaded, I needed to get out of Washington,” says pollster Maslin. “Money? Sure, that’s a factor. And it’s a growing part of the national dynamic. But I needed a chance to recharge outside of Washington.

“After 11 years in the cockpit of national politics, if you will, I needed to get my feet back on some ground. Even if that ground is the San Andreas Fault.”

A landslide win, only two years ago – yet now British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is resisting calls to step down.

The return to parliament of Andy Burnham makes a leadership challenge more likely.

What’s gone wrong, so fast, for Starmer? And why is there so much turmoil at the top of British politics?

Presenter: Per Nyberg

Guests:

Peter Oborne – UK political commentator and associate editor of Middle East Eye – a digital news organisation

Jonathan Tonge – Professor of politics at the University of Liverpool and author of numerous books on British and Northern Irish politics

Peter Geoghegan – Editor of Democracy for Sale, an investigative news site in London

California’s political watchdog commission on Thursday finalized a $31,500 fine against Gov. Gavin Newsom, alleging that the Democratic leader failed to report three dozen behested payments totaling $5.5 million mostly to support wildfire recovery by the deadline under state law.

The Political Reform Act requires elected officials to disclose payments of $5,000 or more that they solicit or direct others to give to a charitable, legislative or governmental purpose within 30 days.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission said 34 of the violations were for failing to report on time that Newsom and his staff directed outreach from companies and foundations that wanted to help after the Los Angeles wildfires to the California Fire Foundation. The nonprofit was started in 1987 by the California Professional Firefighters to support the families of fallen firefighters and communities impacted by fire.

The donations include $1 million from the Chuck Lorre Foundation and $500,000 apiece from Lockheed Martin, the Anthem Blue Cross Foundation and BlackRock, among others gifts.

The governor also failed in 2024 to report on time two behested payments, totaling $100,000 from the Schmidt Family Foundation and Schwab Charitable Funds to the Institute for Local Government, a nonprofit within the League of California Cities.

The commission said the governor reported all of the payments “prior to public discovery” or contact from its enforcement division, which it considered a mitigating factor. Newsom also signed the stipulation and agreed to the fine.

Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Newsom’s office, said the issue involved late paperwork at a time when the governor’s staff was focused on emergency response and supporting survivors. She also underscored the fact that the reports were filed before he was contact by the FPPC.

Gallegos said the fine is unrelated to an alleged investigation into the governor and his wife by the Department of Justice, which Newsom announced this week.

Newsom alleged Monday that Trump is using the government as political weapon to target him and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom. Newsom announced the investigation after he learned that the FBI and Internal Revenue Service asked his associates questions about nonprofits and businesses related to the couple.

The governor’s office characterized the investigation as a fishing expedition. The Trump administration declined to comment.

A source familiar with the matter, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly, said two federal probes have been going on for about a year, and that they originated not from Washington, D.C., but from conversations between whistleblowers and federal prosecutors based in Sacramento. The probes are linked to Newsom’s former chief-of-staff, Dana Williamson, and Siebel Newsom’s taxes, the source said.

The FPPC violations mark the second time Newsom has reported payments late, which increased his penalty for the new infractions. The commission fined Newsom in 2024 for failing to timely report 18 payments totaling $14.4 million.

Los Angeles is often nicknamed “Tehrangeles” – a fact that drew smiles from both player and manager when it was mentioned at the news conference.

Many Iranian-Americans will be heading to SoFi Stadium on Monday where Iran will open their World Cup campaign against New Zealand.

Many will not be there to cheer, but to protest.

Fifa has banned the pre-revolutionary Lion and Sun flag – a powerful symbol for many Iranians living abroad.

The decision has angered parts of the diaspora.

“You don’t come to Los Angeles and tell us we can’t fly the Lion and Sun flag,” said activist Arezo Rashidian, who is helping organise demonstrations outside the stadium.

“This is the largest Iranian community outside Iran. Many of us came here after the revolution. We’re opposing Fifa’s ban and standing in solidarity with the people of Iran.”

Many members of the diaspora are hostile towards Iran’s regime, and some see the squad as an extension of the Islamic Republic.

“It’s unfortunate that the regime turns athletes into mouthpieces.” said Rashidian. “We want athletes to remain athletes.”

Despite that, she and many others still plan to attend the match.

“We understand the pressure they’re under,” she said. “We’ll carry our colours. We’ll cheer for Iran – the country – held captive by the Islamic Republic.”

But while protesters prepare to make their voices heard outside the stadium, Iran’s players say their focus remains on football.

“As players of the national team, we play for every single Iranian, whether in the diaspora or in Iran,” Taremi said.

“In every country people have different opinions. We are here to unite people and bring joy. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. We don’t get involved in politics.”

That may be the ideal.

But for Iran’s team, keeping politics outside the stadium could prove difficult in a tournament where football has often felt like a sideshow for this squad.

“There is no winning for Iran’s team,” investigative football journalist Samindra Kunti said.

“Given the circumstances, the political pressure, the location of the matches and the diaspora in Los Angeles, they’re under enormous pressure.”

“It’s impossible to avoid the politics.

“Everything becomes a reminder of their situation.”

The players face pressure from home, pressure from the host nation and pressure from a diaspora determined to make its voice heard.

All before a ball has been kicked.

WASHINGTON — President Trump planned to mark his 80th birthday on Sunday with a celebration that once would have seemed unfathomable: a cage-fighting show on the storied South Lawn of the White House.

In the week ahead, some hard realities of the office have threatened to overshadow the ostentatious UFC mixed martial arts extravaganza, where combatants sealed inside a wire-mesh octagon try to punch, kick, chop and pummel each other into submission.

Trump has found himself boxed into an unpopular and costly war he helped start in Iran. An agreement to end the conflict could be close, but the crucial details are still to be negotiated. Meanwhile, about a mile from Trump’s birthday bash, crews pried the president’s name off the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts facade after a judge ruled that renaming it to include Trump was not allowed.

Regardless, the president will walk out of the White House and be surrounded by Cabinet leaders, top administration officials, Republican lawmakers and 4,000-plus spectators screaming themselves hoarse in a temporary arena under “The Claw,” a spaceship-like metal arch fitted with lighting, sound equipment and large screens. Thousands more will be watching on big screens from the nearby Ellipse.

“This event is a one-of-one event, incredible event. I love it,” said UFC chief Dana White, a close friend of Trump, during a Friday night hype session at the Lincoln Memorial where pairs of fighters shoved and scuffled for the cameras under the stoic gaze of Honest Abe’s marble likeness.

Trump has sought to tie Sunday’s event — which features seven fights running past midnight — to larger, months-long celebrations of the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

But it is much more geared toward feting himself, so much so that the Group of 7 summit for leaders of industrialized nations pushed back their get-together so that the president could attend his cage-match party and then fly straight to France for the meetings.

The weather, though, could put a damper on things. Strong thunderstorms and heavy lightning disrupted Friday’s Lincoln Memorial event, and the forecast for Sunday evening also looked threatening.

“I’m sick and tired of hearing about the weather,” White declared Friday, before conceding that he’d prefer to hold future UFC events inside arenas only.

A very different 80th birthday celebration

When Trump’s predecessor, President Biden, turned 80 in November 2022, he celebrated with a private family brunch at the White House, a reminder of just how much and how quickly things have changed.

Asked about the contrast, White House spokesperson Allison Schuster said that the fight “will be one of the most entertaining nights in American history” and said that the timing was appropriate. “Having this spectacle take place at the people’s house on Flag Day during our nations’ semiquincentennial anniversary is a fitting tribute,” Schuster said in a statement, apparently including a punctuation error in referring to “nation’s.”

When he turned 80, Biden was the oldest president in U.S. history, and was months away from launching a reelection bid that he would ultimately abandon after a disastrous debate against Trump and mutiny among Democrats concerned that voters would perceive him as too old to handle a second term.

Trump has now supplanted Biden as the oldest person to be elected U.S. president. He’s constitutionally barred from running again, yet constantly toys with the notion publicly. That’s despite polls showing rising public skepticism about Trump’s mental and physical health — recalling concerns Biden faced as he turned 80.

A Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted in April found that less than half of U.S. adults think Trump has the mental sharpness or physical health to serve effectively as president.

The White House countered with a lengthy statement from Trump’s former White House physician, Republican Rep. Ronny Jackson of Texas, saying that Trump’s “stamina, focus, and strength are exceptional and on display every day. Claims to the contrary are pure fiction.” Jackson added that polling concerns were “being propagated by the same biased, liberal, Trump-hating press that completely ignored the absolute cognitive and physical disaster that was President Biden.”

Trump has nonetheless undergone four publicly announced physical examinations this term alone, with White House physician Dr. Sean Barbabella recently declaring him in “excellent health.”

‘Bread and circuses’ — Trump-style

The UFC event is an apt metaphor for Trump’s pugilistic political style. He has also long been a practitioner of political misdirection, purposely presenting people with something other than his presidency to focus on when things aren’t going well.

With the war in Iran grinding on despite weeks of assurances from Trump that its end is nigh, gas prices staying high, renewed concerns about inflation and plummeting job approval ratings for Trump — a White House birthday party unlike anything America has ever seen is definitely a diversion.

“This is all distraction,” said Mike Fontaine, a classics professor at Cornell University, who likened it to the gladiatorial games of Imperial Rome, when combatants brutalized each other for public entertainment meant to bolster rulers’ popularity and quell potential unrest.

“This is a classic strategy,” Fontaine said. “In ancient Rome, the phrase would be ‘bread and circuses.’”

Trump says the UFC is paying for the event, and though its full cost hasn’t been divulged, the National Park Service said in a court filing that $60-plus million and tens of thousands of hours of labor have gone into it, while seven government agencies have “allocated significant resources and manpower.”

UFC also announced Friday that it was adding as an official partner for the event World Liberty Financial to create a $250,000 athlete bonus pool for Sunday night’s winners. The cryptocurrency company is co-owned by the Trump family, founded with the president’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and run by the diplomat’s son Zach. The arrangement further blurs lines between the Trump family’s financial interests and the events and construction projects the president has prioritized and used government resources to pull off, which many critics and political analysts have labeled corrupt.

Still, Fontaine said that when it comes to a personal flair for pageantry, Trump’s second-term tendency to lean into “hardcore masculinity and brute fighting” is marrying the UFC’s blood sport with Trump’s distinctive sense of humor and enduring sense of showmanship.

“President Trump has a once-in-a-generation talent for this stuff,” he said.

Weissert writes for the Associated Press.

Ali Louis Bourzgui scored an upset win for performance by an actor in a featured role in a musical for originating the role of David in the musical adaptation of the cult vampire horror film, “The Lost Boys.”

As viewers scrambled to keep their score cards straight — André De Shields was favored to take the trophy for his work in “Cats: The Jellicle Ball” — the 26-year-old Bourzgui went on to deliver the night’s most impassioned, and pointedly political speech.

He began by noting that, “Vampires represent those who have shunned their own humanity in order to achieve a non-existent sense of superiority. The billionaires will never find happiness from their money. The colonizers will never find fulfillment from the land and lives they steal. The fascists will never find meaning from their conformity, not in this lifetime or eternity.”

Through the cheers of an invigorated audience, Bourzgui went on to talk about how “theater is one of the last places people can come to worship the power of true collective human presence.”

At its best, he said, theater helps us see ourselves in a stranger’s story.

“This is dedicated to the beautiful tapestry of immigrant families who make this country really special. May you one day not have to audition for the empathy that should be freely given by this country that benefits from your beauty, for the queer and trans communities who will exist, no matter what people in power try to take away from them.”

Bourzgui, whose father immigrated to America from Morocco, went on to pay tribute to Palestine and his own Arab heritage.

“For the people of Palestine, who deserve a free life, a full life without occupation, for Arabs and their makers and artists, may we continue to tell our stories and show our faces. Our humanity becomes undeniable, and our families can no longer be written off as merely collateral damage, may they know the beauty of our kisses upon his cheek and the romance of a language rooted in passion for love and life itself.”

He wrapped up this speech with a plea for love and empathy.

“If there’s one thing we can learn from vampires, it’s that life is short, but that’s it’s a gift. Find beauty in the ephemeral and gratitude in what is not promised, and always invest in the people that want to see you blossom into your truest self, and hold that space for them in return.”

June 6 (UPI) — Pope Leo XIV landed in Madrid Saturday to begin his one-week papal visit to the country, the first in 15 years.

Leo was greeted at the airport by King Felipe VI and his wife Queen Letizia, then addressed them at the Royal Palace along with politicians and diplomats.

He acknowledged political polarization and called for an end to it in Spain and elsewhere in the West.

“I come among you to affirm, encourage and instill a renewed fidelity to the Gospel among believers, as well as a deeper reconciliation and collaboration among the various elements of this nation,” the first American pope said.

“In reality, the message of peace, which at present unfortunately strikes some as naive and others as confrontational, is welcomed by those who do not shut themselves off in preconceived ideologies, but are rather open to the truth,” Leo said.

Spanish Deputy Prime Minister Yolanda Díaz told the Washington Post that the left in Spain embraces the pope.

“The [left’s] alignment with Pope Francis was immediate: He defended Spain’s labor reform and the Episcopal Conference also supported it, something that would have seemed unthinkable 20 years ago,” she said. “With Leo XIV, that alignment deepens.”

The Spanish far-right are battling the Church, which they believed an ally. They are particularly upset over the church’s advocacy for migrants, The Washington Post reported. The left once saw the Church as complicit in the Franco dictatorship.

“The far right in Spain wants to copy the far right in the United States,” Bishop José Mazuelos Pérez, who heads a Canary Islands diocese providing shelter, food, blankets and medical care for arriving migrants, told The Post. “To go to war with the bishops over the issue of migration.”

On Monday, Leo will address the Spanish parliament, which is gridlocked. He’s expected to discuss that type of polarization, and his other visits around the country highlight differing segments of the Church.

He will have a prayer vigil with young people Saturday, then march Sunday in a traditional Spanish street procession.

On Thursday, Leo plans to visit the Canary Islands, a landing for Latin American migrants and for those arriving by sea from the African coast. He is planning to visit Lampedusa on July 4, an Italian island where migrants from Africa and beyond land.

On his flight to Spain, Leo acknowledged that he would be competing popular with Puerto Rican singer Bad Bunny, who played the Super Bowl halftime show this year, for Spanish attention. Bad Bunny is scheduled to perform in Madrid Saturday night.

Leo said that more young people are turning to the Church, looking for something more.

“If they are confronted with the question: do they want to see Bad Bunny or do they want to see the pope, I think many will see Bad Bunny,” Leo said. “But I think there will also be a few here to see the pope. And that says something.”

On Sunday, the pope will celebrate mass on the feast of Corpus Christi in the Plaza de Cibeles. There will be a Corpus Christi procession, the Vatican said. He will also meet privately with members of the Order of St. Augustine to which he belongs.

Later, he will go to a gathering of representatives of culture, arts, business and sports at Madrid’s Movistar Arena.

The Vatican spokesperson Matteo Bruni said, “Leo XIV’s trip to Spain is a sign that, despite the secularization of society, the pope still has something to say in many areas, in Spain and in Europe, where he can play a constructive role in public debate,” Euro News reported.