political

When tenant rights attorney Ysabel Jurado ran for Los Angeles City Council last year, she positioned herself as a potential fourth vote against Mayor Karen Bass’ plan to hire more police officers.

While she was waging her campaign, the council’s three-member super progressive bloc — Eunisses Hernandez, Nithya Raman and Hugo Soto–Martínez — voted against the mayor’s budget, decrying the amount of money allocated for the Los Angeles Police Department. Jurado, who went on to unseat Councilmember Kevin de León, said she would have joined them, turning the 12-3 budget vote into an 11-4.

Turns out it none of that was necessary.

On Thursday, the council approved a $14-billion annual budget that would cut police hiring in half, while sparing hundreds of other city workers from layoffs. Jurado, now on the council, praised the spending plan, then voted for it.

And this time around, the council members on the losing end of a 12-3 vote were those who occupy the body’s more moderate wing: Monica Rodriguez, Traci Park and John Lee.

The shift in budget votes from last year to now offers perhaps the strongest evidence of the political pendulum swing under way at City Hall. When other recent votes are added to the equation, the council chamber might even be undergoing a permanent realignment.

The council also voted 12-3 last week to hike the city’s minimum wage for hotel employees and private-sector tourism workers, boosting it to $30 per hour by 2028. Park, Rodriguez and Lee were in the minority on that issue as well, arguing that hotel and airport wages were rising too much and too quickly, jeopardizing the financial health of L.A.’s tourism industry.

The three ultra moderates also voiced alarm at their colleagues’ decision to scale back the mayor’s plan for increasing hiring at the fire department. Rodriguez, who gave a long and passionate speech against the budget, said in an interview she thinks “there’s clearly a shift in the politics of the council.”

“We have different ideology with respect to how we need to be making sure that the city is safe,” she said.

Soto-Martínez, who represents an Echo Park-to-Hollywood district, wouldn’t pin the political shift on any one vote, arguing instead that “the realignment has been happening for quite some years now.” The move to the left at City Hall, he said, has been driven by the election of candidates — including himself — who have sworn off contributions from corporations and real estate interests.

Because this year’s financial situation was so dire, and the list of proposed cuts so large, the council had no sacred cows when preparing the 2025-26 spending plan, he said. That paved the way for the council to scale back the recruitment of new police officers, he said.

“For many years, including the first two years that I was here, that issue was untouchable. No one would touch it or go near it,” said Soto-Martínez, who was elected in 2022. “And this year, we were realistic about police hiring.”

The realignment is in part of the product of years of campaigning and grassroots advocacy from the hotel workers’ union, LA Forward, Democratic Socialists of America-Los Angeles and many other organizations. But it also reflects the choices of Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, who is still in his first year in his leadership role.

Harris-Dawson reshuffled the council’s committee assignments last year, offering plum spots to the newest arrivals. Hernandez, who promised during her 2022 campaign not to hire any additional police officers, landed a coveted spot on the budget committee. She then forged a strong working relationship with Councilmember Heather Hutt, another new appointee to the budget committee, who broke into tears on Thursday as she described Hernandez’ contributions to their deliberations.

Over the course of the budget committee’s nine meetings, Hernandez worked with her colleagues to restore funding for programs that help day laborers, an LGBTQ+ liaison in the city’s civil rights department and $1 million for the legal defense of immigrants facing deportation. She also fought for core services, such as street light repairs, graffiti removal and crews that address illegal dumping.

By contrast, Rodriguez, Park and Lee made clear they felt excluded from key decisions, particularly the budget committee’s vote to shift management over certain homelessness initiatives out of the office of City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo and into the Los Angeles Housing Department.

After a lengthy debate, the three moderates picked up two votes in their effort to delay those changes, not enough to win the day. Instead, their biggest victory — one that took multiple tries — was securing the votes to restore $376,961 at the fire department, which will allow the city to send 45 firefighters to paramedic training.

Park, whose district includes the fire-scarred Pacific Palisades, sounded furious by the time the entire budget came up for a vote.

“I don’t think we should agree to spend another penny on homelessness until we as a full council — not just the few of you who get invited into the conversation — have the chance to chime in,” she said, adding: “But instead of fixing that mess, what did we decide to go after? The increase [Bass requested for] our fire department, after all we literally just witnessed in January.”

One day after the budget vote, Councilmember Bob Blumenfield acknowledged that the pendulum had swung left at City Hall, pointing to the results of several recent elections. Still, he cautioned against reading too much into a single budget, saying a pendulum can swing in opposing directions.

Blumenfield, who represents part of the west San Fernando Valley, said he voted to slow down police hiring as part of a compromise to protect civilian jobs at the LAPD and elsewhere. “I hate seeing the lower number of police recruitment,” he said.

Blumenfield, who occupies the terrain between super progressive and ultra moderate, said he’s still hoping the council will find additional funds later in the budget year to allow the LAPD to hire more officers beyond the 240 that received funding from the council.

“I don’t like to look at the council as a spectrum. I don’t see myself on that spectrum,” he said. “On different issues, I feel like I’m on different parts of it.”

State of play

— SEEKING A VETO: Business groups pressed Mayor Karen Bass to veto the measure hiking the minimum wage of tourism workers, saying hotels and other businesses cannot afford to wage hikes of 50% between now and 2028. Bass, appearing Tuesday at the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, sounded sympathetic to their complaints but stopped short of stating her opposition.

“I’m concerned about the hit to tourism and just the hit in general, especially with downtown, but citywide, because downtown was already suffering,” she told the audience. She also raised doubts that she would intervene, calling the initial wage vote “veto proof.”

— BAD CALL: Former deputy Mayor Brian Williams struck a plea deal with federal prosecutors, admitting he called in a fake bomb threat to City Hall late last year that was blamed on anti-Israel sentiment. Williams, who handled public safety issues for Bass, falsely stated that he had just received a call on his city-issued cellphone from an unknown male caller who made a bomb threat against City Hall, according to his plea agreement.

— HOORAY FOR HOLLYWOOD: L.A.’s mayor promised to reduce barriers to filming in Los Angeles this week, signing an executive directive aimed at streamlining city permit processes and increasing access to legendary L.A. locations, such as Griffith Observatory and the Central Library. “We’ve taken the industry for granted,” Bass said. “We know that the industry is a part of our DNA here. And sometimes, if you think it’s a part of your DNA, you can think it’s always going to be here.”

— ZOO STORY: The elephants Billy and Tina were whisked out of the Los Angeles Zoo this week, relocated to a zoo in Tulsa over the fierce objections of animal advocates. The late night relocation drew complaints from Blumenfield and an array of activists, who argued that the pachyderms needed a much larger expanse of land for their health and well being.

— PUBLIC PAYOUTS: Two fired employees who received a combined $800,000 in legal settlements from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority had accused the agency’s chief executive, Va Lecia Adams Kellum, of hiring cronies for top jobs, attempting to destroy records and being “extremely inebriated” at an out-of-state conference, according to two settlement demand letters released this week. LAHSA “strenuously” denied the allegations, saying the agency “made a business decision” to pay the fired workers and resolve the employee dispute.

— PUSHBACK OVER PCH: Officials from city and state government tussled this week over plans for reopening an 11-mile stretch of Pacific Coast Highway. Nancy Ward, who leads the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, complained that her office had been kept “in the dark” about the city’s security plan for the fire-ravaged Pacific Palisades area. A Bass spokesperson pushed back on that claim, saying the city would deploy 112 officers to staff 16 checkpoints 24 hours a day in the Palisades. Either way, traffic was flowing Friday afternoon.

— COUNTY CRIME: A veteran emergency management official with Los Angeles County has been arrested on charges of murdering his mother. Robert Barreras, 42, was suspended without pay, and had been on leave when the crime took place, a county official said.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to address homelessness carried out operations in two locations: the area around Lankershim Boulevard and Strathern Street in Councilmember Imelda Padilla’s San Fernando Valley district and the area around Vermont Avenue and 73rd Street in Harris-Dawson’s South L.A. district. Outreach workers also returned to other parts of South L.A. and Hollywood, according to the mayor’s team.
• On the docket for next week: The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to take up appointees to its new governance reform task force, which will help oversee the implementation of Measure G, last year’s voter-approved measure to overhaul county government.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to [email protected]. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

Actions, we know, have consequences. And an apparent Marxist’s cold-blooded murder of two Israeli Embassy staffers in Washington on Wednesday night was the natural and inevitable consequence of a conscientious, years-long campaign to dehumanize Jews and otherize all supporters of the world’s only Jewish state.

Seriously, what did you think was going to happen?

Some of President Trump’s more colorful all-caps and exclamation-mark-filled social media posts evince an impending jackboot, we’re sometimes told. (Hold aside, for now, columnist Salena Zito’s apt 2016 quip about taking Trump seriously but not literally.) Words either have meaning or they don’t. And many left-wing Americans have, for a long time now, argued that they have tremendous meaning. How often, as the concept of the “microaggression” and its campus “safe space” corollary took off last decade, were we told that “words are violence”? (I’ll answer: A lot!)

So are we really not supposed to take seriously the clear calls for Jewish genocide that have erupted on American campuses and throughout American streets since the Hamas pogrom of Oct. 7, 2023? Are we really supposed to believe that chants such as “globalize the intifada,” “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “there is only one solution, intifada revolution” are vague and open to competing interpretations?

That doesn’t even pass the laugh test.

When pro-Israel Jewish American Paul Kessler died after being hit on the head during a clash of protesters in Thousand Oaks on Nov. 5, 2023, that is what “intifada revolution” looks like in practice. When Israeli woman Tzeela Gez was murdered by a jihadist while en route to the hospital to deliver her baby earlier this month, that was what “from the river to the sea” looks like in practice. And when two young Israeli Embassy staffers were executed while leaving an event this week at Washington’s Capital Jewish Museum, that is what “globalize the intifada” looks like in practice.

Really, what did you think was going to happen?

Indeed, it is the easily foreseeable nature of Wednesday night’s slayings that is perhaps the most tragic part of it all. The suspect in the deaths of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim left behind a handy manifesto laying out a clear political motivation. This was not a random drive-by shooting. Hardly. This was a deliberate act — what appears to be an act of domestic terrorism. And the suspect, Elias Rodriguez, has a long history of involvement in far-left activist causes. If the killer intended to target Jews, then the fact that both victims were apparently Christian only underscores the “globalize” part of “globalize the intifada.”

Zito had it right back in 2016: Trump’s social media posts should be taken seriously, not literally. But when it comes to the murderous, genocidal clamoring for Jewish and Israeli blood that has become increasingly ubiquitous ever since the Jews themselves suffered their single bloodiest day since the Third Reich, such anti-Israel and antisemitic words must be taken both seriously and literally.

A previous generation of lawmakers once urged Americans to fight the terrorists “over there” so that they can’t harm us “here.” How quaint! The discomfiting reality in the year 2025 is this: The radicals, both homegrown and foreign-born alike, are already here. There are monsters in our midst.

And those monsters are not limited to jihadists. Domestic terrorists these days come from all backgrounds. The deaths of two Israeli diplomats are yet another reminder (not that we needed it): Politically motivated violence in the contemporary United States is not an equivalent problem on both the left and the right.

In 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins attempted to shoot up the socially conservative Family Research Council because he heard it was “anti-gay.” In 2017, James Hodgkinson shot up the Republican congressional baseball team a few weeks after posting on Facebook that Trump is a “traitor” and threat to “our democracy.” In 2022, Nicholas Roske flew cross-country to try to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and thus prevent Roe vs. Wade from being overturned. Earlier this year, anti-Elon Musk activists burned and looted Teslas — and assaulted Tesla drivers — because of Musk’s Trump administration work with his cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency. And who can forget Luigi Mangione, who is charged in the shooting death of UnitedHealthcare Chief Executive Brian Thompson?

Both “sides” are not culpable here. They just aren’t. Israel supporters in America aren’t out there gunning down people waving the PLO flag. Nor are capitalists out there gunning down socialists.

There is a real darkness out there in certain — increasingly widespread — pockets of the American activist left. Sure, parts of the right are also lost at the moment — but this is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Regardless, the violence must end. And we must stop treating open calls for murder or genocide as morally acceptable “speech.” Let’s pull ourselves back from the brink before more blood is shed.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer

May 22 (UPI) — A former Republican House candidate from Florida has been sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for threatening to kill his political opponent.

William Robert Braddock, 41, of St. Petersburg, Fla., was sentenced Wednesday by U.S. District Judge William Jung, the Justice Department said in a statement.

The former Republican candidate for Florida’s 13th Congressional District pleaded guilty in February. He was charged with interstate transmission of a threat to injure.

Braddock was running for the Republican nomination for the 13th Congressional District in 2021. Though court documents do not name the target of his threats, information in the filings and media indicate it was Anna Paulina Luna, the frontrunner in that 2022 election.

According to federal prosecutions, Braddock viewed Luna — referred to in court documents as Victim-1, the Republican Party frontrunner — as his only obstacle to winning the primary.

He disparaged Luna for months to her peers and tried to involve himself in her life, court documents show. Then, in June 2021, during a phone call with one of Luna’s acquaintances, he threatened to have her murdered.

The court documents state he threatened to “call up my Russian-Ukrainian hit squad” who could make Luna “disappear.”

“I will be the next congressman for this district. Period. End of discussion,” he said, according to federal prosecutors. “And anybody going up against me is [expletive] ignorant for doing so.”

He continued by calling Luna “ignorant” and because of that, “I don’t have a problem taking her out, but I’m not going to do that dirty work myself, obviously.”

Then in November 2021, Braddock flew to Thailand and then settled in the Philippines where he remained until surrendering to Manila authorities in June 2023.

In September 2024, he was indicted and deported to the United States to stand trial.

Luna is currently serving her second term as the U.S. House Representative for Florida’s 13 Congressional District.

By Tina Teng

Published on
21/05/2025 – 6:56 GMT+2

ADVERTISEMENT

Tesla CEO Elon Musk said he intends to significantly reduce his political spending in future campaigns, during an interview at the Qatar Economic Forum on Tuesday.

Musk reportedly donated more than $250 million (€221 million) to support Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. When asked whether he would match that level of spending in the 2026 midterm elections, Musk replied, “I think, in terms of political spending, I’m going to do a lot less in the future.”

He was offered the role of head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), assisting the president in cutting thousands of federal jobs. However, Musk’s political involvement has drawn backlash towards Tesla, including protests and acts of vandalism targeting its showrooms. His support for far-right European parties has also proved controversial, contributing to a steep drop in Tesla’s EV sales across the region.

Speaking at a town hall in Wisconsin in March, Musk commented, “It’s costing me a lot to be in this job,” referring to his role as a special government employee. Trump had also signalled that Musk’s government tenure may be drawing to a close. During Tesla’s Q1 earnings call, Musk stated that the time he spends on DOGE would decrease “significantly” from May onwards. On Tuesday, he reaffirmed that he would remain Tesla’s CEO for at least the next five years.

Tesla shares rebound

Tesla’s share price rose 3.6% intraday before paring gains later in the session. The world’s largest EV maker has seen its stock rebound more than 50% from a year-low in late April, helped by improving market sentiment abroad amid easing US-China trade tensions.

President Trump’s recent Middle East tour further boosted US tech stocks, as he secured deals worth over $1 trillion with three major Gulf states. Musk was among the business leaders accompanying Trump on the trip. However, Tesla’s shares are still down 12% year-to-date as of the market close on 20 May.

Asked about the decline in Tesla’s sales, Musk downplayed the concern. “It’s already turned around,” he said, referring to the share price recovery. “The stock wouldn’t be trading near all-time highs if it was not.”

While acknowledging that Europe remains Tesla’s weakest market, Musk attributed the decline to multiple factors, including tariff shocks and soft EV demand. The company reported a 20% year-on-year decline in EV revenue worldwide in the first quarter.

In April, Tesla’s European sales continued to fall significantly year-on-year: down 46% in Germany, 62% in the UK, and by more than two-thirds in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Nevertheless, Musk highlighted stronger performance in other regions, stating, “The sales numbers at this point are strong.”

Robotaxi launch set for Austin

Despite the headwinds, investor optimism remains focused on Tesla’s upcoming Robotaxi programme. Musk confirmed on Tuesday, in an interview with CNBC, that Tesla will launch the fully autonomous vehicle services in Austin by the end of June, as originally planned. He added that Robotaxi will later expand to Los Angeles and San Francisco following its Austin debut.

Musk had earlier stated that unsupervised Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology would roll out in California and Texas by June. The Austin launch will feature the Model Y fitted with a “localised parameter set” optimised for the region.

Washington, DC – United States Congresswoman LaMonica McIver has been charged with assaulting a law enforcement officer after a standoff at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility in early May.

On Tuesday, Democrats denounced the charge as an attempt by the administration of Republican President Donald Trump to silence his political rivals for speaking out against his deportation campaign.

In a post on the social media platform X, Democratic Representative Gil Cisneros blasted the administration for having “gone after judges, prosecutors, and now, Members of Congress” in its attempts to stifle dissent.

“The charges against Rep McIver are a blatant political attack and an attempt to prohibit Members of Congress from conducting oversight,” Cisneros wrote.

The charge was announced on Monday evening, with federal prosecutor Alina Habba —Trump’s former personal lawyer — accusing McIver of having “assaulted, impeded, and interfered” with law enforcement.

“The conduct cannot be overlooked,” Habba wrote in a statement. “It is my constitutional obligation to ensure that our federal law enforcement is protected when executing their duties.”

The criminal charge stemmed from an incident on May 9, when McIver joined two other members of Congress for an oversight tour of Delaney Hall, a privately run immigration detention facility in Newark, New Jersey.

The visit devolved into a fracas involving elected officials, protesters and federal law enforcement agents. The mayor of Newark, Ras Baraka, was arrested at the scene for alleged trespassing.

In Monday’s statement, Habba announced the charge against Baraka has since been dropped “for the sake of moving forward”. But his arrests likewise spurred outcry over possible political motives.

‘Intimidate and interfere’

Late on Monday, McIver responded to the charges against her with a statement of her own, saying she and other members of Congress were “fulfilling our lawful oversight responsibilities” when they visited the detention centre.

McIver accused ICE agents at the scene of creating an “unnecessary and unsafe confrontation”. She added that the charges against her “mischaracterise and distort my actions”.

“The charges against me are purely political,” McIver wrote.

Top Democrats also remained defiant in the face of the Trump administration’s accusations, saying they would continue their oversight duties at immigration facilities like Delaney Hall.

“The criminal charge against Congresswoman LaMonica McIver is extreme, morally bankrupt and lacks any basis in law or fact,” Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives said in a joint statement.

They underscored that they have a right as Congress members to show up at federal facilities unannounced for inspections.

The charges against McIver, they argued, are a “blatant attempt by the Trump administration to intimidate Congress and interfere with our ability to serve as a check and balance on an out-of-control executive branch”.

In a separate statement, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee said the criminal charge was a “dangerous precedent” that “reveals the increasingly authoritarian nature of this administration”.

“Representative McIver has our full support, and we will do everything in our power to help fight this outrageous threat to our constitutional system,” they said.

Democrats have denounced the Trump administration’s push for “mass deportation” as violating constitutional and human rights. As part of that push, the Trump White House has sought to expand the use of private detention centres to house the growing number of people arrested for deportation.

Mayor Baraka, in particular, has repeatedly protested the 1,000-bed Delaney Hall for opening without the proper permits and approvals. Its operator, The GEO Group, has denied any violations.

The facility became operational in early May, under a 15-year agreement made with ICE.

It was called Super Sunday – three elections in European Union nations on the same day.

All eyes were on Romania’s presidential run-off – a crucial vote for the NATO member, in which a centrist victory has been welcomed by the EU and Ukraine.

In Poland, the governing party’s pro-EU candidate and his right-wing nationalist rival are set for a decisive second-round vote in June. But the centrist Warsaw mayor’s slim lead means the country could still lean towards populism.

Perhaps the biggest change was in Portugal, where the centre-right alliance won snap parliamentary elections as the far right won a record number of votes.

Europe’s political centre appears to be holding but for how much longer?

And will these results reassure an EU seeking respite from the turbulence of populist politics?

Presenter: Adrian Finighan

Guests:

Pieter Cleppe, editor-in-chief, BrusselsReport.eu

Piotr Buras, head of the European Council on Foreign Relations

Antonio Costa Pinto, professor of political science, University of Lisbon

Actory calls on filmmakers to ‘keep telling the stories, keep expressing yourself and keep fighting to be who you are’.

Chilean-American actor Pedro Pascal has called on members of the film industry to “fight back” and keep expressing themselves amid what he appeared to describe as a political climate of fear in the United States.

“F*** the people that try to make you scared. And fight back. This is the perfect way to do so in telling stories. Don’t let them win,” said 50-year-old Pascal, who was at the Cannes film festival for the premiere of “Eddington”.

“Fear is the way that they win, for one. And so keep telling the stories and keep expressing yourself and keep fighting to be who you are,” he said.

“Eddington” stars Pascal as a small-town mayor campaigning against a down-on-his-luck sheriff played by Joaquin Phoenix in a New Mexico town where tensions are simmering over COVID-19 mask policies and the Black Lives Matter protests.

Pascal, known for his role in dystopian video-game adaptation “The Last of Us”, added that it was “far too intimidating” for him to address a question about US President Donald Trump’s immigration policy.

“It’s very scary for an actor participating in a movie to sort of speak to issues like this,” he said.

“I’m an immigrant. My parents are refugees from Chile. We fled a dictatorship, and I was privileged enough to grow up in the US after asylum in Denmark … I stand by those protections,” the 50-year-old told a news conference in Cannes.

Trump has launched a crackdown on irregular immigration and has also detained and moved to deport a number of legal permanent US residents, his policies triggering a rash of lawsuits and protests.

Trump has made himself one of the main talking points in Cannes this week after announcing on May 5 that he wanted 100 percent tariffs on movies “produced in foreign lands“.

Acting legend Robert de Niro, who accepted a Cannes lifetime achievement award on Tuesday, also urged an audience of A-list directors and actors to resist “America’s philistine president”.

WASHINGTON — Through a mix of marketing and campaign discipline, Barack Obama turned the selection of his running mate into a genuine drama.

For weeks, the Obama campaign kept silent about virtually every aspect of the process, with the candidate coyly telling reporters the other day that he had made up his mind — and “wouldn’t you like to know” exactly when he would tell the world?

Top campaign strategists and surrogates for Obama professed to know nothing about his intentions, the better to keep the mystery alive.

Obama’s handling of the announcement is the latest example of his penchant for crafting big, attention-grabbing events out of what are normally predictable campaign steps.

Every presumptive nominee needs a No. 2. But Obama led the search in a way that kept the public focus squarely on himself while giving his campaign an organizational lift.

In a clever bit of salesmanship, the campaign invited people to “be the first to know” the name of Obama’s choice, offering to send the news in a text message.

In return, people gave up their e-mail addresses and cellphone numbers — data the campaign can use to mobilize turnout come election day. The campaign has declined to say how many people signed up.

But news that the No. 2 pick was Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. leaked before the text was sent.

For all the stagecraft, some Democratic Party veterans warned that Obama’s efforts could backfire if the vice presidential choice turned out to be a familiar name — as it did. Voters might decide that Biden didn’t warrant the extended drumroll of the last few days.

Then there is the risk that Obama will be seen as overly consumed with campaign theatrics. His Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, is already portraying Obama as a shallow celebrity. Obama’s trip overseas — another example of how his campaign constructed an attention-getting moment — may have played into such perceptions.

There is nothing unusual about a presidential candidate traveling abroad. McCain also went overseas after clinching the nomination.

But Obama turned the trip into a signature moment of his campaign, a test of his ability to hold his own with world leaders.

Network anchors covered the journey with an intensity that left the McCain campaign envious. The emotional apex was Obama’s speech to a huge crowd in Berlin, some waving flags handed out by Obama aides.

But since returning home, Obama has seen his lead over McCain diminish in national polls.

Don Fowler, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said that the build-up for Obama’s vice presidential announcement will end up subjecting the nominee to an uncomfortable degree of scrutiny.

“All this coaxing, this being coy and planning to the nth degree is going to invite the most detailed critical scrutiny that you’ve ever seen,” Fowler said before Biden’s name leaked out.

“In spite of the fact that [the rumored choices] are all wonderful people, none of them is Jesus and none of them is Moses. Even their friends can point out shortcomings.”

Another test of Obama’s campaign strategy comes Thursday, when he accepts the Democratic presidential nomination in a Denver football stadium that can seat 76,000 people.

The traditional location would be the smaller indoor arena where the rest of the convention will unfold. But Obama is raising the stakes by moving the event to a bigger venue, putting more pressure on himself to deliver an exceptional speech.

Any number of things could go wrong; a heavy rain could spoil the mood.

But as with the running-mate drama, the Obama campaign went with an unorthodox choice to make more of the moment and to exploit interest in the speech for organizing purposes.

Obama aides said that spectators who are given tickets to the event will be asked to go out and register Democratic voters.

In that way, Obama’s speech may serve to strengthen an already formidable field operation.

But if he is flat that night, the acoustics do not work or the lighting is poor, he may wish he had stuck to the more controlled environment of the Pepsi Center.

Mark Fabiani, communications director for Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign, said that Obama is taking a calculated risk with his stadium speech.

“It’s double-edged, because it creates tremendous expectations,” Fabiani said.

He noted that the last nomination speech in such a venue was by John F. Kennedy, nearly 50 years ago in Los Angeles.

“So this is going to be something that most people haven’t seen in their lifetime,” he said.

But at the same time, “if you let expectations get out of control, and you can’t satisfy them, you’ve got yourself into a big hole,” he said.

Fabiani sees the timing of the vice presidential announcement as another gamble. By waiting this long, Obama succeeded in drawing out the suspense. But he also gave up days of coverage devoted to the newly minted Democratic ticket.

Now that news of Biden’s selection is out, media coverage will turn quickly to the convention and the enduring saga about the role there of Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, Fabiani said.

“They’ve waited until the last minute before the convention. . . . With the Clintons looming large at the convention on Monday and Tuesday, people are pretty quickly going to move to that,” he said.

—

[email protected]

President Trump has spent the first major overseas trip of his second administration — next stop Wednesday in Qatar — beating back allegations that he was personally profiting from foreign leaders by accepting a $400-million luxury airliner from the Gulf state’s royal family.

Trump has bristled at the notion that he should turn down such a gift, saying he would be “stupid” to do so and that Democrats were “World Class Losers” for suggesting it was not only wrong but also unconstitutional.

But Democrats were hardly alone in criticizing the arrangement as Trump prepared for broad trade discussions in Doha, the Qatari capital.

Several top Republicans in Congress have expressed concerns about the deal, including that the plane would be a security risk. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) on Tuesday said there were “lots of issues associated with that offer which I think need to be further talked about,” and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), another member of the Republican leadership team, said that Trump and the White House “need to look at the constitutionality” of the deal and that she would be “checking for bugs” on the plane, a clear reference to fears that Qatar may see the jetliner as an intelligence asset.

Criticism of the deal has even arisen among the deep-red MAGA ranks. In an online post echoed by other right-wing influencers in Trump’s orbit, loyalist Laura Loomer wrote that while she would “take a bullet for Trump,” the Qatar deal would be “a stain” on his administration.

The broad outrage in some ways reflected the stark optics of the deal, which would provide Trump with the superluxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet — known as the “palace in the sky” — for free, to be transferred to his personal presidential library upon his departure from office.

Accepting a lavish gift from the Persian Gulf nation makes even some stolid Trump allies queasy because of Qatar’s record of abuses against its Shiite Muslim minority and its funding of Hamas, the militant group whose attack on Israel touched off a prolonged war in the region.

Critics have called the deal an out-and-out bribe for future influence by the Qatari royal family, and one that would clearly come due at some point — raising serious questions around the U.S.’ ability to act with its own geopolitical interests in mind in the future, rather than Qatar’s.

Trump and Qatar have rejected that framing but have also deflected questions about what Qatar expects to receive in return for the jet.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, in response to detailed questions from The Times, said in a statement that Trump “is compliant with all conflict-of-interest rules, and only acts in the best interests of the American public — which is why they overwhelmingly re-elected him to this office, despite years of lies and false accusations against him and his businesses from the fake news media.”

Leavitt has previously said it was “ridiculous” for the media to “suggest that President Trump is doing anything for his own benefit,” because he “left a life of luxury and a life of running a very successful real estate empire for public service, not just once, but twice.”

Ali Al-Ansari, media attache at the Qatari Embassy in Washington, did not respond to a request for comment.

Beyond the specific concern about Qatar potentially holding influence over Trump, the jet deal also escalated deeper concerns among critics that Trump, his family and his administration are using their political influence to improperly enrich themselves more broadly — including through the creation of a $Trump cryptocurrency meme coin and a promised Washington dinner for its top investors.

Experts and other critics have for years accused Trump of violating constitutional constraints on the president and other federal officials accepting gifts, or “emoluments,” from foreign states without the express approval of Congress.

During Trump’s first term, allegations that he was flouting the law and using his office to enrich himself — including by maintaining an active stake in his golf courses and former Washington hotel while foreign dignitaries seeking to curry favor with him racked up massive bills there — went all the way to the Supreme Court before being dismissed as moot after he’d been voted out of office.

Since Trump’s return to office, however, concerns over his monetizing the nation’s highest office and the power and influence that come with it have exploded once more — and from disparate corners of the political landscape.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), left, speaks with Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security oversight hearing on May 8, 2025, on Capitol Hill in Washington.

(Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Associated Press)

In a speech last month on the Senate floor, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) alleged dozens of examples of Trump and others in his family and administration misusing their positions for personal gain — what Murphy called “mind-blowing corruption” in Trump’s first 100 days.

Murphy mentioned, among other examples, the meme coin and dinner; corporations under federal investigation donating millions to Trump’s inaugural fund and those investigations being halted soon after he took office; reports that Trump has sold meetings with him at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida for millions of dollars; and Donald Trump Jr.’s creation of a private Washington club with million-dollar dues and promises of interactions with administration officials.

Murphy also noted Trump’s orders to fire inspectors general and other watchdogs meant to keep an eye out for corruption and pay-to-play tactics in the federal government, and his scaling back of laws meant to discourage it, such as the Foreign Agents Registration Act, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Corporate Transparency Act.

“Donald Trump wants to numb this country into believing that this is just how government works. That he’s owed this. That every president is owed this. That government has always been corrupt, and he’s just doing it out in the open,” Murphy said. “But this is not how government works.”

When news of the Qatar jet deal broke, Murphy joined other Democratic colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a statement denouncing it.

“Any president who accepts this kind of gift, valued at $400 million, from a foreign government creates a clear conflict of interest, raises serious national security questions, invites foreign influence, and undermines public trust in our government,” the senators wrote. “No one — not even the president — is above the law.”

Other lawmakers — from both parties — have also weighed in.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) blasted Trump’s acceptance of the plane as his “lastest con” and a clear attempt by the Qatari government to “curry favor” with him.

“This is why the emoluments clause is in the Constitution to begin with. It was put in there for a reason,” Schiff said. “And the reason was that the founding fathers wanted to make sure that any action taken by the president of the United States, or frankly any other person holding federal public office, wasn’t going to be influenced by getting some big gift.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said in an interview with MSNBC on Monday that he did not think it was a “good idea” for Trump to accept the jet — which he said wouldn’t “pass the smell test” for many Americans.

Experts and those further out on the American political spectrum agreed.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley School of Law and an expert in constitutional law, said the gift of the jet, “if it is to Trump personally,” clearly violates a provision that precludes the president from receiving any benefit from a foreign country, which America’s founders barred because they were concerned about “foreign governments holding influence over the president.”

Richard Painter, the top White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, said that Trump accepting the jet would be unconstitutional. And he scoffed at the ethics of doing business with a nation that has been criticized as having a bleak human rights record.

“After spending millions helping Hamas build tunnels and rockets, Qatar has enough to buy this emolumental gift for” Trump, Painter wrote on X. “But the Constitution says Congress must consent first.”

Painter criticized the White House justifying the deal by saying that Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi had “signed off” on it, given Bondi’s past work for the Qatari government, and said he knew of no precedent for a president receiving a lavish gift without the approval of Congress. He noted that Ambassador Benjamin Franklin received a diamond-encrusted snuff box from France’s King Louis XVI, but only with the OK from Congress.

Robert Weissman, co-president of the progressive nonprofit Public Citizen, said that it was unclear whether Trump would heed the cautionary notes coming from within his own party, but that the Republican-controlled Congress should nonetheless vote on whether the jet was a proper gift for him to receive.

“If the members of Congress think this is fine, then they can say so,” Weissman said, “and the voters can hold them accountable.”

Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro, a prominent backer of Trump, criticized the deal on his podcast Monday, saying that Trump supporters would “all be freaking out” if Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, had accepted it.

“President Trump promised to drain the swamp,” Shapiro said. “This is not, in fact, draining the swamp.”

Human rights groups say politicians have been forcibly disappeared in recent days

Mali’s military government has dissolved all political parties after accusations from rights groups that opposition figures have been arrested.

Assimi Goita, who seized power in two army coups in 2020 and 2021, validated the decision after it was broadcast to Malians in a televised statement on Tuesday.

The parties were disbanded after demonstrations this month, demanding the country returned to democratic rule.

Protesters gathered on May 3 and 4, carrying placards with slogans reading, “Down with dictatorship, long live democracy,” in a rare public rebuke of the military government, which had promised to hold elections in 2022.

A national conference held in April recommended extending Goita’s presidency until 2030, drawing condemnation from opposition figures and human rights groups.

In response to another protest that had been planned on Friday, the military government issued a decree suspending all political activities across the country.

The move forced opposition groups to cancel the demonstration, and the government has now tightened its grip further.

The clampdown has coincided with reports of disappearances of opposition figures. Human rights groups said several politicians have been forcibly disappeared in recent days.

On Thursday, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said Abba Alhassane, the secretary-general of the Convergence for the Development of Mali (CODEM), was “arrested” by “masked gunmen”.

That same day, El Bachir Thiam, the leader of the Yelema party, was reportedly seized by unidentified men in Kati, a town outside the capital.

On Tuesday, a CODEM member speaking on condition of anonymity told the Reuters news agency that the party had lost contact with Abdoul Karim Traore, a youth leader, and feared he too had been abducted.

Malian authorities have not commented on the reported arrests.

Goita first seized power in August 2020 amid escalating attacks from armed groups affiliated with ISIL (ISIS) and al-Qaeda’s regional affiliate Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM).

In July 2020, protests against the former civilian government were violently repressed with at least 14 people killed during a crackdown by security forces.

The military then ousted the elected government, citing its failure to tackle the armed groups.

In December last year, HRW reported that Malian soldiers alongside Russian Wagner Group fighters “deliberately killed” at least 32 civilians and burned more than 100 homes in central and northern Mali.

Authors: Darynaufal Mulyaman and Abdullah Akbar Rafsanjani*

In June 2025, South Korea will prepare to hold elections, and there is a figure who is in the political spotlight, namely Lee Jae-myung. He is the leading candidate of the Democratic Party in South Korea and represents a new direction of pragmatic progressivism based on the socio-economic reality of society and not an idealistic and rhetorical one. His views on inter-Korean relations, foreign policy, and his approach to the United States and China reflect an effort to balance national identity with geopolitical realities. If you look back at history, in the history of politics in South Korea, there are two big names that show or define progressivism, namely Kim Dae-jung and Moon Jae-in.

Both figures have left a legacy through diplomacy and careful engagement with North Korea. However, Lee Jae-myung comes with a different approach; he still brings the spirit of peace, but the style he carries is a more populist, more grounded style, and his commitment to inter-Korean peace has not diminished. With the presence of Lee Jae-myung as a candidate, it signals a return to building engagement with North Korea. Lee Jae-myung offers more policies, such as conditional sanctions relief, which is linked to verifiable denuclearization, where sanctions will be eased if North Korea shows real and verified steps in the denuclearization process. What Lee Jae-myung is doing is completely different from Kim Dae-jung’s “Sunshine Policy,” which is more based on trust and reconciliation without harsh conditions.

At the same time, however, his economic initiatives, such as reviving joint tourism projects, show continuity with the Moon Jae-in era with thawed relations and cultural diplomacy. Economic projects such as joint tourism, cultural exchange, and cross-border cooperation still remain part of Lee Jae-myung’s vision. He believes that economic stability and social interaction can be a stepping stone to broader peace. However, what sets Lee Jae-myung apart is his distinctive voice in the broader geopolitical discourse and the most prominent aspect of Lee Jae-myung’s foreign policy, namely his vision to make South Korea a strategically autonomous country.

He argued that South Korea should not choose between Washington and Beijing. In a world that is now polarized between the United States and China, Lee Jae-myung offers a pragmatic, non-aligned approach, not as a passive neutral, but as an active position to balance South Korea’s national interests amid the pressures of the world’s two major powers. This is a bold vision because instead of choosing one of the camps to approach, Lee Jae-myung is pushing for policies that can better allow South Korea to maintain close relations with the United States, especially in the defense-security fields, such as through military alliances and defense system development. And at the same time, it continues to establish relations and economic cooperation with China, which is South Korea’s main trading partner. So this is a bold vision because it recognizes the strategic needs of the U.S. alliance and the gravity of China’s economy.

This approach is very different from conservative governments that are more inclined towards the United States as a whole or even from previous liberal strategies that were sometimes too soft on China. In Lee Jae-myung’s vision, diplomacy is a tool to maintain sovereignty in decisions and not a tool to fully conform to the will of foreign powers. In the midst of new tensions and a global realignment, Lee Jae-myung’s candidacy provides him with a sobering reminder that diplomacy works best not when chasing headlines, but when building trust done slowly. With this approach, Lee can also strengthen South Korea’s position at the regional level, especially through East Asia initiatives that encourage collaboration between countries on energy, technology, and climate change issues. In terms of rich communication, when compared to Moon Jae-in, who tends to be calm and diplomatic, Lee Jae-myung has a more aggressive and approachable communication style than Moon Jae-in. Then, compared to Kim Dae-jung, Lee Jae-myung is more grounded in working-class reality than Kim Dae-jung. Although their communication styles are different, their ambition to bring peace and dignity to the Korean Peninsula is clearly in line with theirs.

Although the style and approach brought are new, the ambition is seen in line with Lee Jae-myung, who does not necessarily reject the legacy of his predecessors to create peace on the Korean peninsula. From Kim Dae-jung, he has inherited the spirit of peace and the recognition that the problems facing Korea cannot be solved by violence. And through Moon Jae-in, Lee Jae-myung continues his efforts to include elements of cultural engagement and economic diplomacy as a tool to build greater trust.

Lee Jae-myung has realized that the South Korean people today are no longer satisfied with symbolism in politics. The South Korean people want real results, both in domestic affairs and foreign relations, especially between the Koreas. Therefore, Lee Jae-myung learns from their weaknesses. The idealism that exists in Kim Dae-jung is often used by North Korea without good faith to repay trust. And Moon Jae-in’s approach, which tends to be too diplomatic, is often criticized for being too slow and not pressuring the opponent enough. So, seeing from this, Lee Jae-myung is more of an approach that can be evaluated and measured, such as verified denuclearization, cross-border economic projects with success indicators, and diplomacy that is open but full of calculations. Therefore, his vision is not idealism, but a steady and deliberate movement towards peace.

Amid the ongoing turmoil and tensions on the Korean peninsula, the trade war between the two great powers, and the rising nationalism in many countries, the presence of figures such as Lee Jae-myung provides a more grounded alternative. Lee Jae-myung is not an idealistic hero but a technocrat who understands the importance of strategy and public communication; this style has made him beloved by many young voters and the working class. Lee Jae-myung’s vision does not dream of instant peace or dramatic reunification, but Lee offers a peace built gradually through small steps and careful calculations and based on trust that is built and tested consistently.

It is a pragmatic progressivism that sees the reality of what is happening in society and remains faithful to the principle that progress is only possible if the small people become the center of determining the direction of policy. In this context, Lee placed the people at the center to determine the direction of policy and did not place the elites or elite-centric ones who often ignored the needs and voices of ordinary citizens. Because, according to Lee, to achieve peace and especially security, it is not only about weapon systems such as missiles or soldiers but also about jobs in border areas and ensuring price stability for the South Korean people so that with development that leads to the economy, stability will be created.

This is what finally made Lee Jae-myung think about more often voicing policies of wealth redistribution, reducing inequality in society, and protection for vulnerable groups as part of achieving diplomacy and national security strategies. Therefore, pragmatic Progressivism is not trapped by moral rhetoric but is faithful to the principle that progress can be achieved or is possible if the people become the center to determine the direction of policy. And with the pragmatic progressivism carried by Lee Jae-myung, he can bring together the spirit of healthy change with a political vision that is not only ideal but also capable of being implemented in the complex realities that occur in today’s world.

*Abdullah Akbar Rafsanjani is a researcher assistant of CEO Research. Research interests are around security issues and foreign relations.