politics

French President Emmanuel Macron has said France and its allies are preparing a “purely defensive” mission to escort vessels through the Strait of Hormuz once the “most intense phase” of the US-Israeli war on Iran ends.

Speaking in Cyprus on Monday, Macron said the “purely escort mission” must be prepared by both European and non-European countries.

Its purpose “is to enable, as soon as possible after the most intense phase of the conflict has ended, the escort of container ships and tankers to gradually reopen the Strait of Hormuz”, the French president said, without providing further details.

Macron’s comments come as global oil prices have surged amid continued attacks by the United States and Israel against Iran, as well as retaliatory Iranian missile and drone strikes across the wider region.

The war has effectively shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic Gulf waterway through which about 20 percent of the world’s oil supplies pass, while Iranian attacks on energy infrastructure in the Middle East also have raised concerns.

Responding to Macron’s comments, top Iranian security official Ali Larijani said, “It is unlikely that any security will be achieved in the Strait of Hormuz amid the fires of the war ignited by the United States and Israel in the region.”

Larijani added in a social media post that security is also unlikely to be restored as a result of plans designed by “parties that were not far removed from supporting this war and contributing to its fanning”.

While European countries have been largely sidelined as the war escalates, several – including France, the United Kingdom and Greece – have sent military assets to Cyprus following an Iranian-made drone attack on a British base on the island.

Greece has dispatched four F-16 fighter planes to the Paphos airbase and its two state-of-the-art frigates Kimon and Psara are patrolling offshore Cyprus, tasked with intercepting any missiles or drones.

Last week, Macron ordered the French frigate Languedoc to waters off Cyprus to bolster the country’s anti-drone and anti-missile defences.

“When Cyprus is attacked, then Europe is attacked,” Macron said after meeting with Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis in Paphos on Monday.

The French president said he would also deploy a total of eight warships, two helicopter carriers and the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to the Eastern Mediterranean and the wider Middle East region, calling the move “unprecedented”.

France’s objective “is to maintain a strictly defensive stance, standing alongside all countries attacked by Iran in its retaliation, to ensure our credibility, and to contribute to regional de-escalation”, Macron said.

“Ultimately, we aim to guarantee freedom of navigation and maritime security.”

With the closure of the Strait of Hormuz sending oil prices soaring, finance ministers from the Group of Seven (G7) countries met in Brussels on Monday to discuss how to respond.

Crude oil prices have increased by about 50 percent since the US and Israel launched the war last month, with international benchmark Brent crude prices surpassing $100 a barrel on Monday.

French Finance Minister Roland Lescure told reporters that the G7 ministers did not make a decision on the potential release of emergency oil stocks amid the war. “What we’ve agreed upon is to use any necessary tools if need be to stabilise the market, including the potential release of necessary stockpiles,” Lescure said.

Paul Hickin, editor-in-chief and chief economist at Petroleum Economist, said getting the Strait of Hormuz reopened is the main priority. “That’s not going to happen in any shape or form until there’s a resolution to the conflict,” Hickin told Al Jazeera.

He explained that several countries in the Middle East, such as Kuwait and Iraq, are dependent on the strait to get their energy supplies to market.

“Kuwait and Iraq and those producers, they are really having a shut-in, and it will take a little bit of time to get back up and running,” said Hickin.

“That is the big risk, the knock-on effect … Getting those ships back, getting that infrastructure back up and running, it’s a slow process. So prices won’t come back down as quickly as many may think.”

Ministry of National Defence says no casualties or damage after missile shot down over southern city of Gaziantep.

The Turkish Ministry of National Defence says NATO air defences have intercepted a ballistic missile launched from Iran towards Turkiye as concerns grow that the United States-Israel war against Iran will escalate.

The missile was intercepted on Monday over the Sahinbey district of Gaziantep in southern Turkiye, the ministry said in a statement. No casualties or damage were reported.

“Ankara emphasized its capability and determination to protect national airspace and border security, while warning that further escalation in the region must be avoided,” the statement said.

The ministry also urged all sides, especially Tehran, “to refrain from actions that could endanger civilians or undermine regional stability”.

Monday’s incident was the second time an Iranian ballistic missile was fired towards Turkiye since the US and Israel launched a war against Iran on February 28, according to local authorities.

The US-Israeli attacks have prompted a wave of Iranian missile and drone strikes across the wider region, including on targets in Arab Gulf countries.

Iran did not immediately comment on the Turkish ministry’s statement.

NATO spokesperson Allison Hart confirmed that the military alliance had intercepted “a missile heading to Turkiye”. “NATO stands firm in its readiness to defend all Allies against any threat,” Hart said in a post on X.

Iran denied firing a ballistic missile towards Turkiye on Wednesday after Turkish authorities said NATO air defences shot down a projectile over the Eastern Mediterranean.

NATO condemned that launch, expressing its “full solidarity” with Turkiye.

“This is a tangible demonstration of the Alliance’s ability to defend our populations against all threats, including those posed by ballistic missiles,” NATO said of the interception.

Article 5 of the alliance’s North Atlantic Treaty says an attack on one NATO country will be considered an attack on all. It also commits each NATO member state to taking action deemed necessary “to restore and maintain” security.

In an interview with the Reuters news agency last week after the first ballistic missile heading towards Turkiye was shot down, NATO chief Mark Rutte said there was no talk of invoking Article 5.

Iranian authorities have said they are firing at US military bases and other US- and Israel-linked targets across the region in self-defence, but civilian infrastructure has also been attacked.

“Iran’s targets are not just US bases; they are, in fact, primarily large-scale infrastructure and civilian targets as well,” said Rob Geist Pinfold, a lecturer in defence studies at King’s College London.

“This is not a mistake. This is by design,” Pinfold told Al Jazeera, explaining that Tehran is seeking to “unleash as much chaos as possible to destabilise the region and global markets” in an effort to force Washington to abandon the war.

“We’ve seen that Iran is targeting every single [Gulf Cooperation Council] state. It’s prepared to burn its bridges with all of them to pursue this very uncertain and high-risk strategy,” he said.

“It really shows you how Iran feels like it’s facing an existential threat. For them, this is a real do-or-die moment.”

Scott MacFarlane, a high-profile hire for CBS News five years ago, announced Monday he is leaving the network.

MacFarlane told colleagues in an email that the departure is his decision.

“I will always value the opportunity I had to work alongside the talented and committed professionals here,” MacFarlane said. “I’m proud to have had the words ‘CBS correspondent’ next to my name and always will be.”

MacFarlane added that he looks forward to “some independence and finding new spaces to share my work in line with my personal goals.”

MacFarlane is the first significant name to depart CBS News since parent company Paramount won its bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery on Feb. 27. CBS News is likely to be combined with Warner Bros. Discovery‘s CNN if the deal gets regulatory approval.

Journalists at CBS News have also been concerned over the moves by Bari Weiss, the contrarian opinion writer and founder of the digital news site the Free Press who was brought in as editor in chief of the division. Weiss was recruited by Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison with a mandate to move CBS News to the political center.

Weiss is expected to make significant changes to “60 Minutes” and other CBS News programs in the coming months.

Executives at other TV news organizations say privately that they are seeing a heavy influx of resumes from CBS News journalists due to the upheaval at the company.

MacFarlane covered Congress and the Justice Department. CBS viewers saw him featured during extended network coverage of the State of the Union addresses and election nights.

MacFarlane was in Butler, Pa., during the assassination attempt of President Trump in July 2024. He reported the first accounts of the shooting scene and emergency responses moments after the shots were fired.

Before arriving at CBS News, MacFarlane served for eight years as an investigative reporter for WRC-TV, the NBC station in Washington, D.C.

The Times has covered Kamala Harris’ political career since 1994, when then-Assembly Speaker Willie Brown appointed her to the California Medical Assistance Commission.

Since then, we’ve written 2,229 articles on Harris, who is a California native, received her law degree here and became the first woman and Black American to serve as the state’s attorney general. She’d later become the first South Asian American elected to the U.S. Senate, and only the second Black woman ever to serve in the 100-member body. She has been the sole Black woman in the Senate during her four years there.

The Los Angeles Times is introducing “Covering Kamala Harris,” a beat dedicated to her historic rise to the White House. She is the first vice president who is Black, South Asian American and female.

This news enterprise beat will be anchored by White House reporter Noah Bierman, who joined The Times in 2015 after reporting on politics and other topics at newspapers including the Miami Herald and Boston Globe. He will also write a special edition of our Essential Politics newsletter focused on Harris every other Wednesday.

Throughout the year, we’ll continue to add resources to our coverage with the goal of being the most comprehensive and authoritative news source as we chronicle Harris’ first year.

Interested in following our coverage? You can find the “Covering Kamala Harris” section on our site and sign up for Essential Politics, of which Bierman will write a biweekly edition. And follow our new stand-alone Instagram account, @latimeskamalaharris, for more updates.

Kimbriell Kelly is the Washington bureau chief at the Los Angeles Times.

SACRAMENTO — One unique perk California kids enjoyed for generations was tuition-free college. Now, a candidate for governor promises to bring that back. And bravo for her.

The candidate, former congresswoman Katie Porter of Orange County, even suggests a way to pay for her bold pledge. That’s unusual for a politician. It’s normal to promise the moon without specifying how to get there.

She‘d raise the corporate income tax a notch.

OK, it’s very unlikely to ever happen.

The powerful business lobby would scream, even though California companies would benefit from a more educated workforce.

And California’s public universities would probably cry about their revenue streams having to rely on unpredictable corporate profits rather than the pocketbooks of students’ parents.

But at least there’s a potential governor who’s advocating tuition-free higher education and proclaiming it to be a priority.

Why is this Democrat, a UC Irvine law professor, pushing the issue? Tuition cost doesn’t show up anywhere on voter lists of important concerns. But California’s high cost of living is a gigantic gripe. And “affordability” these days is one of the most overused words in any politician’s vocabulary.

“When we talk about affordability, there’s lots of talk about the problem, but people want to hear what [candidates] would do about it,” Porter told me over coffee last week. One thing she’d do is eliminate much of the tuition at public universities.

Another reason for making college tuition-free again, she said, is that “it was a promise made to the people” by the California Master Plan for Higher Education.

But that was 66 years and nine governors ago. A lot has changed.

Actually, tuition-free public higher education was a California birthright long before Gov. Pat Brown’s master plan.

Policymakers regarded tuition-free college as a sound economic investment. It was in the state’s self-interest to produce highly educated innovators and skilled professionals to grow the economy. The middle class expanded, with people landing good-paying jobs that resulted in higher tax revenue for state coffers.

That didn’t mean college was free — and it wouldn’t be under Porter’s plan. There’s still housing, meals, books and annoying fees.

But Sacramento switched priorities in the 1970s, spending tax money on other things: enhanced welfare, healthcare and specifically K-12 schooling.

Free tuition existed before the creation of Medi-Cal healthcare, which now eats up 20% of the state general fund. It also was prior to Proposition 13 in 1978 that dramatically cut property tax revenue for K-12 schools. The state felt obliged to make up the difference.

Naysayers contend California can’t possibly afford to educate students today without their paying tuition. Nonsense. The state could happily afford it long before we expanded into the world’s fourth largest economy. It’s about priorities.

And today, free tuition could be the PR tonic California needs to brighten its faded image across America. It could attract middle-class families to California and keep those already here from fleeing.

Porter promised a return to yesteryear in a speech that was a far cry from old-time political rhetoric. Addressing more than 2,000 delegates at a recent Democratic state convention in San Francisco, she held up a whiteboard with two words in large letters: “F— Trump.”

And she led the delegates in shouting “F— Trump.”

That was a bit of a turnoff for this old traditionalist, who thinks politics has gotten too coarse and foul-mouthed.

I asked Porter what prompted the profanity and whether she had any regrets.

No, she answered. Candidates were allotted only four minutes to speak and “I was economical with my time.

“I wanted to be very clear in the first 15 seconds that I would fight Trump. I wanted the other three minutes and 45 seconds to be about all other stuff.

“Some people just want to talk about Trump because they don’t want to talk about our own problems.”

Plowing into her speech, she quickly promised to “deliver single-payer healthcare, less-expensive housing, free childcare for all, zero tuition at our UCs and CSUs, and [elimination of] income tax for those earning less than $100,000.

“Those are real affordability solutions.”

Right. But no specifics. How does a state wading in red ink afford all that?

I pressed her when we met later. She didn’t have time for details at the convention, she said. But this is her plan on tuition:

Free tuition only for California residents who are undergrads. And only in their third and fourth years at the University of California and California State University. If they desired free tuition in their first two years, they could attend community college.

Many community colleges already waive course fees for full-time, first-time students. Kids are better educated in their first two years at community college anyway, the UC professor said.

Many liberals complain that free tuition would waste tax money on rich kids who don’t need it.

“I’m a believer in universal programs” that don’t base eligibility on income, Porter said. “Something I learned in Congress. You know what never gets cut? Universal programs such as Social Security and Medicare.”

Anyway, she added, “Kids from really wealthy families go to Harvard or USC or other options.”

Public school tuitions are bargains in California compared to other states and private universities.

At UC, annual tuition is roughly $14,900 and at CSU it’s around $6,500. Without tuition, UC would lose roughly $5.9 billion and CSU $3.7 billion, state budget officials say.

But under Porter’s plan, the universities would lose much less. They’d still collect tuition from freshmen and sophomores and hefty levies from non-Californians. Also student aid could be cut back if kids weren’t saddled with tuition.

Hiking the corporation tax from 8.84% to 9.5% “would generate way more than I need for tuition-free,” Porter said. “I would use any extra money for free childcare.”

Political promises often aren’t worth a nickel. But tenacious and feisty Porter’s free tuition pledge might be worth at least a few bucks. And, maybe some votes.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Veteran Rep. Darrell Issa decides not to seek reelection in new Democratic-leaning district.
Internal combustion: Anxiety grows among California Democrats as gubernatorial candidates rebuff calls to drop out.
The L.A. Times Special: Yes, Republicans have a chance in California governor’s race. Here’s our expert analysis.

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Iran on Monday named Mojtaba Khamenei as its new supreme leader following the killing of his father, Ali Khamenei, in strikes on the first day of the current war. The move signals that Iran’s ruling establishment intends to maintain its hardline course despite the dramatic loss of the country’s most powerful figure.

Mojtaba Khamenei, a 56-year-old Shi’ite cleric with strong connections to Iran’s security apparatus, was quickly endorsed by political leaders, military bodies and religious institutions. Public ceremonies and declarations of loyalty were organised across the country, reflecting a rapid effort by the political system to demonstrate continuity and stability at a moment of intense external pressure.

The appointment is widely seen as closing off any near-term possibility of a negotiated end to the conflict that has engulfed the region. With a figure closely aligned with Iran’s powerful security institutions now leading the state, analysts expect Tehran to maintain a confrontational stance rather than seek quick concessions.

Consolidation of power within the system

Iran’s political and military leadership rallied quickly behind the new leader. Statements from the defence establishment pledged unwavering loyalty to Mojtaba Khamenei, describing him as commander-in-chief and promising to follow him “until the last drop of our blood.”

The swift consolidation of authority highlights the enduring strength of the Islamic Republic’s institutional framework. The supreme leader sits at the top of Iran’s political hierarchy, exercising ultimate control over the military, judiciary and key elements of the state.

Supporters of the government described the succession as a demonstration that the system could withstand even the killing of its long-serving leader. Some Iranians interviewed by media outlets expressed pride and relief that the leadership transition had occurred quickly during wartime, viewing it as a sign of national resilience.

Others, however, reacted with disappointment or anxiety. Many critics of the government had hoped that the death of the elder Khamenei might open the door to political change. Instead, the elevation of his son long considered close to the security establishment suggests continuity rather than reform.

Divided reactions inside Iran

Public reactions within Iran have reflected the country’s deep political divisions. Supporters of the authorities praised Mojtaba Khamenei’s appointment as a defiant response to foreign pressure and an affirmation that the Islamic Republic remains intact.

Critics, however, say the change offers little hope for political liberalisation. Many opposition figures and activists have remained quiet, in part because of fears of repression during wartime. The government recently suppressed widespread protests, and security forces maintain a strong presence across major cities.

Observers note that Iran’s powerful security institutions including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps retain extensive resources and influence. The Guard and associated networks also control major sectors of the economy, reinforcing the system’s ability to maintain power even during crises.

International pressure and escalating conflict

The leadership change comes amid escalating hostilities involving Israel and the United States. U.S. President Donald Trump has demanded Iran’s unconditional surrender and has suggested Washington should have influence over the selection of Iran’s supreme leader.

Trump has previously warned that any successor to Ali Khamenei could face the same fate if Iran continued what he described as hostile policies. Israeli officials have also indicated that senior Iranian leaders could remain targets unless Tehran abandons its military programmes and regional alliances.

Israel’s stated war aims include dismantling Iran’s missile and nuclear capabilities, and some officials have also spoken of ending the country’s clerical system of rule. Washington’s position initially focused on military capabilities but has hardened during the conflict.

Meanwhile, Israeli operations have expanded across the region, including strikes in Beirut and other areas linked to Iranian-backed groups such as Hezbollah. Fighting and airstrikes have resulted in significant casualties in Iran, Lebanon and Israel.

Energy shock and global economic impact

The war has triggered one of the most severe energy disruptions in decades. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway near Iran’s coast through which roughly a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies pass, has been effectively halted.

With tankers unable to move for more than a week, producers have faced storage shortages and in some cases have been forced to halt pumping. The supply shock sent Brent crude prices surging sharply, briefly approaching $120 per barrel before settling above $100.

The surge has rattled financial markets worldwide, pushing stock indexes in Asia and Europe sharply lower and raising fears of inflationary pressure in major economies. Rising fuel costs also carry political implications in the United States, where gasoline prices are closely watched by voters ahead of upcoming elections.

Regional fighting intensifies

Military operations have continued across multiple fronts. Israeli forces have struck targets in central Iran and carried out attacks on infrastructure, including an oil refinery that sent thick black smoke rising over the capital, Tehran.

At the same time, Iranian-aligned forces have launched attacks elsewhere in the region. A refinery in Bahrain was damaged in a strike that forced the national oil company to declare force majeure, further highlighting the widening scope of the conflict.

Casualties have mounted rapidly. Iranian officials say more than 1,300 civilians have been killed in U.S.-Israeli strikes, while deaths have also been reported in Lebanon and Israel. Israeli authorities confirmed fatalities from Iranian missile attacks, and several soldiers have been killed in fighting along the Lebanese border.

Iran’s system of rule

The role of supreme leader was created following the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which established the Islamic Republic under clerical leadership. The position combines religious authority with ultimate political power.

Ali Khamenei held the office for more than three decades, shaping Iran’s foreign policy and domestic governance during periods of sanctions, regional conflict and diplomatic negotiations with world powers. His death in wartime marked one of the most dramatic moments in the country’s modern political history.

Mojtaba Khamenei has long been viewed as an influential figure behind the scenes, particularly within security institutions. Though less publicly prominent than other clerics, he has been widely considered close to the Revolutionary Guard and to key power brokers within the political establishment.

Analysis: Hardline continuity and a longer war

The rapid elevation of Mojtaba Khamenei suggests that Iran’s ruling system is prioritising continuity and cohesion over reform or compromise. By choosing a figure closely aligned with the security establishment, the leadership appears determined to project strength during wartime.

This choice reduces the likelihood of immediate diplomatic concessions that might have opened a path to de-escalation. A leader closely tied to Iran’s military institutions is more likely to emphasise resistance and national defence rather than negotiation under pressure.

At the same time, the succession demonstrates the resilience of Iran’s political structure. Despite the loss of its long-time leader and ongoing military attacks, the state apparatus has moved quickly to stabilise authority and present a unified front.

For the wider region and the global economy, the implications are significant. If Iran continues to pursue a confrontational strategy under its new leader, the conflict could become prolonged, keeping energy markets volatile and increasing the risk of further escalation across the Middle East.

With information from Reuters.

SACRAMENTO — California Gov. Gavin Newsom has positioned himself as a national public health leader by staking out science-backed policies in contrast with the Trump administration.

After Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez for refusing what her lawyers called “the dangerous politicization of science,” Newsom hired her to help modernize California’s public health system. He also gave a job to Debra Houry, the agency’s former chief science and medical officer, who had resigned in protest hours after Monarez’s firing.

Newsom also teamed up with fellow Democratic governors Tina Kotek of Oregon, Bob Ferguson of Washington and Josh Green of Hawaii to form the West Coast Health Alliance, a regional public health agency, whose guidance the governors said would “uphold scientific integrity in public health as Trump destroys” the CDC’s credibility. Newsom argued establishing the independent alliance was vital as Kennedy leads the Trump administration’s rollback of national vaccine recommendations.

More recently, California became the first state to join a global outbreak response network coordinated by the World Health Organization, followed by Illinois and New York. Colorado and Wisconsin signaled they plan to join. They did so after President Trump officially withdrew the United States from the agency on the grounds that it had “strayed from its core mission and has acted contrary to the U.S. interests in protecting the U.S. public on multiple occasions.” Newsom said joining the WHO-led consortium would enable California to respond faster to communicable disease outbreaks and other public health threats.

Although other Democratic governors and public health leaders have openly criticized the federal government, few have been as outspoken as Newsom, who is considering a run for president in 2028 and is in his second and final term as governor. Members of the scientific community have praised his effort to build a public health bulwark against the Trump administration’s slashing of funding and scaling back of vaccine recommendations.

What Newsom is doing “is a great idea,” said Paul Offit, an outspoken critic of Kennedy and a vaccine expert who formerly served on the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory committee but was removed under Trump in 2025.

“Public health has been turned on its head,” Offit said. “We have an anti-vaccine activist and science denialist as the head of U.S. Health and Human Services. It’s dangerous.”

The White House did not respond to questions about Newsom’s stance and Health and Human Services declined requests to interview Kennedy. Instead, federal health officials criticized Democrats broadly, arguing that blue states are participating in fraud and mismanagement of federal funds in public health programs.

Health and Human Services spokesperson Emily Hilliard said the administration is going after “Democrat-run states that pushed unscientific lockdowns, toddler mask mandates, and draconian vaccine passports during the COVID era.” She said those moves have “completely eroded the American people’s trust in public health agencies.”

Public health guided by science

Since Trump returned to office, Newsom has criticized the president and his administration for engineering policies that he sees as an affront to public health and safety, labeling federal leaders as “extremists” trying to “weaponize the CDC and spread misinformation.” He has excoriated federal officials for erroneously linking vaccines to autism, warning that the administration is endangering the lives of infants and young children in scaling back childhood vaccine recommendations. And he argued that the White House is unleashing “chaos” on America’s public health system in backing out of the WHO.

The governor declined an interview request, but Newsom spokesperson Marissa Saldivar said it’s a priority of the governor “to protect public health and provide communities with guidance rooted in science and evidence, not politics and conspiracies.”

The Trump administration’s moves have triggered financial uncertainty that local officials said has reduced morale within public health departments and left states unprepared for disease outbreaks and prevention efforts. The White House last year proposed cutting Health and Human Services spending by $33 billion, including $3.6 billion from the CDC. Congress largely rejected those cuts last month, although funding for programs focusing on social drivers of health, such as access to food, housing and education, were axed.

The Trump administration announced that it would claw back more than $600 million in public health funds from California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota, arguing that the Democratic-led states were funding “woke” initiatives that didn’t reflect White House priorities. Within days, the states sued and a judge temporarily blocked the cut.

“They keep suddenly canceling grants and then it gets overturned in court,” said Kat DeBurgh, executive director of the Health Officers Assn. of California. “A lot of the damage is already done because counties already stopped doing the work.”

Federal funding has accounted for more than half of state and local health department budgets nationwide, with money going toward fighting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, preventing chronic diseases, and boosting public health preparedness and communicable disease response, according to a 2025 analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Federal funds account for $2.4 billion of California’s $5.3-billion public health budget, making it difficult for Newsom and state lawmakers to backfill potential cuts. That money helps fund state operations and is vital for local health departments.

Funding cuts hurt all

Los Angeles County public health director Barbara Ferrer said if the federal government is allowed to cut that $600 million, the county of nearly 10 million residents would lose an estimated $84 million over the next two years, in addition to other grants for prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Ferrer said the county depends on nearly $1 billion in federal funding annually to track and prevent communicable diseases and combat chronic health conditions, including diabetes and high blood pressure. Already, the county has announced the closure of seven public health clinics that provided vaccinations and disease testing, largely because of funding losses tied to federal grant cuts.

“It’s an ill-informed strategy,” Ferrer said. “Public health doesn’t care whether your political affiliation is Republican or Democrat. It doesn’t care about your immigration status or sexual orientation. Public health has to be available for everyone.”

A single case of measles requires public health workers to track down 200 potential contacts, Ferrer said.

The U.S. eliminated measles in 2000 but is close to losing that status as a result of vaccine skepticism and misinformation spread by vaccine critics. The U.S. had 2,281 confirmed cases last year, the most since 1991, with 93% in people who were unvaccinated or whose vaccination status was unknown. This year, the highly contagious disease has been reported at schools, airports and Disneyland.

Public health officials hope the West Coast Health Alliance can help counteract Trump by building trust through evidence-based public health guidance.

“What we’re seeing from the federal government is partisan politics at its worst and retaliation for policy differences, and it puts at extraordinary risk the health and well-being of the American people,” said Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Assn., a coalition of public health professionals.

Robust vaccine schedule

Erica Pan, California’s top public health officer and director of the state Department of Public Health, said the West Coast Health Alliance is defending science by recommending a more robust vaccine schedule than the federal government. California is part of a coalition suing the Trump administration over its decision to rescind recommendations for seven childhood vaccines, including for hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza and COVID-19.

Pan expressed deep concern about the state of public health, particularly the uptick in measles. “We’re sliding backwards,” Pan said of immunizations.

Sarah Kemble, Hawaii’s state epidemiologist, said Hawaii joined the alliance after hearing from pro-vaccine residents who wanted assurance that they would have access to vaccines.

“We were getting a lot of questions and anxiety from people who did understand science-based recommendations but were wondering, ‘Am I still going to be able to go get my shot?’” Kemble said.

Other states led mostly by Democrats have also formed alliances, with Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and several other East Coast states banding together to create the Northeast Public Health Collaborative.

Hilliard, of Health and Human Services, said that even as Democratic governors establish vaccine advisory coalitions, the federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices “remains the scientific body guiding immunization recommendations in this country, and HHS will ensure policy is based on rigorous evidence and gold standard science, not the failed politics of the pandemic.”

Influencing red states

Newsom, for his part, has approved a recurring annual infusion of nearly $300 million to support the state Department of Public Health, as well as the 61 local public health agencies across California, and last year signed a bill authorizing the state to issue its own immunization guidance. It requires health insurers in California to provide patient coverage for vaccinations the state recommends even if the federal government doesn’t.

Jeffrey Singer, a doctor and senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said decentralization can be beneficial. That’s because local media campaigns that reflect different political ideologies and community priorities may have a better chance of influencing the public.

A KFF analysis found some red states are joining blue states in decoupling their vaccine recommendations from the federal government’s. Singer said some doctors in his home state of Arizona are looking to more liberal California for vaccine recommendations.

“Science is never settled, and there are a lot of areas of this country where there are differences of opinion,” Singer said. “This can help us challenge our assumptions and learn.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling and journalism.

Two years after Huntington Beach residents voted to effectively ban Pride flags from being displayed on city property, the conservative coastal city could be represented by a gay member of Congress and outspoken critic of President Trump — Rep. Robert Garcia.

That twist of fate came after last year’s unprecedented mid-decade rejiggering of California’s congressional districts.

Voters in November overwhelmingly approved Proposition 50 — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to neutralize Republican gerrymandering in Texas — to help Democrats win control of the House this November and put a meaningful check on the Trump administration.

The political tremors triggered by the ballot measure already have reshaped California’s political landscape.

Veteran Republican Rep. Darrell Issa of northern San Diego County, an incessant thorn in the backside of President Obama, has called it quits. Northern California Rep. Kevin Kiley has shed his GOP label to run as a political independent. And two Republican congressional incumbents find themselves in a political death match in a newly crafted district straddling Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

The new 42nd District remains anchored in Garcia’s home base of Long Beach. But under the new lines, it has swapped out Southeast L.A. communities such as Downey and Bell Gardens for the more MAGA-friendly cities of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach.

“I say that every time a district crosses the L.A.-Orange County border, a Democrat gets its wings,” said Paul Mitchell, the redistricting expert who drew the new lines for Democrats. “Drawing the Long Beach district to go down to Huntington Beach meant that you’re giving Robert Garcia a community that, in its elected City Council, has been real anathema to who he is as a person, being an out gay member of Congress.”

The change means Garcia’s district shifts rightward with a lot more Republican voters, but still has a Democratic majority. Former Vice President Kamala Harris would have still won the new district in the 2024 presidential race by 13 points, making Democrats confident that it’s still one where Garcia could win.

As the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Garcia is poised to win more power in pushing back against the Trump administration if historical precedent holds and Democrats win back the House majority in November.

Garcia was unavailable for an interview, but many of the new voters he will have to court are represented by Rep. Dave Min (D-Irvine), who won the closely divided Orange County seat in 2024 and now faces a slightly bluer voting base in his newly configured district.

“I have a lot of voters to introduce myself to,” said Min, who described himself as “progressive for Orange County” because he cares about protecting civil rights but often aligns with law enforcement and small-business interests.

“The message [to new voters] is that you may not always agree with me, but that I will try my best to do what I say. I will fight to deliver on the promises I make, I will fight for the values that I represent myself as caring about. And I listen to my constituents,” he said, noting that he recently held his seventh town hall since he was elected.

In a neighboring Orange County district, Republican Reps. Young Kim and Ken Calvert are going to battle for control of the region’s only safe Republican seat post-Proposition 50. That district also crosses county lines — into Corona, Chino Hills and other parts of western Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

Republicans may be dismayed to see the two popular party leaders battling it out in what promises to be a brutal and expensive election.

Republican “primary voters are looking for how to distinguish between two of the same flavor,” said Rob Stutzman, a Republican political strategist. “Republican voters are going to like both of them, so how do you make that judgment?

“Often, it comes down to who their friends are,” he said, noting that endorsements from interest groups and other elected officials are usually more valuable in primaries than general elections.

A handful of Democratic candidates have also declared for the seat, which campaign strategists said could split the liberal vote and allow both Calvert and Kim to advance to the general election ballot.

Issa bids farewell, Kiley drops GOP label

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall) listens to testimony from witnesses during a House Oversight Committee hearing entitled “Reviews of the Benghazi Attack and Unanswered Questions,” in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill in 2013 in Washington.

(Drew Angerer / Getty Images)

Issa’s decision to forgo a run for reelection came as a surprise Friday, even though speculation has swirled about his future after the newly drawn congressional districts put him in a seat where Democratic voters outnumber Republicans. That was a major downgrade from his current district, which swallows up right-leaning eastern San Diego County and the conservative pockets of Temecula and Murrieta.

“This decision has been on my mind for a while and I didn’t make it lightly,” Issa said in a statement. “But after a quarter-century in Congress — and before that, a quarter-century in business — it’s the right time for a new chapter and new challenges.”

Democrats celebrated the departure of Issa, who helped fund the successful 2003 recall of California Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, and led the congressional investigation of the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi during the Obama administration.

“After over two decades of disastrous representation, Darrell Issa is once again running for the exits — and good riddance,” said Anna Elsasser, spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Several Democrats had already announced plans to challenge Issa, including San Diego City Councilmember Marni Lynn von Wilpert.

Proposition 50 also split the sprawling district held by Kiley, a Republican from Rocklin, into six pieces, leaving the Northern California congressman and frequent Newsom critic with few good options.

Over the following months Kiley posted on social media to announce — like the dating show “The Bachelor” — where he would not run until it came down to two districts: a safe Republican seat that would force Kiley into a primary with longtime Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Elk Grove) or a district with a 9-point Democratic registration advantage.

Kiley chose to avoid challenging McClintock and delivered his final rose to the new 6th District along with a twist: On Friday the congressman announced he would run as an independent candidate rather than a Republican.

Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) in his office in Washington in 2025.

(Richard Pierrin / For The Times)

In a lengthy social media post and accompanying video, Kiley said he has become “frustrated, sometimes disgusted, by the hyper-partisanship in Congress” and that he answers to constituents, “not party leaders.”

But without a political party behind him, Kiley’s campaign is “entirely his burden,” said Republican strategist Matt Rexroad. “He’s not going to get the party endorsement. He’s really on his own.”

Without a letter denoting a political party next to their name on the ballot, independent candidates have historically gotten lost in the mix.

One other candidate, a Christian author named Michael Stansfield, confirmed Friday that he filed to run for the seat as a Republican, giving Kiley automatic competition for conservative votes.

Several Democrats have already announced campaigns for the seat — which lumps conservative suburbs of Sacramento with liberal-leaning ones closer to the capital city — including former state Sen. Richard Pan, Sacramento Dist. Atty. Thien Ho, West Sacramento Mayor Martha Guerrero and Lauren Babb, a public affairs leader for Planned Parenthood clinics in California and Nevada.

The race could revive a pandemic-era rivalry between Kiley and Pan, who tussled over vaccine and public health rules while serving in the state Legislature.

New districts, new challengers

For some longtime Democrats such as Rep. Brad Sherman, the addition of new GOP voters could help them fend off challenges from younger progressive candidates.

Half a dozen Democrats, mostly younger progressives, have filed paperwork to challenge Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks), 71, who has represented parts of the San Fernando Valley for nearly 30 years.

The 32nd District remains solidly blue post-Proposition 50, but a nearly seven-point swing to the right “makes it less likely that two Democrats go to the general, which makes it less likely that [Sherman] would get beaten,” said Mitchell.

It’s a similar story for Reps. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento), Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena) and John Garamendi (D-Walnut Grove), who are all in their 70s and 80s and facing younger, more progressive challengers.

While gaining more conservative voters may help some incumbents avoid facing another Democrat in November, the threat of such a faceoff is pushing them to be more active on the campaign trail, Rexroad said.

“You’re seeing more activity by Doris Matsui and Mike Thompson and John Garamendi as a result of them being challenged, because they like their seats and they’d like to hold on to them,” Rexroad said.

Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump promised that 2026 would be a bumper year for economic growth, but instead it has kicked off with job losses, rising gasoline prices and more uncertainty about America’s future.

In his State of the Union address less than two weeks ago, the Republican president confidently told the country: “The roaring economy is roaring like never before.” The latest batch of data on jobs, pump prices and the stock market suggests that Trump’s roar has started to sound far more like a whimper.

There is a gap between the boom that Trump has predicted and the volatile results he has produced — one that could set the tone in this year’s midterm elections as he tries to defend his party’s majorities in the House and Senate. With Trump’s tariffs uncertainty ongoing, the war in Iran has suddenly created inflationary concerns regarding oil and natural gas.

The White House says it is still early in the year and stronger growth is coming.

No signs of a jobs boom

“WOW! The Golden Age of America is upon us!!!” Trump posted on social media Feb. 11 after the monthly jobs report showed gains of 130,000 jobs in January.

Since then, the job market has evaporated in worrisome ways.

Friday’s employment report showed job losses of 92,000 in February. The January and December figures were revised downward, with December swinging to a loss of 17,000 jobs. Monthly data can be rocky, but a trend has emerged that shows an enduring weakness. Without the healthcare sector, the economy would have shed roughly 202,000 jobs since Trump became president in January 2025. His administration notes construction job gains outside of the housing sector, which it says point to future hiring growth.

Trump often claims that jobs are going to people born in the United States, rather than to immigrants. But the latest report punctured some of that argument.

The unemployment rate for people born in the U.S. has climbed over the last 12 months to 4.7% from 4.4%. This means a greater share of the people who Trump said would get jobs because of his immigration crackdown are, in fact, searching for work.

Prices at the pump are going up

“Slashing energy costs is among the most important actions we can take to bring down prices for American consumers,” Trump said in a February speech in Texas just before the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran. “Because when you cut the cost of energy, you really cut — you just cut the cost of everything.”

The president has repeatedly told Americans that keeping gas costs low would be key to defeating inflation. He has talked up the decline, citing figures that were far below the national average to persuade the public that driving was getting cheaper.

But the strikes against Iran that began Feb. 28 have, for the moment, crushed that narrative. Prices at the pump have jumped 19% over the last month to a national average of $3.45, according to AAA. The investment bank Goldman Sachs warned in an analyst note that, if higher oil prices persist, inflation could rise from its 2.4% reading in January to 3% by the end of the year.

The administration is banking on plans to contain any energy price increases, essentially betting that either the conflict will end shortly or the administration can succeed in getting more tankers through the Strait of Hormuz. Trump advisors on Sunday sought to assure anxious Americans that surging fuel prices are a short-term problem.

“We never know exactly the timeframe of this,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright said on CNN’s “State of the Union. “But in the worst case, this is a weeks, this is not a months thing.”

Stocks are off their highs

“You know, we set the all-time record in history with the Dow going to 50,000,” Trump said Thursday at the White House.

This frequently repeated talking point has grown stale. The Dow Jones industrial average, one of Trump’s preferred measures of success, has dropped 5% over the last month. Stocks are up during his presidency, just as they were when Democrat Joe Biden was president. The recent decline could be reversed if the war with Iran ends and companies see solid profits over the next year and beyond. The recent dip, however, should be a warning sign as the administration has stressed the importance of more people investing in the stock market through vehicles such as “Trump accounts” for children.

The stock market has become a barometer of how people feel about the economy, with stock investors tending to have more confidence and those without money in the markets being more pessimistic.

Joanna Hsu, the director of the University of Michigan’s surveys of consumers, noted that in February a “sizable” increase in sentiment among people owning stocks “was fully offset by a decline among consumers without stock holdings.”

Productivity is up, but workers aren’t benefiting

Trump can point to a win in that the economy has become more productive — generating more value for each hour of work. That is a positive sign for long-term growth in the U.S. and a reflection of its strong tech sector.

Business sector labor productivity climbed 2.8% in the fourth quarter of last year, the Labor Department reported Thursday. But the challenge is that the gains might not be spread to workers in the form of higher pay as labor’s share of income last year fell to the lowest level on record, noted Mike Konczal, senior director of policy and research at the Economic Security Project, a nonprofit aligned with liberal economic issues.

Economy grew at a faster pace under Biden

“Under the Biden administration, America was plagued by the nightmare of stagflation, meaning low growth and high inflation — a recipe for misery, failure and decline,” Trump said at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in January.

The scoreboard tells a far different story, one that makes Biden’s track record in 2024 look better than Trump’s performance last year. The U.S. economy grew at a 2.8% pace during Biden’s last year, compared with 2.2% under Trump in 2025.

As for inflation, the primary measure used by the Federal Reserve is the personal consumption expenditures price index. It was 2.6% in both 2024 and 2025.

Trump has staked his economic argument on doing better than Biden. But while he has avoided the inflation spikes that haunted Biden’s presidency — amid the height of the COVID-19 pandemic — Trump has not delivered stronger growth or more hiring.

Boak writes for the Associated Press.

SELMA, Ala. — Sixty-one years after state troopers attacked civil rights marchers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, thousands gathered in the Alabama city this weekend amid new concerns about the future of the Voting Rights Act.

The March 7, 1965, violence that became known as “Bloody Sunday” shocked the nation and helped spur passage of the landmark legislation that dismantled barriers to voting for Black Americans in the Jim Crow South.

But this year’s anniversary celebrations — events ran all weekend, including a commemorative march across the bridge Sunday — come as the U.S. Supreme Court considers a case that could limit a provision of the Voting Rights Act that has helped ensure some congressional and local districts are drawn so minority voters have a chance to elect their candidate of choice.

“I’m concerned that all of the advances that we made for the last 61 years are going to be eradicated,” said Charles Mauldin, 78, one of the marchers who was beaten that day alongside civil rights icon John Lewis and others.

Justices are expected to rule soon on a Louisiana case regarding the role of race in drawing congressional districts. A ruling prohibiting or limiting that role could have sweeping consequences, potentially opening the door for Republican-controlled states to redistrict and roll back majority Black and Latino districts that tend to favor Democrats.

Democratic officeholders, civil rights leaders and others have descended on the Southern city to pay homage to the pivotal moment of the civil rights movement and to issue calls to action. Like the marchers 61 years ago, they must keep pressing forward, organizers said.

Former Alabama state Sen. Hank Sanders, who helped start the annual commemoration, said the 1965 events in Selma marked a turning point in the nation and helped push the United States closer to becoming a true democracy.

“The feeling is a profound fear that we will be taken back — a greater fear than at any time since 1965,” Sanders said.

U.S. Rep. Shomari Figures won election in 2024 to an Alabama district that was redrawn by the federal court. He said what happened in Selma and the subsequent passage of the Voting Rights Act were “monumental in shaping what America looks like and how America is represented in Congress.”

“I think coming to Selma is a refreshing reminder every single year that the progress that we got from the civil rights movement is not perpetual. It’s been under consistent attacks almost since we’ve gotten those rights,” said Figures, a Democrat.

In 1965, the Bloody Sunday marchers led by Lewis and Hosea Williams walked in pairs across the Selma bridge headed toward Montgomery. Mauldin, then 17, was part of the third pair behind Williams and Lewis.

At the apex of the bridge, they could see a sea of law enforcement officers, some on horseback, waiting for them. But they kept going. “Being fearful was not an option. And it wasn’t that we didn’t have fear, it’s that we chose courage over fear,” Mauldin recalled in a telephone interview.

“We were all hit. We were trampled. We were tear-gassed. And we were brutalized by the state of Alabama,” Mauldin said.

The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration agreed to conduct anti-drone laser tests in New Mexico after the military’s deployment of the lasers led the FAA to suddenly close airspace in Texas twice in the last month.

The newly announced testing was being carried out to “specifically address FAA safety concerns,” the military said Friday in a statement. It was to take place over the weekend at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

Lawmakers were concerned about an apparent lack of coordination after the Pentagon allowed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to use an anti-drone laser in early February without notifying the FAA. The federal agency that ensures safety in the skies decided to close the airspace over El Paso for a few hours, stranding travelers.

The Trump administration said it was working to halt an incursion by Mexican cartel drones, which are not uncommon along the southern border.

On Feb. 26 the U.S. military said it used the laser to shoot down a “seemingly threatening” drone flying near the U.S.-Mexico border. It turned out the drone belonged to Customs and Border Protection, lawmakers said.

The incident led the FAA to close the airspace around Ft. Hancock, about 50 miles southeast of El Paso.

“We appreciate the coordination with the Department of War to help ensure public safety,” the FAA said of the testing in a separate statement, referring to the Department of Defense. “The FAA and DOW are working with interagency partners to address emerging threats posed by unmanned aircraft systems while maintaining the safety of the National Airspace System.”

The military is required to formally notify the FAA when it takes any counter-drone action inside U.S. airspace.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), the ranking member on the Senate’s aviation subcommittee, previously called for an independent investigation after the two February incidents.

Ding writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The war between the United States and Iran entered its ninth day Sunday with no clear path toward deescalation, as President Trump said deploying American ground troops to the Middle East remains under consideration and Iran’s foreign minister rejected calls for a ceasefire.

Speaking to reporters on Air Force One on Saturday, Trump declined to rule out the possibility of sending U.S. forces inside Iran, saying it could “possibly happen” as the conflict intensifies.

“There would have to be a very good reason,” Trump said. “I would say if we ever did that they would be so decimated that they wouldn’t be able to fight at the ground level.”

As Trump weighs sending ground troops into the widening conflict, Iran has signaled it is not prepared to halt fighting and said it would be ready to fight American soldiers if they descend into the country.

“We have very brave soldiers, who are waiting for any enemy who enters into our soil to fight with them, and to kill them and destroy them,” Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday.

Araghchi added that Iran is not considering a ceasefire at this time. He said the United States and Israel would first need to explain “why they started this aggression and then guarantee there would be a permanent end of the war.”

“Unless we get to that, I think we need to continue fighting for the sake of our people and our security,” he said.

Araghchi also pushed back on Trump’s demand last week that he be involved in determining Iran’s future leadership as part of condition to end the conflict.

“We allow nobody to interfere in our domestic affairs. This is up to the Iranian people to elect their new leader,” Araghchi said. “It’s only the business of the Iranian people, and nobody else’s business.”

As of Sunday, it remained unclear who would succeed Iran’s former leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 86, who was killed by American and Israeli strikes on the first day of the war. But the clerical body that will choose Iran’s next supreme leader appeared to be close to reaching a majority consensus on its pick, according to several news reports.

Trump said last week that Mojtaba Khamenei — the son of the former leader — would be an “unacceptable” choice.

As the war’s end remains nebulous, the battlefield actions continue to have an economic impact domestically, particularly on oil prices.

“If the war continues like this, there will be neither a way to sell oil nor have the ability to produce it,” Iran’s parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said in a social media post Sunday. He added the war would affect not just the U.S., but also the rest of the world “due to [Benjamin] Netanyahu’s delusions,” referring to the Israeli prime minister.

Israeli strikes on Sunday hit an oil storage facility in Tehran, marking what appears to be the first time a civil industrial facility has been targeted in the war.

U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said Sunday that there’s currently a “fear premium in the marketplace” and sought to assure Americans that the soaring oil prices are a short-term problem.

“We never know exactly the timeframe of this,” Wright said in an interview with CNN’s “State of the Union.” “But in the worst case, this is a weeks, this is not a months thing.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed the same assurances in an interview with Fox News‘ “Sunday Morning Futures,” calling the rising gas prices a “short-term disruption.”

“Ultimately taking out the rogue Iranian regime is going to be a good thing for the oil industry,” Leavitt said. “Those prices are going to come back down just like they have over the course of the past year, because of President Trump’s American energy dominance agenda.”

The strike on the oil storage facility came as Netanyahu promised “many surprises” for the next phase of the conflict.

Iran also hit a desalination plant in Bahrain, and according to Araghchi, a U.S. airstrike damaged an Iranian desalination plan on Qeshm Island that is a critical drinking water supply in the parched deserts of the gulf.

“Attacking Iran’s infrastructure is a dangerous move with grave consequences. The U.S. set this precedent, not Iran,” Araghchi wrote in a post on X.

The United States has also come under scrutiny after evidence suggested that an American strike was likely responsible for an explosion at an Iranian elementary school that killed more than 165 people, most of them children.

Trump administration officials have said the matter is under investigation and that no determination has been made as to who was responsible for the strike. But on Saturday, Trump said Iran was to blame for the explosion.

“It was done by Iran,” Trump told reporters. “They’re very inaccurate as you know with their munitions. They have no accuracy whatsoever. It was done by Iran.”

Asked Sunday if Iran had any evidence that the strike was conducted by the Americans, Araghchi said it had to have been either the U.S. or Israeli military and said that Trump’s suggestion that Iran was responsible for the attack was “funny.”

“It is our school, these are our students and our girls and they are attacked by an American fighter, a jet fighter and they have been killed. Why [is] Iran responsible?” Araghchi said.

I know a lot of people who suffer from a chronic malady that gets worse each time there’s news out of Washington. Supporters of the current president of the United States might refer to this condition as a side effect of Trump derangement syndrome, but it’s more like Trump fatigue syndrome.

Symptoms can include a desire to tune out for a spell, stick your head in an ice bucket, or find another way to numb the senses.

But some brave souls, instead of looking away, step into the fray.

Bert Voorhees, for instance.

I came upon his name while reading coverage of the Monday evening demonstration at City Hall in downtown L.A., where protesters railed against the bombing of Iran — the latest example of Trump acting as if he’s king of the world and answerable to nobody, including Congress, the courts or the American people.

On the steps of L.A. City Hall, people attend the March 2 Answer Coalition rally protesting the attack on Iran by the U.S. and Israel.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

With missiles flying, civilians dying and chaos spreading, Voorhees told USA Today that the Iranian ayatollah’s violence against his own people did not justify a U.S. military assault. In Voorhees’ mind, it’s American democracy that is under attack.

“If people don’t stand up and get loud about this, all together right now, we’re not going to have a country,” the northeast San Fernando Valley resident said. “So, it’s time for people to get serious, get in the streets.”

I called Voorhees, a retired lawyer and teacher, and we had a long chat that continued the next day over lunch in Montrose. We’re both in our 70s, and we both have trouble aligning the country we’re living in with the vision we had for it as younger men. Who could have anticipated years of bullying and name-calling, pathological lying about a “stolen” election or the routing of congressional and judicial opposition?

I confessed to Voorhees that I completely misread the direction this country was heading back when the first Black president in history termed out in 2016. I would have bet that as a more diverse and tolerant population came of voting age, old divisions would fade slowly into history and the U.S. would keep pushing toward higher elevations.

Silly me.

Voorhees says he’s demonstrated hundreds of times, but with immigration raids and now the war in Iran, President Trump is keeping him extra busy. “If people don’t stand up and get loud about this, all together right now, we’re not going to have a country,” said Voorhees. “So, it’s time for people to get serious, get in the streets.”

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Maybe it was the naively wishful thinking of a parent wanting his kids to live in a more evolved country rather than one filled with Neanderthal notions about science, medicine, climate, and non-white immigrants.

To Voorhees, these are reasons to raise hell rather than to lose faith, and he’s not alone. The No Kings rallies in greater L.A. were massive. Home Depot civilian patrols have looked out for hard-working neighbors because “silence is violence.” The whistle brigades are defending their communities.

Denise Giardina, a Huntington Beach book seller and friend of Voorhees’, has been on Home Depot patrols in her community and said planning various political actions is practically a full-time job.

“I have daughters and wanted them to have more rights than me, and I’m not sure that’s going to happen,” Giardina said.

When Giardina needs a break, she goes for a hike, which serves as a reminder that a single protest doesn’t change the world, but small steps matter.

“Sometimes you can’t think about the end,” she said. “It’s just one foot in front of the other. It’s not government that’s going to save us. It’s going to be the people.”

A crowd gathered at Los Angeles City Hall on March 2 to protest the bombing of Iran by the United States and Israel.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Roseanne Constantino, a Silver Lake graphic designer whose activism includes knocking on doors during election cycles, sending postcards and making phone calls, has been on the front lines with Voorhees and shares his sense of duty.

“I mean, for people to say, ‘I can’t watch the news, I’m numb, I’m overwhelmed, I have to tune out,’ is so much privilege talking, because they can tune out, because they’re safe,” Constantino said.

“I find it’s like a gateway drug,” she added, “because even people who have never done anything activist in their life eventually find themselves at a protest and are buoyed by the community and the sense of purpose and expression of opposition, but also of the love of democracy.”

To Voorhees, “democracy is a privilege,” and your participation does not end with voting. “You’ve got to make sure they do the right things,” he said, “and that requires paying attention and supervising them, if you will. Politicians are supposed to work for us.”

Voorhees told me that under President Obama, when drones were used in targeted overseas killings, he took to the streets in protest.

“I’m an equal opportunity activist, but we just haven’t had in my lifetime a person so determined to destroy democracy,” Voorhees said. “I called Reagan a fascist, and Reagan felt like a fascist until I met this man, who is the head of a fascist movement in this country.”

I wagered that the bombing of Iran by the America-first president — who promised to end rather than start wars — was Trump’s way of projecting strength at a time of weakness. Many of the president’s true believers are applauding, but it seems that nothing was learned from past Middle East meddling that ended badly, and with no thoughtful consideration of what comes next, Epic Fury could be followed by Epic Quagmire.

Voorhees insists this wasn’t just a show of might, but an act of distraction.

From the Epstein files, for instance. From the empty promises about lower prices for groceries and consumer goods, the droopy favorability ratings, midterm election fears and the mess created by tariffs that cost American merchants millions of dollars and were declared illegal.

Voorhees is mad about all of that, but made a point of clarification.

He’s not demoralized.

More than 200 people protest the U.S. and Israel’s war against Iran in front of City Hall in downtown Los Angeles on Saturday. Protesters carried Mexican, Palestinian and Iranian flags at the rally organized by the Answer Coalition.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

“The arc of the universe bends toward justice,” Voorhees said, “but it doesn’t do it steadily. There are retreats. Two steps forward, one back. One step forward, three back. We’re in one of those periods. … But we can overcome, and I believe in the long run we probably will.”

Minneapolis is the model, he said. When two innocent people were killed in immigration raids, the community came together and rose in protest, forcing a retreat of Trump’s forces and sparking a national conversation about the brutal tactics.

“Minneapolis pushed back against that with humanity, and that’s the future we want to build,” Voorhees said. “That’s the future Martin Luther King Jr. always wanted. That’s the beloved community. That’s the ticket.”

Things will change only if “we get up off the couch,” said Voorhees, who attended another antiwar protest Saturday on the steps of City Hall with a sign that asked, “Who Would Jesus Bomb?”

“You can march ahead with a heavy heart and a downcast head, or dance ahead with a smile and a tune on your lips, hand in hand with people you care about. Why not do that? All empires fall. All kings and tyrants fail in the end. Sometimes it’s fast. Sometimes it’s slow. But that day is coming and, as the Twin Cities proved, love is stronger than hate, if only just.”

steve.lopez@latimes.com

OAKLAND — Betty Yee knows what people are thinking. She’s heard what they’ve said and read the many emails she’s gotten.

The former state controller has been running for California governor longer than just about anybody in the cheek-by-jowl field. And yet the Democrat is bumping along near the bottom, a blip in polls and a laggard in the money chase.

But no, Yee said, she has no intention of quitting the race, as she’s been urged, and no fear that, by staying in, she’ll help two Republicans advance to November’s runoff, locking Democrats out of the governor’s office for the first time since George W. Bush was president.

“I just don’t see it,” Yee said, given the way Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton, the top GOP contenders, are smacking each other around, hoping to emerge as the undisputed Republican standard-bearer.

Beyond that, she said, it’s not as if anyone’s running away with the contest; most polls have shown the leading candidate — which depends on the survey — standing atop the pile with around 20% support.

That isn’t exactly landslide territory.

“The public is still shopping,” Yee said. “In the next month or so, we’re going to try to get [a TV ad] on the air, basically make our case and hope that can spread as voters are getting more focused on the race.”

Which is not to say Yee is delusional.

“As a candidate, I make that assessment every day about whether we’re going to be viable or not,” she said last week, just before stopping by the Alameda County voter registrar‘s office to file paperwork for the June 2 primary.

“Right now, it’s less than a 50-50 chance,” Yee said, suggesting it’s her job to boost those odds by getting voters to appreciate what she offers, which amounts to unvarnished talk about the challenges facing the next governor and the ways Sacramento — which has been run for years by fellow Democrats — isn’t working.

“ ‘Accountability’ has kind of become a dirty word … where it’s about who we’re going to throw under the bus, rather than stepping back and saying, ‘What have we gotten for the dollars that we spend and, if we’re not getting those outcomes, how do we do better?’ ”

Yee served two terms as controller, in effect the state’s chief financial officer, and 10 years before that on the Board of Equalization, which oversees property tax assessments. She’s isn’t trying to buy the governorship, like billionaire Tom Steyer, or leverage her political celebrity, like cable-TV fixtures Katie Porter and Eric Swalwell. Instead, Yee is running a grassroots campaign, visiting nearly all 58 California counties and holding as many face-to-face meetings as humanly possible.

“I’m in the trenches,” she said. “I knock on doors every election cycle because to me, that’s the reality check of where people really are in terms of their lives.”

Which is certainly an admirable approach, albeit a rather idealistic strategy in a state of nearly 23 million voters, spread over roughly 800 miles from north to south. It would take more than two years of round-the-clock campaigning just to give each and every one a quick handshake.

The most notable feature of Yee’s candidacy is her message. She’s not selling barn-burning populism or viral take-downs of President Trump — “I don’t have any gimmicks, I don’t swear, I don’t have a reality-TV show personality” — but rather practical know-how and a deep understanding of state government.

It’s almost quaint in today’s theatrical political environment.

Seated at a sidewalk table outside a coffee stand in downtown Oakland, Yee focused on California’s stretched-thin budget, which happens to be her area of expertise.

“People ask what would you do in your first days as governor, if you have the privilege of serving,” Yee said, as her butterscotch latte sat cooling. “I’d come clean with the voters about where we are fiscally.”

After years of surpluses, she said, the state is spending more than it can afford. Facing a structural deficit, the next governor will have to cut programs and raise taxes, not just one or the other, with corporations and California’s richest residents being forced to cough up more. (She’s dubious, however, of a proposed November ballot measure imposing a one-time 5% tax on billionaires, questioning whether it would stand up in court.)

Sacramento’s credibility, Yee suggested, is on the line.

Before any expansive new programs can be implemented — and she has some notions for how to make life more affordable, increase access to healthcare and create jobs — Californians have to be convinced their tax dollars are being well spent and delivering proven results. “I would really insist on and invite stricter accountability of what we do with our money,” Yee said.

She’s not beyond criticizing the current administration.

“I mean, I’ve been termed out as controller since January 2023. I still get calls from companies in the [European Union], Canada, even Mexico about how we want to do business with California. Who do we talk to?” Yee said. “So I’ll send them over to the governor’s Office of Business Development and they tell me, ‘Well, we try to call people, but nobody’s answering our call.’ ”

(In response, a spokesman for the Office of Business and Economic Development touted California as “a premier hub for international business” and described foreign trade and investment as major drivers of the state economy.)

As for Gov. Gavin Newsom, while she supports his teenaged trolling of Trump, she said it shouldn’t be done through official channels, , or on the taxpayers’ dime.

“We have to focus on making the state work,” Yee said, “and that’s where I’m more focused on because people … want service delivery. They want government to be responsive to their needs. Somebody just pick up the damn phone on the other line to help them.”

Tough medicine, as she described it, and “stabilization” — which is “kind of my theme” — won’t make a great many hearts go pit-a-pat. But Yee hopes that straight talk and her distinct lack of ornamentation will count for something with California voters.

“The climate now is that people are very drawn by the performative approaches,” she said. “However, I think that will change. I want to give [voters] credit, because I do think they are very discerning when they’re ready to mark their ballot.”

The coming weeks will test that premise. And Yee is staying put.

WASHINGTON — The Defense Department last week outlined a concise set of military objectives in President Trump’s war against Iran, claiming its ultimate goal is to dismantle Tehran’s ability to project power beyond its borders. Yet it may be targets the Pentagon has largely left unacknowledged that offer the clearest insight yet into Trump’s true intentions.

U.S. military strikes have focused on Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and nuclear programs, as well as its naval assets, according to U.S. Central Command. But strikes have also increasingly targeted Iran’s internal security forces, used by the Islamic Republic to suppress public dissent, according to an analysis from the Institute for the Study of War and the Critical Threats Project shared with The Times.

The strikes have targeted at least 123 headquarters, barracks and local bases operated by Iran’s paramilitary organizations, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its Basij militia. Regional police forces, primarily in the capital region around Tehran and in western Iran, near areas dominated by Kurdish groups hostile to the Iranian government, have also been targeted.

Some of those groups are being armed and supported by the U.S. intelligence community, a U.S. official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly.

Nicholas Carl, with the Critical Threats Project, said the pattern indicates the campaign is already underway to set the conditions for a revolution.

“As we are going after these repressive institutions, we are degrading the ability of the regime to monitor its population, to repress its population,” Carl said. “And so it looks as though the strike campaign may be organized around trying to erode the ability of the regime to repress in those areas.”

Analysts said that strikes against internal forces could be greater than they have measured thus far, noting the difficulty of tracking targets in the war based on publicly available data due to an internet blackout strictly enforced by the Iranian government.

An explosion erupts after strikes near Azadi Tower close to Mehrabad International Airport in Tehran on Saturday.

(Atta Kenare / AFP / Getty Images)

The quieter side of the U.S. campaign suggests a political strategy by the Trump administration that goes beyond simply containing the Iranian government, and may instead aim to lay the groundwork for its overthrow.

Trump and his top aides have been inconsistent in their messaging on their goals for the war, vacillating between calls for regime change and far shorter ambitions, such as an Islamic Republic that remains in power under leadership more acquiescent to the United States.

Before the war began, Trump was presented with an intelligence assessment that large-scale military action was unlikely to topple the Iranian government, two sources familiar with the assessment said. The assessment led analysts at the CIA, the State Department and the Pentagon all to advise the White House against proceeding with the operation. The intelligence analysis was first reported by the Washington Post.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Greasing the wheels for domestic unrest, for insurgency or revolution could serve other strategic purposes for the Trump administration beyond effecting regime change, adding new sources of pressure on an Islamic Republic that, if still intact by war’s end, would face renewed internal pressures at a moment of historic weakness.

Rob Malley, lead negotiator on the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and special U.S. envoy for Iran under President Biden, said that a sustained U.S. campaign that cripples Iran’s ability to maintain domestic control could mean “the regime collapses, in the sense that it can no longer, genuinely and effectively, govern the entirety of the country.”

“Right now, what Trump is saying suggests an extremely ambitious, extremely long-term, extremely perilous campaign that will only end with Iran’s surrender, and it’s very hard to see Iran surrendering,” Malley said. But the campaign may already be working. “Their communications have certainly been penetrated — they cannot meet without being targeted by Israel or the United States,” he added.

A woman holds a portrait of the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at a protest Saturday by medical professionals outside Gandhi Hospital in Tehran, which was damaged in an airstrike earlier this week.

(Majid Saeedi / Getty Images)

“Either the regime stays in place weakened, bloodied, finding it harder to govern a more fragmented, chaotic country,” Malley continued, “or the regime no longer can govern.”

An Israeli official did not deny that internal security forces were being targeted, although the official said that Israel was focused on assassinating Iran’s political and security leadership — “tiers one, two and three,” the official said. The vast majority of the strikes against internal security services thus far have been conducted by the United States.

“Our goal is to weaken the ayatollah regime, to a point where the Iranian people can choose their fate,” the official told The Times. “It’s still not at the point where they can do that, but there is work still to be done.”

By all accounts, the campaign against Iran’s military assets has achieved success. Iranian ballistic missile attacks against Israel and U.S. forces and allies in the region have decreased by 90% after just a week of combat, Defense officials said. Drone strikes have decreased by 83%. Over 30 Iranian vessels, including those used as launching pads for drones and aircraft, have been destroyed — a significant number for Iran’s aged and ill-funded naval fleet.

Trump could simply declare victory based on these results alone, said Elliott Abrams, who served as Trump’s special representative for Iran in 2020.

“They will get weaker as they use up resources and we bomb more and more relevant sites. Already air traffic is starting up again,” Abrams said, noting that commercial flights in the region began resuming this weekend. “So I doubt that the president will need a protracted campaign.”

But that would leave the regime in place, leaving open the possibility of a revanchist Islamic Republic that could reconstitute its military and crack down further on democratic protesters — an outcome that could create political backlash for Trump, Abrams said, after losing U.S. service members in combat.

A woman jogs amid closed shops in south Tel Aviv on Saturday.

(Olympia de Maismont / AFP / Getty Images)

“The outcome remains entirely in doubt — regime collapse after a wave of protests, civil war, a deal that leaves the regime in place behind a new face,” Abrams added. “A real test for Trump would arise if there is a wave of protests as in January, and the regime again starts shooting. Can he do nothing? Unlikely.”

In his initial speech announcing the start of the campaign, Trump addressed the people of Iran, telling them to shelter in their homes until the U.S. bombing campaign concludes.

“When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations,” the president said. “For many years, you have asked for America’s help. But you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight. Now you have a president who is giving you what you want. So let’s see how you respond.”

But the president’s message grew muddled over the course of the last week, after he offered conflicting goals in a series of interviews with reporters.

He at once said he was expecting to hand-select the next ayatollah, after assassinating Iran’s longtime supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, in the opening salvo of the war. In other interviews, he said that the joint U.S.-Israeli campaign had killed many of the potential leaders that Washington could have worked with.

On Friday, Trump called for Iran’s “unconditional surrender.” He did not specify whether he was referring to a surrender of Iran’s nuclear program, its ballistic missile program, or on control over the country itself, and in a subsequent interview, said it could simply mean “when Iran no longer has the ability to fight.”

Over the last week, Kurdish leaders have shared accounts of Trump and his top aides reaching out to them and encouraging their involvement in the war, including a ground incursion in western Iran from Iraqi Kurdistan. But the president seems to have placed that effort on hold for the time being. “The war is complicated enough without having — getting the Kurds involved,” he told reporters Saturday aboard Air Force One.

At Central Command headquarters on Thursday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters that Trump maintains his promise to the Iranian people at the outset of the war, that a time will come for an uprising.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth addresses the audience as President Trump listens during “The Shield of the Americas Summit“ on Saturday, a gathering with heads of state and government officials from 12 countries in the Americas at the Trump National Doral Golf Club in Doral, Fla.

(Roberto Schmidt / Getty Images)

“No one’s done more than President Trump to reopen the opportunity for those who want a free Iran to do so,” Hegseth said. “Ultimately, it’s common sense, as he said up front, don’t go out and protest while bombs are dropping inside Tehran and elsewhere. There will come a moment where he determines, or they determine, that it’s time to seize that advantage.”

Suzanne Maloney, vice president and director of the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution and an expert on Iran, said she expects the government to survive the U.S. assault, “still easily able to outgun and outmaneuver any challenges from the streets.”

But a concerted, prolonged campaign could change that assessment.

“Of course, months of full-scale war certainly could also break the system,” Maloney said, adding: “I don’t think the short-term result would be a stable transition to a more liberal system — but rather a collapse of the state itself, and at least for some period of time, a dangerous vacuum of power and order in the heart of the Middle East.”

CHICAGO — A day after former presidents, sitting governors and local Chicago residents alike attended a vibrant, televised celebration for the late Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr., the family and friends who knew him best hosted a more intimate gathering Saturday to grieve the civil rights leader at his organization’s headquarters.

The final memorial service at the Rainbow PUSH Coalition’s headquarters on the South Side of Chicago included a few hundred attendees, most of whom were family members, allies and confidants. The event served as a capstone to a week of services and a call to action.

In a series of speeches, the late reverend’s children, civil rights leaders and two presidents of African nations said the best way to honor Jackson’s legacy is to continue his advocacy for universal human rights and economic justice.

“It is appropriate that we respect this season of grief,” said Yusef Jackson, one of Jackson’s sons and president of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition. “However, it is also appropriate to honor him by stepping up, to step out, and continue his work by answering his call to serve.”

The younger Jackson said that the Rainbow PUSH Coalition recently honored Jackson by deepening partnerships with activists in Minnesota, which saw mass protests after the Trump administration launched a massive immigration crackdown in the state.

U.S. Rep. Jonathan Jackson, an Illinois Democrat and a son of the late reverend, said his father taught him “that any society that will not support the many who are poor will never be able to save the few who are rich.” He said that his father’s relentless activism and charisma were rooted in a Christian call to service.

“For the children on the reservations, in the barrios, in the ghettos, he was speaking to you,” said the congressman. “My father was attacked for speaking about diversity. He was vilified for his stand on equality, and had the people who wanted to kill him had their way, we would have never seen a rainbow coalition.”

Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, said that ambitious politicians should emulate the political strategy Jackson championed during his two presidential bids.

“Let the word go out that anyone who would like to be president of the United States in 2028, you’d better study this concept of the rainbow coalition,” Morial said.

Public visitors greet family, world leaders

In a move meant to reflect Jackson’s ethos, some members of the public who gathered outside the PUSH headquarters were allowed to enter the private service.

“Dad’s theology was rooted in the belief that every human being carries inherent worth,” said Ashley Jackson, the late reverend’s youngest daughter. “He fought for that truth in places that most people never saw, people whose names never made the news across decades and continents and causes.”

The service included musical performances by Stevie Wonder, Opal Staples, Terisa Griffin, Kim Burrell and others. Comedian Chris Tucker added some levity to the solemn services with a stand-up set.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa thanked the late reverend for his work to end South Africa’s apartheid system. Jackson was a close friend of Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s iconic anti-apartheid leader and its first Black president.

“He told the world that the struggle for dignity in the United States was inseparable from the fight against apartheid and injustice in South Africa,” said Ramaphosa, who said his nation claimed the late civil rights leader as one of their own.

“When Jesse Jackson reminded the United States that its strength as a nation lies not in exclusion, but in the beautiful diversity of its people — Black and white, rich and poor, urban and rural, workers and farmers, immigrants and the forgotten — we were hugely inspired by his message,” said Ramaphosa, who was a key negotiator in the process to the end the apartheid system.

Felix Tshisekedi, president of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, praised Jackson as a peacemaker and humanitarian.

“Your mourning is also ours. You have lost a father, a husband, a brother. The world has lost a pastor, a champion, a mender of bridges. Africa has lost a faithful, loving son,” Tshisekedi said.

Since his death last month, Jackson’s family and allies have honored the late reverend with commemorations, community service and demonstrations in an effort to continue his work.

Mourners first honored Jackson as he lay in repose in Chicago last month. The late reverend then lay in state at the South Carolina Capitol. Jackson grew up in segregated Greenville, S.C. As a high schooler, he led fellow students into a protest that desegregated a local library, starting a lifetime of civil rights leadership.

Services honoring Jackson in Washington were postponed after a request for him to lie in honor at the U.S. Capitol was denied. House Republican leadership cited the precedent that only former presidents and senior generals typically receive the privilege.

Jackson’s allies have emphasized the forcefulness of his message and convictions.

“He maintained an intense relationship with the political order, not because presidents were white or Black, but the demands of our message — the demands of speaking to the least of these, those who were disinherited, the dispossessed, the disrespected — demanded not Democratic or Republican solutions, but demanded a consistent, prophetic voice,” said Jesse Jackson Jr., the reverend’s eldest son and a former congressman seeking to win back his seat in this year’s elections.

Fraternity brothers

Jackson’s mentees also organized efforts to continue his civil rights activism.

“We’re in a global moment where peace in the world is in jeopardy, where we just have bombs being dropped carelessly, killing children, innocent victims of political actions,” said the Rev. Janette Wilson, a longtime senior advisor to Jackson and executive director at the Rainbow PUSH Coalition. “When the government cuts SNAP benefits and you have millions of children and families who will be food insecure, I think you have to tell them that we’re fighting for you.”

On Thursday, the headquarters hosted a series of events that celebrated Jackson’s life, including a memorial service for several hundred members of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity Inc., of which Jackson was a member. That same night, the chamber hosted a reunion for Rainbow PUSH alumni to commemorate Jackson and his years of activism.

They celebrated Jackson’s life and reminisced about his 1984 and 1988 presidential bids, his globe-trotting activism as an anti-apartheid activist and hostage negotiator, and his evangelism for a Christianity that emphasized justice for all and support for the downtrodden.

Jackson family expected at voting rights march

On Sunday, members of the Jackson family and many of Jackson’s mentees will travel to Selma, Ala., to commemorate the “Bloody Sunday” protest marches when civil rights activists were beaten by police on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in 1965.

The Rev. Jackson often attended the same anniversary march.

“Selma has always stood for the basics of what civil rights is, what we are debating in policy,” said Jimmy Coleman, a longtime aide to Jackson and native of Selma. “He was always focused on what we needed in terms of policy in any given political moment, and that’s what the march represents.”

Brown writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — A counterprotester demonstrating against a “Stop the Islamic Takeover of New York City” event Saturday lighted and threw a device containing nuts, bolts and screws at the protesting crowd after someone from that group used pepper spray on the counterprotesters, police said.

Police are investigating the incident that started late Saturday morning when someone from the anti-Islam protest associated with far-right activist and pardoned Jan. 6 rioter Jake Lang shot pepper spray into a counterprotesting group near the mayoral residence Gracie Mansion, Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch said.

Tensions continued to heighten, she said, when one of the counterprotesters lighted and threw a device she described as smaller than a football into the protesting crowd of about 20 people.

The device struck a barrier and extinguished itself “a few feet from police officers,” she said. The same person then ran, and another person gave a him a second device, which they then dropped. The devices were wrapped in black tape with nuts, bolts and screws, as well as a fuse. She said it was unclear whether the devices were functioning explosives or hoaxes.

Three people were arrested, and an investigation is underway, Tisch said.

Tisch at a news conference didn’t report any injuries and said she believed Mayor Zohran Mamdani was not at Gracie Mansion at the time.

She said about 20 people showed up to Saturday’s protest connected to Lang, and the counterprotest had about 125 people at its peak.

Lang was charged with assaulting a police officer with a baseball bat, civil disorder and other crimes before receiving a pardon as part of President Trump’s sweeping act of clemency for Jan. 6 defendants last year. Lang recently announced that he is running for U.S. Senate in Florida.

Last month, Lang staged an anti-Islam protest in Minneapolis during the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown there.

Reporting from Washington — The father of an Army captain who died a hero in Iraq looked incredulous.

Donald Trump had seemed to criticize his wife on national television, suggesting that her Muslim faith might be the reason she stayed silent during the couple’s high-profile appearance at the Democratic National Convention last week, when Khizr Khan criticized the GOP presidential nominee.

Speaking to CNN on Sunday, Khan said his wife was simply too grief-stricken to speak that night. Then the father said something that may sum up Trump’s biggest challenge between now and November: “He had to take that shot at her.”

Trump has built an unlikely presidential campaign on his combative style and language. He can’t seem to resist taking a shot or responding to an attack, even when the political fight seems unwinnable.

That instinct arguably has served Trump well so far, allowing him to win a crowded Republican primary and stay competitive in national polls with Hillary Clinton.

But it has also caused him unneeded political wounds, playing into the Clinton campaign’s argument that he lacks the temperament to lead the country and sometimes stealing attention from Clinton’s own political liabilities.

The public feud with the Khans looks to stir up the biggest self-inflicted controversy since Trump criticized a federal judge in a fraud lawsuit against Trump University. Trump repeatedly questioned the judge’s ability to be fair because his parents were born in Mexico.

The Khan flap may also linger because Trump’s words were directed at grieving parents whose son died while serving the United States, rather than the politicians he usually targets.

“It violates almost every hallmark of traditional politics, but I guess that’s Donald Trump,” said Reed Galen, a veteran Republican consultant who is not supporting Trump or Hillary Clinton. “The way to get to a guy like Trump — and the Hillary campaign is now finally understanding this — this is a guy who can’t let slights, major or minor, go by.”

Trump’s puzzling engagement with the Khans not only inspired an unusually pointed rebuke from Clinton on Sunday, it also sparked broad condemnation from many Republicans.

For much of the weekend, Trump found himself squaring off against the Khans, whose convention appearance was an emotional high point for many Democrats. During the last night of the convention, Khizr Khan, his wife, Ghazala, beside him, recounted the loss of their son, Humayun. Then he questioned Trump’s call to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., pulling out a pocket Constitution and asking whether Trump had even read the document.

Trump could have let the moment pass, or simply praised their sacrifice without confronting them, as other politicians have done when met by military families who have rendered the highest sacrifice.

See the most-read stories in National News this hour >>

Instead, Trump, in an ABC interview broadcast Sunday, said Khizr Khan looked like a “nice guy,” but he questioned why Ghazala Khan did not speak during the convention, saying “maybe she wasn’t allowed to.”

He pushed back against Khizr Khan’s assertion that Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from entering the country would have kept his son out. “He doesn’t know that,” Trump said. Then the businessman, who avoided the draft during the Vietnam War, said he too had made “sacrifices,” citing his hiring of “thousands and thousands of people.”

After the ABC transcript from the taped interview was released Saturday, Trump’s campaign attempted to correct course. In a statement released late Saturday, Trump called Humayun Khan “a hero to our country” and said “the real problem here are the radical Islamic terrorists who killed him.”

Yet he still could not resist keeping the fight alive.

“While I feel deeply for the loss of his son, Mr. Khan, who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things,” Trump added.

On Sunday, as the controversy festered, Trump complained on Twitter that “I was viciously attacked by Mr. Khan at the Democratic Convention.”

“Am I not allowed to respond? Hillary voted for the Iraq war, not me!” he said.

The Khans proved formidable and sympathetic foes as they granted multiple rounds of nationally televised interviews. Ghazala Khan wrote an emotional essay Sunday for the Washington Post, recounting her 12 years of grief since her son died, her inability to enter a room where his picture is displayed because of the pain, and the fact that she could not even bring herself to clean out his closet.

“I don’t think he knows the meaning of sacrifice, the meaning of the word,” Ghazala Khan said of Trump on ABC. “Because when I was standing there, all of America felt my pain. Without saying a single word. Everybody felt that pain, but I don’t know how he missed that.”

While trying to remain above the partisan swamp, they looked shaken yet defiant — casting Trump as someone who lacks a moral compass and the capability for empathy. They challenged Republican leaders to denounce Trump.

As the pressure simmered, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement of support for the Khans, saying he agreed “that a travel ban on all members of a religion is simply contrary to American values.”

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan also called out Trump’s proposed ban on Muslim travel and praised the “many Muslim Americans [who] have served valiantly in our military, and made the ultimate sacrifice. Capt. Khan was one such brave example. His sacrifice — and that of Khizr and Ghazala Khan — should always be honored. Period.”

Other Republicans were even more forceful.

“There’s only one way to talk about Gold Star parents: with honor and respect,” Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who lost to Trump in the primary and has withheld his endorsement, wrote on Twitter. “Capt. Khan is a hero. Together, we should pray for his family.” (Gold Stars are awarded to the family members of soldiers who die serving in the U.S. armed forces.)

Tim Miller, a former aide to Mitt Romney, wrote on Twitter that Trump’s words were a “grotesque slander of a dead soldier.” He contrasted them with George W. Bush’s response to an antiwar protest in 2005 by Cindy Sheehan, whose son died in Iraq.

“I grieve at every death,” an emotional Bush said at the height of the protest. “It breaks my heart to think about a family weeping over the loss of a loved one.”

Bush said he recognized and thought about the “sincere desire” of those who wanted to pull out of Iraq while laying out his case to keep troops there.

Clinton faced a similar question Sunday on Fox News. She was asked about the assertion by two parents who lost their sons in the 2012 attack on a U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, that Clinton had come to them on the day their bodies were returned to the United States and claimed their deaths were the result of an inflammatory video, rather than terrorism.

“My heart goes out to both of them,” she said, bemoaning their loss and praising them as “extraordinary men.”

“As other members of families who lost loved ones have said, that’s not what they heard — I don’t hold any ill feeling for someone who in that moment may not fully recall everything that was or wasn’t said,” Clinton added.

Clinton spoke directly about the controversy later Sunday at a church in Ohio.

“Mr. Khan paid the ultimate sacrifice in his family, didn’t he? And what has he heard from Donald Trump?” Clinton said. “Nothing but insults, degrading comments about Muslims, a total misunderstanding of what made our country great — religious freedom, religious liberty.”

Clinton has made Trump’s reactive style central to her critique. “A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons,” she said during her convention speech.

Even in defending against that charge, Trump showed his instinct to counterpunch, something many of his supporters admire.

“She’s a very dishonest person. I have one of the great temperaments,” he said on ABC. “I have a winning temperament. She has a bad temperament. She’s weak. We need a strong temperament.”

Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, blamed the controversy on Clinton, a tactic he has used after previous blowups.

“This is the Clinton narrative,” Manafort said on NBC, when asked about Trump’s comments about Khan. “Mr. Trump, of course, feels sorry for what the Khan family has gone through.”

The controversy came just a few days after another headline-grabbing moment, when Trump on Wednesday effectively baited Russia to hack Clinton’s old email account to try to recover more than 30,000 emails she deleted from the private server she used when she was secretary of State.

“He’s going off down these rabbit trails,” said Ron Nehring, a former national spokesman for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign and former chairman of the California Republican Party. “Every day that is spent on these manufactured non-issues is another day he is not training fire on Hillary Clinton’s vulnerabilities.”

Such controversies tend to overshadow issues that might otherwise gain broader attention, experts say, such as Friday’s disappointing economic growth figures.

During Sunday’s interview with ABC, for example, Trump tried to sidestep questions about his failure to release his tax returns and raised concerns about the timing of three upcoming presidential debates, complaining that two dates overlap with NFL games.

Times staff writer Chris Megerian in Columbus, Ohio, contributed to this report.

noah.bierman@latimes.com

Twitter: @noahbierman

MORE NATIONAL NEWS

Here’s how Democrats are trying to reclaim patriotism from Republicans — and how Trump helps

Shooting in downtown Austin leaves 1 dead, 3 wounded; suspect sought

A sparkling new Sandy Hook school arrives, with high-tech features and security ‘second to none’

UPDATES:

3:15 p.m.: The story was updated with additional reaction.

The story was originally published at 12:15 p.m.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — While the U.S. Senate remains deadlocked over President Trump’s call for strict citizenship voting requirements, Republicans in some states are pressing ahead with their own measures that could require documentary proof of citizenship to join or remain on the voter rolls.

Proof-of-citizenship legislation won final approval this week in South Dakota and Utah, already has passed one chamber in Florida and received a committee hearing in Missouri. In Michigan, supporters of voter citizenship documentation submitted 750,000 petition signatures this week in a bid to get a constitutional amendment on the November ballot.

Federal law already prohibits noncitizens from voting in U.S. elections, with violators subject to fines, imprisonment and potential deportation.

When people register to vote, they affirm under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens. But Trump contends that’s not enough. He wants prospective voters to show proof of their citizenship.

Democrats and voting rights advocates say the Republican measures amount to voter suppression, as they may prevent many eligible voters from casting ballots. Similar laws have been overturned by courts as an unconstitutional burden on voting rights.

What would the federal legislation do?

The federal Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE America Act, would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote. That could be satisfied with such things as a U.S. passport, citizen naturalization certificate or a combination of a birth certificate and government-issued photo identification.

The federal bill also would require a photo identification to cast a ballot, which some states already mandate. The Republican-led House approved the legislation last month on a mostly party-line vote, but it has stalled in the Senate under a filibuster threat from Democrats.

South Dakota and Utah

Legislation passed in South Dakota and Utah would create a two-tier voting system. People who provide documentation of their citizenship could vote in all elections. Those who don’t could vote only in federal elections for president, U.S. Senate and U.S. House.

The bifurcated voting system is modeled after Arizona, where tens of thousands of voters who have not provided proof of citizenship can cast ballots only in federal elections. Arizona implemented its system after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the state could not require citizenship documentation for federal elections.

The bills in South Dakota and Utah would take effect upon a governor’s signature, meaning they could be in place for newly registered voters ahead of the November elections.

Utah’s bill also directs election officials to use an online service from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check the citizenship status of existing voters. Those flagged would be sent notices asking for proof of citizenship to remain eligible to vote in all elections.

Florida and Michigan

Neither the Michigan initiative nor legislation passed by the Florida House would require people to submit proof of citizenship when registering to vote. Instead, the measures would create a behind-the-scenes review that could result in some people being asked for citizenship documentation.

Under the Michigan measure, the secretary of state would review driver’s license records, juror records and federal Homeland Security and Social Security data to determine whether registered voters are citizens. Those flagged would be removed from the voter rolls if they cannot provide proof of citizenship.

The Florida legislation would require election officials to verify the citizenship of all registered voters using the state’s driver’s license database. Anyone whose citizenship could not be verified would be required to submit documentary proof.

Why are some pushing for proof of citizenship?

Trump and some fellow Republicans have complained for years about noncitizens voting in U.S. elections, although evidence of doing so is rare. The few cases found are not nearly enough to affect an election result, studies have shown, and those caught face severe penalty.

In 2024, a student from China was charged with perjury and attempted illegal voting after registering to vote by showing a University of Michigan student ID and signing a document asserting he was a U.S. citizen. He later contacted a local clerk’s office requesting to get his ballot back, and ultimately fled the country.

The case provided part of the impetus for the Michigan ballot initiative, said Paul Jacob, chairman of Americans for Citizen Voting, which is backing the measure.

“We want a system we can have confidence in,” Jacob said. “The way you avoid big problems in elections is to fix the small problems when they rise up and present themselves.”

Voting rights advocates’ concerns

Constitutional amendments limiting voting to “only citizens” have won widespread support when placed on state ballots. But voting rights advocates note that requiring documentary proof can get complicated.

During a recent debate in the Florida House, Democratic state Rep. Ashley Gantt recounted how her aunt was born in a South Carolina home at a time when some hospitals didn’t accept Black patients. As a result, she has no birth certificate and has had difficulty trying to demonstrate her citizenship, Gantt said.

A proof-of-citizenship law “would stop many thousands — if not more — U.S. citizens from voting in Florida,” said Michelle Kanter Cohen, policy director and senior counsel at the nonprofit Fair Elections Center. “It requires documentation that a lot of eligible citizens don’t have, or don’t have access to.”

Nationwide, about 21 million people — 9% of voting-age citizens — lack documentary proof of citizenship or cannot easily obtain it, according to a 2024 report by the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement at the University of Maryland.

Other states

Legal challenges are common when states pass proof-of-citizenship requirements for voters.

After Kansas adopted a proof-of-citizenship law 15 years ago, more than 31,000 U.S. citizens ended up getting blocked from registering to vote. Federal courts declared the Kansas law an unconstitutional burden on voting rights, and it hasn’t been enforced since 2018.

Two years ago, New Hampshire and Louisiana both passed proof-of-citizenship laws, prompting lawsuits. New Hampshire’s law went to trial last month and is awaiting a ruling. Louisiana’s election commissioner acknowledged in a December court filing that the requirement has not been enforced.

A nonprofit group also filed a legal challenge to a Wyoming proof-of-citizenship law passed last year. But a federal court dismissed that case while ruling the group lacked standing to sue.

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

March 7 (UPI) — The author prefers to use the lowercase “n” to challenge the Kim family regime’s legitimacy.

Calls for an end of war declaration on the Korean peninsula return with steady rhythm. Each time they appear, they promise a step toward reconciliation.

The latest proposal came when South Korea’s Unification Ministry urged a political declaration formally ending the Korean War as part of a broader effort to restart dialogue with north Korea and move toward a peace regime.

The argument is simple: A declaration would signal political will for peace and reduce tension on the peninsula.

The desire for peace is genuine. Koreans want peace. Americans want peace. Soldiers who have stood watch along the Demilitarized Zone for seventy years want peace.

The real question is not whether peace is desirable. The real question is whether a declaration contributes to peace when the military reality remains unchanged.

Paper and rhetoric do not trump steel.

The Military Reality That Has Not Changed

The Korean War ended in July 1953 with an armistice agreement, not a peace treaty. The armistice halted the fighting but preserved the underlying conflict.

The security architecture that followed rests on deterrence. It rests on the Republic of Korea-U.S. alliance, the presence of American forces in Korea, extended deterrence and the readiness of combined forces.

Across the DMZ sits the fourth largest army in the world, as north Korea fields roughly 1.2 million troops.

More than seventy percent of those forces remain deployed between Pyongyang and the Demilitarized Zone. Their posture is offensive. Their purpose has not changed since 1950.

The Republic of Korea’s forces are organized differently. They are structured for defense. They rely on alliance integration and American reinforcement in crisis. The combined posture has deterred major conflict for seven decades.

None of that changes with a declaration.

Artillery remains within range of Seoul. Ballistic missiles remain deployed. Nuclear weapons remain part of the regime’s strategy.

Words do not move artillery tubes.

The Strategic Misreading Behind the Proposal

Supporters of an end of war declaration often argue that symbolic gestures can change political dynamics in Pyongyang.

The belief is that such a declaration would demonstrate that the alliance is abandoning what the regime calls its “hostile policy.” This signal, the argument goes, might restart negotiations and encourage denuclearization.

This logic rests on a misunderstanding of the Kim family regime.

For more than seventy years the regime has pursued the same strategic objective. It seeks to dominate the Korean peninsula under its rule. The tools have changed over time, but the objective has not.

The regime uses coercion, subversion, diplomacy, and military pressure in combination. Negotiations are not an alternative to this strategy. They are part of it.

When the regime speaks about hostile policy, it does not refer to rhetoric. It refers to the structural pillars of deterrence. The regime defines hostile policy as the ROK/U.S. alliance, the presence of U.S. forces in Korea, and the nuclear umbrella that protects South Korea and Japan.

Removing these pillars is central to the regime’s long-term strategy.

How a Declaration Can Undermine Deterrence

Advocates often describe an end of war declaration as symbolic and not legally binding. That may be correct in a narrow legal sense. In strategic terms, however, symbolism matters.

Politics follows narrative.

Once the war is declared over, critics of the alliance will ask a simple question. If the war is over, why are U.S. forces still stationed in Korea?

The argument will not remain academic. Political factions in both countries will push for reductions in American troop presence. They will question combined exercises. They will challenge extended deterrence.

The declaration would not cause these debates, but it would accelerate them. It would provide rhetorical oxygen to arguments that already exist.

From Pyongyang’s perspective this outcome would be ideal. The regime has long defined the alliance and U.S. military presence as the central obstacles to its objectives. Weakening alliance cohesion through political pressure achieves what military confrontation cannot.

The Political Warfare Dimension

An end of war declaration would not occur in a vacuum. It would unfold in a contested information environment shaped by political warfare.

north Korea, China, and Russia have repeatedly used narrative and diplomacy to shape perceptions about security on the peninsula. If negotiations over a declaration stall, the narrative battlefield will shift quickly.

Pyongyang will argue that peace is blocked by American hostility. Beijing and Moscow will echo that message in international forums. The United States will be portrayed as the obstacle to reconciliation.

Sanctions policy will become the central battleground. north Korea has already signaled that meaningful progress requires sanctions relief. Yet the United Nations Security Council resolutions remain in force precisely because of the regime’s nuclear and missile programs.

If sanctions remain in place, the regime and its partners will claim that Washington refuses to embrace peace. The propaganda line will be clear. The United States talks about diplomacy while clinging to confrontation.

The goal is not persuasion alone. The goal is alignment. By shaping public debate in South Korea and internationally, these narratives seek to weaken alliance unity and pressure policymakers.

This is political warfare conducted through diplomacy, media narratives, and strategic messaging.

Diplomacy Without Illusions

None of this means the United States or South Korea should reject diplomacy. Peace on the peninsula remains the long-term objective of the alliance.

Diplomacy, however, must be grounded in reality.

An end of war declaration can only contribute to security if it is tied to concrete military measures. Negotiations would need to address conventional force deployments near the DMZ. They would need to include ballistic missile programs and nuclear weapons. Verification would be essential.

Absent those steps, a declaration would alter language while leaving the balance of power untouched.

The alliance cannot afford that illusion.

Strategic Theater Versus Strategic Stability

Political leaders understandably seek symbolic achievements that demonstrate progress toward peace.

A declaration ending the Korean War would carry powerful historical meaning. But symbolism is not strategy.

A declaration without corresponding changes in military posture risks becoming strategic theater. It produces headlines but not stability. Worse, it may erode the deterrent structure that has preserved peace for generations.

The paradox is clear. A gesture meant to signal peace could weaken the very mechanisms that prevent war.

The Question That Matters

The central question remains unchanged.

Will the Kim family regime behave like a responsible member of the international community?

If it reduces conventional forces, dismantles nuclear weapons, and abandons its hostile posture, then an end of war declaration could become part of a genuine peace settlement.

If those conditions remain absent, the declaration becomes something else. It becomes leverage in a broader campaign aimed at weakening the alliance.

History suggests caution.

For seven decades the regime has used negotiations to gain concessions while preserving its core capabilities. It has advanced nuclear weapons even during diplomatic engagement.

Why should a symbolic declaration suddenly transform that pattern?

Conclusion

Peace on the Korean peninsula is a worthy goal. It is a goal shared by Koreans, Americans, and the broader international community.

But peace is not achieved through declarations alone.

It is secured through credible deterrence, alliance unity, and diplomacy grounded in the behavior of adversaries rather than hopes about their intentions.

The ROK/U.S. alliance has preserved stability for generations because it rests on credible military power. That credibility depends on readiness, presence, and integration. Until the military threat from the north changes, the war cannot truly be declared over.

Paper and words do not trump steel.

David Maxwell, executive director of the Korea Regional Review, is a retired U.S. Army Special Forces colonel who has spent more than 30 years in the Asia-Indo-Pacific region. He specializes in Northeast Asian security affairs and irregular, unconventional and political warfare. He is vice president of the Center for Asia Pacific Strategy and a senior fellow at the Global Peace Foundation, where he works on a free and unified Korea. After he retired, he became associate director of the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University. He is on the board of directors of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea and the OSS Society and is the editor at large for the Small Wars Journal.

WASHINGTON — Signs of division emerged in Iran’s leadership Saturday as U.S. and Israeli strikes continued battering targets throughout the country, with Tehran sending mixed signals on whether it would keep attacking Washington’s Arab allies entering the war’s second week.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian began the day offering an apology “on behalf of Iran to the neighboring countries affected,” promising to halt the attacks that have affected nearly every nation in the Middle East. But strikes continued within hours, hitting Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, and Pezeshkian quickly issued a statement walking back his remarks.

President Trump vowed on social media to “hit Iran very hard” on Saturday, shortly before flying to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware for the dignified transfer of six service members killed in the war.

Speaking at a summit of Latin American leaders in Miami before his trip to Delaware, the president said the fallen service members were heroes “coming home in a different manner than they thought they’d be coming home.” He said it was “a very sad situation,” and he pledged to keep American war deaths “to a minimum.”

And Israel launched its own wave of fresh attacks against Iran while taking incoming fire from Hezbollah, Iran’s allied force in Lebanon, that set off sirens in Tel Aviv. Reports of a fire at a major oil refinery outside Tehran sparked fears the conflict was only escalating, marking the first attack on Iran’s energy infrastructure, if confirmed.

The burst of activity over the weekend underscored that Trump’s unexpected war with Iran, launched alongside Israel just a week ago, is continuing at full force with no sign of slowing.

Missile and drone strikes by Iran against Arab nations, targeting U.S. military assets in the region as well as civilian targets, including hotels and airports, have been an effort by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to pressure regional governments to in turn press Trump to end the U.S. air campaign. The strikes have jolted markets worldwide and sent the price of oil soaring.

President Trump salutes Saturday as soldiers carry the coffin of Sgt. Declan Coady, 20, of West Des Moines, Iowa. Coady and five others were killed in a drone strike in Kuwait.

(Roberto Schmidt / Getty Images)

While the attacks have decreased substantially over the course of the week, with U.S. Central Command recording a 90% decrease in ballistic missile launches and an 83% drop in drone attacks as of Friday, Iranian strikes are still penetrating regional air defenses. One drone hit the world’s busiest airport, in Dubai, on Saturday, dashing hopes that flights could resume from the regional hub.

Hours after Pezeshkian’s apology, Iran’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement vowing to continue strikes on territories that host U.S. offensive forces. Iran’s Defense Ministry said that its strategic stockpile of munitions was sufficient to sustain a protracted campaign. And a Revolutionary Guard spokesperson issued a statement addressing Trump, calling him “the corrupted island man,” referring to his former friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, the late sex offender who allegedly trafficked girls to his private island.

“The ground and the map of the war is in our hands,” the Revolutionary Guard official said. “This will continue.”

In his videotaped remarks, Pezeshkian also rejected Trump’s call for Tehran’s “unconditional surrender.” Trump later said he would be satisfied reaching a point at which Iran is no longer capable of fighting back.

“The idea of Iran surrendering unconditionally is a dream they will take to their graves,” Pezeshkian said.

A member of Iran’s Assembly of Experts, a council of 88 clerics responsible for naming the country’s supreme leader, was quoted in local state media vowing to select a new ayatollah within the next day, more than a week after U.S. and Israeli forces assassinated Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the opening salvo of the war.

Trump has said he expects a say in that decision, preemptively rejecting the late supreme leader’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, who is seen as the most likely successor.

Mojtaba Khamenei is seen as even more ideological than his father, with deep ties throughout Iran’s security apparatus — and with a potential vendetta against Trump, on the heels of U.S. forces killing much of his family.

Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council who formerly served as the late Khamenei’s top advisor, said in his first remarks since the ayatollah’s killing that his assassination was unprecedented. “The price for this is not small,” Larijani said.

“They shouldn’t think we’ll let America quickly sweep this under the rug and say, ‘We hit, now let’s move on,’” Larijani continued. “Things will only resolve when they understand they no longer have the right to violate Iran, and when they compensate the Iranian people for their losses.”

More that 1,200 people have been killed in Iran since the war began, according to Iranian officials.

“He killed and martyred our leader,” Larijani added. “We’re not letting it go.”

DORAL, Fla. — President Trump said Saturday that the United States and Latin American countries are banding together to combat violent cartels as his administration looks to demonstrate it remains committed to sharpening U.S. foreign policy focus on the Western Hemisphere even while engaged in war in the Middle East.

Trump encouraged regional leaders gathered at his Miami-area golf club to take military action against drug trafficking cartels and transnational gangs that he says pose an “unacceptable threat” to the hemisphere’s national security.

“The only way to defeat these enemies is by unleashing the power of our militaries,” Trump said. “We have to use our military. You have to use your military.” Citing the U.S.-led coalition that confronted the Islamic State group in the Middle East, the Republican president said that ”we must now do the same thing to eradicate the cartels at home.”

The gathering, which the White House called the “Shield of the Americas” summit, comes two months after Trump ordered an audacious U.S. military operation to invade Venezuela and capture its president, Nicolás Maduro, and whisk him and his wife to the United States to face drug conspiracy charges.

Looming even larger is Trump’s decision to launch a war on Iran with Israel a week ago, a conflict that has left hundreds dead, convulsed global markets and unsettled the broader Middle East.

Trump’s time with the Latin American leaders was limited: Afterward, he set out for Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to be on hand for the dignified transfer of the six U.S. troops killed in a drone strike on a command center in Kuwait. They were killed one day after the U.S. and Israel launched their war on Iran.

Trump called the American deaths a “very sad situation” and praised the fallen troops as “great heroes.”

With the summit, Trump aimed to turn attention to the Western Hemisphere, at least for a moment. He has pledged to reassert U.S. dominance in the region and counter what he sees as years of Chinese economic encroachment in America’s backyard.

Trump also said the U.S. will turn its attention to Cuba after the war with Iran and suggested his administration would cut a deal with Havana, underscoring Washington’s increasingly aggressive stance against the island’s communist leadership. “Great change will soon be coming to Cuba,” he said, adding that “they’re very much at the end of the line.”

Cuban officials have said on several occasions that they were open to dialogue with the U.S. as long as it was based on respect for Cuban sovereignty, but they have never confirmed that such talks were taking place.

Who was there

The leaders of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guyana, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, and Trinidad and Tobago joined the U.S. president at Trump National Doral Miami, a golf resort where he is set to host the Group of 20 summit later this year.

The idea for a summit of like-minded conservatives from across the hemisphere emerged from the ashes of what was to be the 10th edition of the Summit of the Americas, which was scrapped during the U.S. military buildup off the coast of Venezuela last year.

Host Dominican Republic, pressured by the White House, had barred Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela from attending the regional gathering. But after leftist leaders in Colombia and Mexico threatened to pull out in protest — and with no commitment from Trump to attend — the Dominican President Luis Abinader decided at the last minute to postpone the event, citing “deep differences” in the region.

The Shield of the Americas moniker was meant to speak to Trump’s vision for an “America First” foreign policy toward the region that leverages U.S. military and intelligence assets unseen across the area since the end of the Cold War.

To that end, Ecuador and the United States conducted military operations this week against organized crime groups in the South American country. Ecuadorean and U.S. security forces attacked a refuge belonging to the Colombian armed group Comandos de la Frontera in the Ecuadorean Amazon on Friday, authorities reported.

This joint fight against drug traffickers “is only the beginning,” said Ecuador’s president, Daniel Noboa.

Notably missing at the summit were the region’s two dominant powers — Brazil and Mexico — as well as Colombia, long the linchpin of U.S. anti-narcotics strategy in the region.

Trump grumbled that Mexico is the “epicenter of cartel violence” with drug kingpins “orchestrating much of the bloodshed and chaos in this hemisphere.”

“The cartels are running Mexico,” Trump said. ”We can’t have that. Too close to us. Too close to you.”

The challenge from China

Trump made no mention of his administration’s position that countering Chinese influence in the hemisphere is a top priority for his second term.

His national security strategy promotes a “Trump corollary” to the 19th century Monroe Doctrine, which had sought to ban European incursions in the Americas, by targeting Chinese infrastructure projects, military cooperation and investment in the region’s resource industries.

The first demonstration of the more muscular approach was Trump’s strong-arming of Panama to withdraw from China’s Belt and Road Initiative and review long-term port contracts held by a Hong Kong-based company amid U.S. threats to seize the Panama Canal.

More recently, the U.S. capture of Maduro and Trump’s pledge to “run” Venezuela threaten to disrupt oil shipments to China — the biggest buyer of Venezuelan crude before the raid — and bring into Washington’s orbit one of Beijing’s closest allies in the region. Trump is scheduled to travel to Beijing later this month to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

For many countries, China’s trade-focused diplomacy fills a critical financial void in a region with major development challenges that include poverty reduction and infrastructure bottlenecks. In contrast, Trump has been slashing foreign assistance to the region while rewarding countries lined up behind his crackdown on immigration — a policy widely unpopular across the hemisphere.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio hosted the leaders for a working lunch after Trump left for the event in Delaware. The lunch gave Kristi Noem, whom Trump fired as Homeland Security secretary on Thursday, the chance to make her debut in her new role as a special envoy for the newly formed Shield of the Americas.

“We want our hemisphere to be safer, to be more sovereign, and to be more prosperous,” Noem told the leaders.

Madhani, Goodman and Richer write for the Associated Press. Madhani and Goodman reported from Doral and Durkin Richer from Washington. AP writer Gabriela Molina in Quito, Ecuador, contributed to this report.