Politics

Nov. 21 (UPI) — President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, from different political spectrums, found common ground while meeting at the White House on Friday afternoon.

Trump and Mamdani met for a half hour in the Oval Office before fielding questions from reporters for another 30 minutes, during which the president said that they have more shared priorities than expected, including cost of living, housing and crime.

“I met with a man who’s a very rational person,” Trump said from his desk as Mandani stood next to him.

“I met with a man who really wants to see New York be great again,” he added. “I’ll really be cheering for him.”

Trump, whose legal residence now is in Palm Beach, Fla., said he would feel “very, very comfortable being in New York” with Mamdani as mayor.

The president said he “OK” with some New Yorkers voting for both of them.

Mamdani said his motivation for meeting with the president is to “leave no stone unturned” in his effort to make New York City more affordable for its residents.

“I have many disagreements with the president,” Mamdani said, but called it his “opportunity to make my case.”

“We should be relentless and pursue all avenues and all meetings that can make our city affordable for every single New Yorker,” Mamdani added.

“I expect to be helping him, not hurting him,” Trump said when asked about cutting federal funding as he has previously mentioned.

Trump said he is fine with Mamdani referring to him as a fascist.

Mamdani affirmed he is a democratic socialist when asked by a reporter while in the Oval Office though Trump previously called him a “communist,” CNN reported.

The president said the meeting between the two was “really good, very productive” and that they both “want this city of ours that we both love to do very well.”

Trump was born and raised in New York City, and said he and Mamdani talked about making housing more accessible and lowering food prices.

“I think you’re going to have a really great mayor,” Trump said of Mamdani. “The better he does, the happier I am.”

Mamdani is likely to “surprise some conservative people” and “some very liberal people,” he added.

The mayor-elect likewise said the meeting between the two was productive.

“We spoke about rent. We spoke about groceries, [and] we spoke about utilities,” Mamdani told reporters. “We spoke about the different ways in which people are being pushed out.”

He said he “appreciated the time with the president” and “I look forward to working together to deliver that affordability for New Yorkers.”

Mamdani is scheduled to be sworn in as New York City’s mayor shortly after midnight on Jan. 1.

China on Friday took its feud with Tokyo over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Taikachi’s recent comments on Taiwan to the United Nations, as tensions between the East Asian neighbours deepened and ties plunged to their lowest since 2023.

“If Japan dares to attempt an armed intervention in the cross-Strait situation, it would be an act of aggression,” China’s permanent representative to the UN, Fu Cong, wrote in a letter on Friday to the global body’s Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, referring to the strait that separates mainland China from self-governing Taiwan, which Beijing insists belongs to China. Beijing has not ruled out the possibility of forcibly taking Taiwan.

The diplomatic spat began earlier in November when Taikachi, who took office only in October, made remarks about how Japan would respond to a hypothetical Chinese attack on Taiwan. Those remarks angered Beijing, which has demanded retractions, although the Japanese PM has not made one.

However, the spat has now rapidly escalated into a trade war involving businesses on both sides, and has deepened security tensions over a contested territory that has long been a flashpoint for the two countries.

Here’s what we know about the dispute:

What did Japan’s PM say about Taiwan?

While speaking to parliament on November 7, Taikachi, a longtime Taiwan supporter, said a Chinese naval blockade or other action against Taiwan could prompt a Japanese military response. The response was not typical, and Taikachi appeared to go several steps further than her predecessors, who had only in the past expressed concern about the Chinese threat to Taiwan, but had never mentioned a response.

“If it involves the use of warships and military actions, it could by all means become a survival-threatening situation,” Taikachi told parliament, responding to an opposition politician’s queries in her first parliamentary grilling.

That statement immediately raised protests from China’s foreign and defence ministries, which demanded retractions. China’s consul general in Osaka, Xue Jian, a day after, criticised the comments and appeared to make threats in a now deleted post on X, saying: “We have no choice but to cut off that dirty neck that has been lunged at us without hesitation. Are you ready?”

That post by Xue also raised anger in Japan, and some officials began calling for the diplomat’s expulsion. Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Minoru Kihara protested to Beijing over Xue’s X message, saying it was “extremely inappropriate,” while urging China to explain. Japan’s Foreign Ministry also demanded the post be deleted. Chinese officials, meanwhile, defended the comments as coming from a personal standpoint.

On November 14, China’s Foreign Ministry summoned the Japanese ambassador and warned of a “crushing defeat” if Japan interfered with Taiwan. The following day, Japan’s Foreign Ministry also summoned the Chinese ambassador to complain about the consul’s post.

Although Taikachi told parliament three days after her controversial statement that she would avoid talking about specific scenarios going forward, she has refused to retract her comments.

How have tensions increased since?

The matter has deteriorated into a trade war of sorts. On November 14, China issued a no-travel advisory for Japan, an apparent attempt to target the country’s tourism sector, which welcomed some 7.5 million Chinese tourists between January and September this year. On November 15, three Chinese airlines offered refunds or free changes for flights planned on Japan-bound routes.

The Chinese Education Ministry also took aim at Japan’s education sector, warning Chinese students there or those planning to study in Japan about recent crimes against Chinese. Both China and Japan have recorded attacks against each other’s nationals in recent months that have prompted fears of xenophobia, but it is unclear if the attacks are linked.

Tensions are also rising around territorial disputes. Last Sunday, the Chinese coastguard announced it was patrolling areas in the East China Sea, in the waters around a group of uninhabited islands that both countries claim. Japan calls the islands the Senkaku Islands, while Beijing calls them the Diaoyu Islands. Japan, in response, condemned the brief “violation” of Japanese territorial waters by a fleet of four Chinese coastguard ships.

Over the last week, Chinese authorities have suspended the screening of at least two Japanese films and banned Japanese seafood.

Then, on Thursday, China postponed a three-way meeting with culture ministers from Japan and South Korea that was scheduled to be held in late November.

‘Symbol of defiance’

On November 18, diplomats from both sides met in Beijing for talks where the grievances were aired.

Senior Chinese official Liu Jinsong chose to wear a five-buttoned collarless suit associated with the rebellion of Chinese students against Japanese imperialism in 1919.

Japanese media have called the choice of the suit a “symbol of defiance.” They also point to videos and images from the meeting showing Liu with his hands in his pockets after the talks, saying the gesture is typically viewed as disrespectful in formal settings.

The Beijing meeting did not appear to ease the tensions, and there seems to be no sign of the impasse breaking: Chinese representatives asked for a retraction, but Japanese diplomats said Taikachi’s remarks were in line with Japan’s stance.

What is the history of Sino-Japanese tensions?

It’s a long and – especially for China – painful story. Imperial Japan occupied significant portions of China after the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-95), when it gained control of Taiwan and forcefully annexed Korea. In 1937, Japan launched a full-scale invasion of China during the Second Sino-Japanese War. Amid strong Chinese resistance, Japan occupied parts of eastern and southern China, where it created and controlled puppet governments. The Japanese Empire’s defeat in World War II in 1945 ended its expansion bid.

The Chinese Communist Party emerged victorious in 1949 in the civil war that followed with the Kuomintang, which, along with the leader Chiang Kai-shek, fled to Taiwan to set up a parallel government. But until 1972, Japan formally recognised Taiwan as “China”.

In 1972, it finally recognised the People’s Republic of China and agreed to the “one China principle”, in effect severing formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan. However, Japan has maintained firm unofficial ties with Taiwan, including through trade.

Japan has also maintained a policy of so-called “strategic ambiguity” over how Tokyo would respond if China were to attack Taiwan — a policy of deliberate ambivalence, aimed at leaving Beijing and the rest of the world guessing over whether it would intervene militarily. The stance is similar to that of the United States, Taiwan’s most powerful ally.

How important is trade between China and Japan?

He Yongqian, a spokesperson for China’s commerce ministry, said at a regular news conference this week that trade relations between the two countries had been “severely damaged” by PM Takaichi’s comments.

China is Japan’s second-largest export market after the US, with Tokyo selling mainly industrial equipment, semiconductors and automobiles to Beijing. In 2024, China bought about $125bn worth of Japanese goods, according to the United Nations’ Comtrade database. South Korea, Japan’s third-largest export market, bought goods worth $46bn in 2024.

China is also a major buyer of Japan’s sea cucumbers and its top scallop buyer. Japanese firms, particularly seafood exporters, are worried about the effects of the spat on their businesses, according to reporting by Reuters.

Beijing is not as reliant on Japan’s economy, but Tokyo is China’s third-largest trading partner. China mainly exports electrical equipment, machinery, apparel and vehicles to Japan. Tokyo bought $152bn worth of goods from China in 2024, according to financial data website Trading Economics.

It’s not the first time Beijing has retaliated with trade. In 2023, China imposed a ban on all Japanese food imports after Tokyo released radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific. Beijing was against the move, although the UN atomic energy agency had deemed the discharge safe. That ban was lifted just on November 7, the same day Taikachi made the controversial comments.

In 2010, China also halted the exports of rare earth minerals to Japan for seven weeks after a Chinese fishing captain was detained near the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.

Nov. 21 (UPI) — Bonuses of $10,000 will be awarded to 776 air traffic controllers and technicians with perfect attendance during the 43-day government shutdown.

The extra money was announced Thursday by Department of Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy and Federal Aviation Administration Administrator Bryan Bedford. The FAA is part of the Transportation Department.

“These patriotic men and women never missed a beat and kept the flying public safe throughout the shutdown,” Duffy said. “Democrats may not care about their financial well-being, but President Trump does. This award is an acknowledgement of their dedication and a heartfelt appreciation for going above and beyond in service to the nation.”

During the shutdown, essential workers, including those in air traffic control, worked without paychecks.

It ended on Nov. 12 with legislation to fund the government through January.

“I am profoundly proud and grateful for the air traffic personnel who worked during extraordinary operational challenges to keep the NAS running safely during the longest government shutdown,” Bedford said. “Their dedication represents the highest levels of public service.”

Absences caused delays and cancellations of flights, including mandated flight reductions at the largest 40 airports in the United States, which rose to 6%, though there were plans for 10% if the shutdown continued.

Some personnel were required to work six-day workweeks of 10 hours a day. They are on duty for a variety of shifts, including holidays.

Even before the shutdown, there were staffing shortages of air traffic controllers and other essential staff.

Last week, President Donald Trump mentioned the bonuses idea on Nov. 10 in a Truth Social post.

He also threatened to dock the pay of those who called out during the shutdown, telling them he was “NOT HAPPY” with them and “get back to work.”

Selected recipients will receive electronic notification next week, and their payments will be received no later than Dec. 9.

The two agencies didn’t say whether those taking planned vacations or fatigue calls will receive the bonuses, NBC News reported.

The National Air Traffic Controllers Association, which has been critical of staffing issues, said it was informed of the decision on cash bonuses hours before the announcement.

Of these receiving bosses, 311 are represented by NATCA.

“We look forward to working with the Administration to provide the appropriate recognition to those not covered by the Secretary’s announcement,” the union, which represents more than 20,000 air industry workers, said in a statement to CNBC.

The Professional Aviation Safety Specialists, which represents 11,000 FAA and Defense Department workers, including technicians, said it is “reviewing the information that has been provided by the FAA and is evaluating how best to ensure that all employees who worked during the shutdown are recognized.”

That union said 423 will get the bonus. In all, it said 6,000 worked without pay.

“It took many hands to ensure that not one delay during the historic 43-day shutdown was attributed to equipment or system failures,” PASS said in a statement.

There are about 14,000 air traffic controllers in the United States. The median salary for the position, including ones not with the FAA, was $144,580, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Salaries start at $55,000 to $68,000, depending on location.

They work in control towers, approach control facilities or en-route centers.

Also, there are about 3,400 trainees, including 1,000 initially at the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City.

The mandatory retirement age is 56.

Also last week, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Transportation Security Administration officers who screen passengers at airports would also receive $10,000 bonuses for perfect attendance.

“Despite tremendous personal, operational and financial challenges, these dedicated officers showed up to work every day for more than a month, without pay, ensuring the American people could travel safely,” DHS said in a press release.

Islamabad, Pakistan – When the United Nations Security Council on Monday adopted a United States-authored resolution that paves the way for a transitional administration and an International Stabilisation Force (ISF) in Gaza, Pakistan – which was presiding over the council – had a seemingly contradictory response.

Asim Iftikhar Ahmed, Pakistan’s permanent representative to the UN, thanked the US for tabling the resolution and voted in its favour. But he also said Pakistan was not entirely satisfied with the outcome, and warned that “some critical suggestions” from Pakistan were not included in the final text.

Though the resolution promises a “credible pathway” to Palestinian statehood, Ahmed, in his comments to the council, said it did not spell that path out, and did not clarify the role of the UN, a proposed Board of Peace (BoP) to oversee Gaza’s governance, or the mandate of the ISF.

“Those are all crucial aspects with a bearing on the success of this endeavour. We earnestly hope that further details in coming weeks will provide the much-needed clarity on these issues,” he said.

But the country had already endorsed US President Donald Trump’s 20-point Gaza ceasefire plan in September – the basis for the UN resolution. And while several other Arab and Muslim countries have also cautiously supported the resolution, Pakistan, with the largest army among them, is widely expected to play a key role in the ISF.

The vote in favour of the resolution, coupled with the suggestions that Pakistan still has questions it needs answers to, represents a careful tightrope walk that Islamabad will need to navigate as it faces questions at home over possible military deployment in Gaza, say analysts.

“The US playbook is clear and has a pro-Israel tilt. Yet, we need to recognise that this is the best option that we have,” Salman Bashir, former Pakistani foreign secretary, told Al Jazeera. “After the sufferings inflicted on the people of Gaza, we did not have any option but to go along.”

Pakistan’s rising geopolitical value

In recent weeks, Pakistan’s top leaders have engaged in hectic diplomacy with key Middle Eastern partners.

Last weekend, Jordan’s King Abdullah II visited Islamabad and met Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir, the army chief. Munir had earlier travelled to Amman in October, as well as to Cairo in Egypt.

Pakistan has traditionally had close relations with Gulf states, and those ties have tightened amid Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. Pakistan has long called for “Palestinian self-determination and the establishment of a sovereign, independent and contiguous State of Palestine based on pre-1967 borders with al-Quds al-Sharif [Jerusalem] as its capital”.

But in recent weeks, Pakistan – the only Muslim nation with nuclear weapons – has also emerged as a key actor in the region’s security calculations, courted by both the United States and important Arab allies.

In September, Pakistan signed a Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA) with Saudi Arabia, days after Israel had struck Doha, the Qatari capital. Then, in October, Prime Minister Sharif and Field Marshal Munir joined Trump and a bevy of other world leaders in Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh for the formal signing ceremony of the Gaza ceasefire agreement. Sharif lavished Trump with praise on the occasion.

By then, Trump had already described Munir as his “favourite field marshal”. Following a brief escalation with India in May, during which Pakistan said it shot down Indian jets, Munir met Trump in the Oval Office in June, an unprecedented visit for a serving Pakistani military chief who is not head of state.

In late September, Munir visited Washington again, this time with Sharif. The prime minister and army chief met Trump and promoted potential investment opportunities, including Pakistan’s rare earth minerals.

Now, Pakistan’s government is mulling its participation in the ISF. Though the government has not made any decision, senior officials have publicly commented favourably about the idea. “If Pakistan has to participate in it, then I think it will be a matter of pride for us,” Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said on October 28. “We will be proud to do it.”

That’s easier said than done, cautioned some analysts.

Palestine is an emotive issue in Pakistan, which does not recognise Israel. The national passport explicitly states it cannot be used for travel to Israel, and any suggestion of military cooperation with Israeli forces – or even de facto recognition of Israel – remains politically fraught.

That makes the prospect of troop deployment to Gaza a highly sensitive subject for politicians and the military alike.

Government keeps cards close to chest

Officially, the government has been opaque about its position on joining the ISF.

Even while describing any participation in the force as a cause for pride, Defence Minister Asif said the government would consult parliament and other institutions before making any decision.

“The government will take a decision after going through the process, and I don’t want to preempt anything,” he said.

In a weekly press briefing earlier this month, Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Tahir Andrabi said the question of Pakistan’s contribution would be decided “after consultation at the highest level”.

“The decision will be taken in due course, as and when required. Certain level of leadership has stated that the decision will be taken with the advice of the government,” he said.

Al Jazeera reached out to Asif, the defence minister, Information Minister Attaullah Tarar, and the military’s media wing, the Inter-Services Public Relations, but received no response.

Legal, operational ambiguities

Some retired senior officers say Pakistan will not decide the matter behind closed doors.

Muhammad Saeed, a three-star general who served as Chief of General Staff until his 2023 retirement, said he expects the terms of reference and rules of engagement for any ISF deployment to be debated in public forums, including Pakistan’s National Security Council and parliament.

“This is such a sensitive topic; it has to be debated publicly, and no government can possibly keep it under wraps. So once the ISF structure becomes clear, I am certain that Pakistani decision-making will be very inclusive and the public will know about the details,” he told Al Jazeera.

Kamran Bokhari, senior director at the New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy in Washington, DC, said the mutual defence agreement with Saudi Arabia meant that Pakistani troops in Gaza would likely be representing both countries. He, however, added that Pakistan would likely have participated in the ISF even without the Saudi pact.

Still, the lack of details about the ISF and Gaza’s governance in the UN resolution remains a stumbling block, say experts.

Several countries on the council said the resolution left key elements ambiguous, including the composition, structure and terms of reference for both the BoP and the ISF. China, which abstained, also described the text as “vague and unclear” on critical elements.

The resolution asks for the Gaza Strip to be “demilitarised” and for the “permanent decommissioning of weapons from non-state armed groups”, a demand that Hamas has rejected.

Hamas said the resolution failed to meet Palestinian rights and sought to impose an international trusteeship on Gaza that Palestinians and resistance factions oppose.

So far, the US has sent nearly 200 personnel, including a general, to establish a Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC) near Gaza on Israeli territory. The centre will monitor humanitarian aid and act as a base from which the ISF is expected to operate.

US-based media outlet Politico reported last month that Pakistan, Azerbaijan and Indonesia – all Muslim-majority states – were among the top contenders to supply troops for the ISF.

Meanwhile, the United Arab Emirates, which joined the Abraham Accords in 2020 and recognised Israel in Trump’s first tenure, has said it will not participate until there is clarity on the legal framework.

King Abdullah of Jordan also warned that without a clear mandate for the ISF, it would be difficult to make the plan succeed.

Costs, incentives and Pakistan’s historical role

Bokhari argued Pakistan has limited options, adding that many of its close allies are “deeply committed” to the initiative and have sought Islamabad’s participation.

“Pakistan’s economic and financial problems mean it will need to reciprocate militarily in order to secure” the goodwill of the US and Islamabad’s Gulf allies, he said. “We have to assume that the current civilian-military leadership is aware of the domestic political risks.”

Others point to Pakistan’s long experience with UN peacekeeping. As of September 2025, UN figures show Pakistan has contributed more than 2,600 personnel to UN missions, just below Indonesia’s 2,700, ranking Pakistan sixth overall.

Qamar Cheema, executive director of the Islamabad-based Sanober Institute, said Pakistan has emerged as a security stabiliser for the Middle East and has “extensive experience of providing support in conflict zones in the past”.

Pakistan currently faces security challenges on both its borders – with India to its east and Taliban-ruled Afghanistan to the west. But it “may not have to cut troops from its eastern or western borders, since the number of troops [needed in Gaza] may not be that big, as various countries are also sending troops,” Cheema told Al Jazeera.

Saeed, the retired general, said Pakistan’s historic position on Palestine remained intact and that its prior peacekeeping experience meant that its troops were well-equipped to help the ISF.

“Pakistan has one of the richest experiences when it comes to both peacekeeping and peace enforcement through the UN. We have a sizeable force, with a variety of experience in maintaining peace and order,” he said.

“The hope is that we can perhaps provide help that can eliminate the violence, lead to peace, bring humanitarian aid in Gaza and implement the UN resolution,” the former general said.

Domestic political risks and the Israeli factor

Despite those arguments, many in Pakistan question the feasibility – and political acceptability – of serving alongside or coordinating with Israeli forces.

Bashir, the former foreign secretary, acknowledged the risks and said the demand that Hamas deweaponise made the ISF “a difficult mission”.

Still, he said, “realism demands that we go along with a less than perfect solution”.

Bokhari of New Lines Institute said stakeholders often sort out details “on the go” in the early stages of such missions.

“Of course, there is no way Pakistan or any other participating nation can avoid coordinating with Israel,” he said.

Saeed, however, disagreed. He said ISF would likely be a coalition in which one partner coordinates any dealings with Israeli forces, meaning Pakistani troops might not have direct contact with Israel.

“There are other countries potentially part of ISF who have relations with Israel. It is likely they will take the commanding role in ISF, and thus they will be the ones to engage with them, and not Pakistan,” he said. He added Pakistan’s involvement – if it happens – would be narrowly focused on maintaining the ceasefire and protecting Palestinian lives.

But Omar Mahmood Hayat, another retired three-star general, warned that any operational tie to Israel “will ignite domestic backlash and erode public trust”.

Hayat said Pakistan has no diplomatic ties with Israel “for principled reasons” and that blurring that line, even citing humanitarian considerations, would invite domestic confusion and controversy.

“This is not just a moral dilemma, but it is also a strategic contradiction,” he said. “It weakens our diplomatic posture.”

In early November, democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani won the New York City mayoral election in a landslide, a victory that sent shockwaves across United States politics and galvanised the country’s political left.

It was a dramatic turnaround for a campaign that – less than a year earlier – had been polling at 1 percent support.

Among those who were most surprised was Zohran’s own father, Mahmood Mamdani.

“He surprised me and his mother,” Mahmood told Al Jazeera Mushaber reporter Allaa Azzam in an interview this week. “We wouldn’t expect him to become mayor of New York City. We never thought about it.”

But Mahmood, an anthropology professor and postcolonial scholar at Columbia University, framed his son’s electoral success as evidence of a shifting political landscape.

Zohran, for instance, campaigned heavily on questions of affordability and refused to back away from his criticisms of Israel’s abuses against Palestinians, long considered a taboo subject in US politics.

He is the first Muslim person to become mayor of the country’s largest city by population, as well as its first mayor of South Asian descent.

“There were certain things that were near and dear to him,” Mahmood explained. “Social justice was one of them. The rights of Palestinians was another.”

“These two issues he has stuck by. He’s not been willing to trade them, to compromise them, to minimise them.”

Inside the Mamdani family

The son of Mahmood and Indian American director Mira Nair, Zohran first emerged as the frontrunner in the mayoral race in June, when his dark-horse campaign dominated the Democratic Party primary.

He earned 56 percent of the final tally, besting former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.

When Cuomo ran as an independent in the November 4 election, Zohran once again beat him by a wide margin, with more than 50 percent of the vote to Cuomo’s 41 percent.

Mahmood told Al Jazeera that, while his son’s sudden political ascent came as a surprise, his resilience did not.

“It didn’t surprise us, with his grit and determination,” he said of the election. “I don’t think he joined the race thinking that he was going to win it. I think he joined the race wanting to make a point.”

He traced back some of Zohran’s electoral finesse to his upbringing. Zohran, Mahmood explained, was not raised in a typical US nuclear family but instead shared his home with three generations of family members.

Living with a diverse age range allowed Zohran to expand his understanding and build his people skills, according to Mahmood.

“He grew up with love and patience. He learned to be very patient with people who are slower, people who were not necessarily what his generation was,” Mahmood said.

“He was very different from the American kids around here who hardly ever see their grandparents.”

A ‘mood of change’

Mahmood also credited his son’s victory to a shifting political landscape, one where voters are fed up with the status quo.

“There’s a mood of change. The young voted like they never voted before,” Mahmood said.

“Sections of the population which had been completely thrown into the sidelines – Muslims, recent immigrants whether Muslim or not – he gave them enormous confidence. They came out and they voted. They mobilised.”

Local media outlets in New York reported that turnout for November’s mayoral race was the highest in more than 50 years. More than two million voters cast a ballot in the closely watched race.

Mahmood cast his son’s upcoming tenure as mayor as a test of whether that voter faith would be rewarded.

“America is marked by low levels of electoral participation, and they’ve always claimed that this is because most people are satisfied with the system,” Mahmood said.

“But now the levels of political participation are increasing. And most people, it’s not just that they are not satisfied, but they no longer believe – or they begin to believe that maybe the electoral system is a way to change things. Zohran’s mayoral term will tell us whether it is or it is not.”

Mahmood was frank that his son faces an uphill battle as mayor. He described politics as a sphere dominated by the influence of moneyed powers.

“ I am not sure he knows that world well,” Mahmood said of his son. “He’s a fast learner, and he will learn it.”

He noted that significant resources were mobilised during the mayoral election to blunt Zohran’s campaign.

“ He’s taking on powerful forces. He’s being opposed by powerful forces. They failed during the campaign,” Mahmood said. That defeat, he added, “exposed the failure of money” as a defining force in the race.

A focus on Palestine

Mahmood also addressed the role of Zohran’s advocacy on the campaign trail.

Though faced with criticism from his mayoral rivals, Mamdani has refused to retreat from his stance that Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to genocide.

That position, though widely affirmed by rights groups and experts, including at the United Nations, is relatively rare in mainstream US politics, where opposition to Israel is a political third rail.

Still, voters appear to be shifting on the question of US support for Israel.

A March poll from the Pew Research Center found that the percentage of US respondents with an unfavourable view of Israel has increased from 42 percent in 2022 to 53 percent in 2025.

While unfavourable views were most pronounced among Democratic voters, they have also increased among conservatives, especially those under the age of 50.

Israel’s war on Gaza has killed at least 69,500 Palestinians since its start in October 2023, and there has been continued outrage over widespread Israeli violence in the occupied West Bank as well.

Mahmood said the undeniable human rights abuses are causing a shift in public perception – and not just in the US.

“The real consequence of Gaza is not limited to Gaza. It is global,” said Mahmood. “Gaza has brought us a new phase in world history.”

“There will never be a return to a period when the world believes that what Israel is doing is defending itself.”

Texas redrew its voting map as part of US President Donald Trump’s plan to win extra Republican seats in the 2026 midterm elections.

The United States Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that found the Texas 2026 congressional redistricting plan likely discriminates on the basis of race.

The order signed on Friday by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito will remain in place at least for the next few days while the court considers whether to allow the new map, which is favourable to Republicans, to be used in the US midterm elections next year.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton hailed the ruling, which had granted an “administrative stay” and temporarily stopped the lower court’s “injunction against Texas’s map”.

“Radical left-wing activists are abusing the judicial system to derail the Republican agenda and steal the US House for Democrats. I am fighting to stop this blatant attempt to upend our political system,” Paxton said in an earlier post on social media.

Texas redrew its congressional map in August as part of US President Donald Trump’s efforts to preserve a slim Republican majority in the House of Representatives in next year’s mid-term elections, touching off a nationwide redistricting battle between Republicans and Democrats.

The new redistricting map for Texas was engineered to give Republicans five additional House seats, but a panel of federal judges in El Paso ruled 2-1 on Tuesday, saying that the civil rights groups that challenged the map on behalf of Black and Hispanic voters were likely to win their case.

The redrawn map was likely racially discriminatory in violation of US constitutional protections, the court found.

Nonprofit news outlet The Texas Tribune said the state is now back to using, temporarily, its 2025 congressional map for voting as the Supreme Court has not yet decided what map Texas should ultimately use, and the “legality of the map” will play out in court over the coming weeks and months.

Texas was the first state to meet Trump’s demands on redistricting. Missouri and North Carolina followed Texas with new redistricting maps that would add an additional Republican seat each.

To counter those moves, California voters approved a ballot initiative to give Democrats an additional five seats there.

Redrawn voter maps are now facing court challenges in California, Missouri and North Carolina.

Republicans currently hold slim majorities in both chambers of Congress, and ceding control of either the House or Senate to the Democrats in the November 2026 midterm elections would imperil Trump’s legislative agenda in the second half of his latest term in office.

There have been legal fights at the Supreme Court for decades over the practice known as gerrymandering – the redrawing of electoral district boundaries to marginalise a certain set of voters and increase the influence of others.

The court issued its most important ruling to date on the matter in 2019, declaring that gerrymandering for partisan reasons – to boost the electoral chances of one’s own party and weaken one’s political opponent – could not be challenged in federal courts.

But gerrymandering driven primarily by race remains unlawful under the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law and 15th Amendment prohibition on racial discrimination in voting.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that found Texas’ 2026 congressional redistricting plan likely discriminates on the basis of race.

The order signed by Justice Samuel Alito will remain in place at least for the next few days while the court considers whether to allow the new map favorable to Republicans to be used in the midterm elections.

The court’s conservative majority has blocked similar lower court rulings because they have come too close to elections.

The order came about an hour after the state called on the high court to intervene to avoid confusion as congressional primary elections approach in March. The justices have blocked past lower-court rulings in congressional redistricting cases, most recently in Alabama and Louisiana, that came several months before elections.

The order was signed by Alito because he is the justice who handles emergency appeals from Texas.

Texas redrew its congressional map in the summer as part of Trump’s efforts to preserve a slim Republican majority in the House in next year’s elections, touching off a nationwide redistricting battle.

The new redistricting map was engineered to give Republicans five additional House seats, but a panel of federal judges in El Paso ruled 2-1 Tuesday that the civil rights groups that challenged the map on behalf of Black and Hispanic voters were likely to win their case.

If the ruling holds for now, Texas could be forced to hold elections next year using the map drawn by the GOP-controlled Legislature in 2021 based on the 2020 census.

Texas was the first state to meet Trump’s demands in what has become an expanding national battle over redistricting. Republicans drew the state’s new map to give the GOP five additional seats, and Missouri and North Carolina followed with new maps adding an additional Republican seat each. To counter those moves, California voters approved a ballot initiative to give Democrats an additional five seats.

The redrawn maps are facing court challenges in California, Missouri and North Carolina.

The Supreme Court is separately considering a case from Louisiana that could further limit race-based districts under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. It’s not entirely clear how the current round of redistricting would be affected by the outcome in the Louisiana case.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press.

Nov. 21 (UPI) — A U.S. Supreme Court justice on Friday night at least temporarily paused a lower court’s decision to throw out Texas’ new congressional map to potentially add five House seats for Republicans.

Justie Samuel Alito, chosen to decide on emergency appeals in the state, granted the request, writing it “is hereby administratively stayed” with a response to the application to be filed by 5 p.m. Monday.

So, this puts the block on hold until the full court decides.

Earlier Friday, state lawyers formally asked for an emergency stay to allow the map borders that were approved this summer by the legislature.

On Tuesday, a three-member panel in the U.S. District Court of Western Texas threw out the mapsin a 2-1 vote.

President Donald Trump had urged Texas to change the maps to favor Republicans.

After the state filed its appeal, Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote in a news release: “Texas engaged in partisan redistricting solely to secure more Republican seats in Congress and thereby better represent our state and Texans. For years, Democrats have aggressively gerrymandered their states and only cry foul and hurl baseless ‘racism’ accusations because they are losing.”

He described the legislation signed by Gov. Greg Abbott in August as Texas’ “Big Beautiful Map.”

The state had asked the high court by Monday night to decide on pausing the lower court ruling.

The lower court’s decision caused “chaos” for the election, the state said.

“Campaigning had already begun, candidates had already gathered signatures and filed applications to appear on the ballot under the 2025 map, and early voting for the March 3, 2026, primary was only 91 days away,” Texas officials told the Supreme Court.

Those seeking to run for House seats must declare their candidacy by Dec. 8.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, appointed by President Trump in his first term, and David Guaderrama, appointed by President Obama, threw out the maps.

Circuit Court Judge Jerry Smith, nominated by President Ronald Reagan, dissented, writing: “In my 37 years on the federal bench, this is the most outrageous conduct by a judge that I have ever encountered in a case in which I have been involved.

“If, however, there were a Nobel prize for fiction, Judge Brown’s opinion would be a prime candidate.”

In the 107 pages, he mentioned billionaire George Soros, a donor for Democrats, 17 times.

Brown, writing the majority opinion, directed the state to correct four districts because they were illegal racial gerrymanders.

Brown focused on how the new map would affect the racial makeup of Texas’ congressional districts.

“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics,” Brown wrote. “To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 map. But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 map.”

But Texas disagreed, saying: politics, not race, drove the new maps.

“This summer, the Texas Legislature did what legislatures do: politics,” the state told the high court.

Texas said the lower court ruling “erroneously rests on speculation and inferences of bad faith.” And it said the state GOP’s chief mapmaker worked with data on partisanship rather than race.

After the decision, Paxton wrote in a post on X that he would appeal the order to the U.S. Supreme Court. He added that he expects the Supreme Court to “uphold Texas’ sovereign right to engage in partisan redistricting.”

Republicans now hold 25 of Texas’ 38 House seats.

Missouri and North Carolina approved a new map that could create another Republican-leaning district in each state.

Unlike those Republican-dominant states, California voters approved the new map that potentially can add five Democratic seats. Proposition 50 was approved by a 64.4-35.6%. The breakdown now is 43 Democrats and nine Republicans.

Other states are considering changes.

The U.S. House party breakdown is 219 Republicans, 213 Democrats and three vacancies. On Thursday, Democrat Mikie Sherill resigned her seat because she was elected New Jersey’s governor earlier this month.

WASHINGTON — Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, a once-loyal supporter of President Trump who has become a critic, said Friday that she is resigning from Congress in January.

Greene, in a more than 10-minute video posted online, explained her decision and said she’s “always been despised in Washington, D.C., and just never fit in.”

Greene’s resignation followed a public fallout with Trump in recent months, as the congresswoman criticized him for his stance on files related to Jeffrey Epstein, along with foreign policy and healthcare.

Trump branded her a “traitor” and “wacky” and said he would endorse a challenger against her when she ran for reelection next year.

She said her last day would be Jan. 5.

The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment Friday night.

Greene was one of the most vocal and visible supporters of Trump’s Make America Great Again politics, and she embraced some of his unapologetic political style.

Her break with him was a notable fissure in his grip over conservatives, particularly his most ardent base. But her decision to step down in the face of his opposition put her on the same track as many of the more moderate establishment Republicans before her who went crosswise with Trump.

Greene had been closely tied to the Republican president since she launched her political career five years ago.

In her video Friday, she underscored her longtime loyalty to Trump except on a few issues, and said it was “unfair and wrong” that he attacked her for disagreeing.

“Loyalty should be a two-way street and we should be able to vote our conscience and represent our district’s interest, because our job title is literally ‘representative,’” she said.

Greene swept to office at the forefront of Trump’s MAGA movement and swiftly became a lightning rod on Capitol Hill for her often beyond-mainstream views.

As she embraced the QAnon conspiracy theory and appeared with white supremacists, Greene was opposed by party leaders but welcomed by Trump. He called her “a real WINNER!”

Yet over time she proved a deft legislator, having aligned herself with then-GOP leader Kevin McCarthy, who would go on to become House speaker. She was a trusted voice on the right flank, until McCarthy was ousted in 2023.

While there has been an onslaught of lawmakers from both parties heading for the exits ahead of next fall’s midterm elections, as the House struggles through an often chaotic session, Greene’s announced retirement will ripple throughout the ranks — and raise questions about her next moves.

Greene was first elected to the House in 2020. She initially planned to run in a competitive district in northern Atlanta’s suburbs, but relocated to the much more conservative 14th District in Georgia’s northwestern corner.

She showed a penchant for harsh rhetoric and conspiracy theories even before her election, suggesting a 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas was a coordinated attack to spur support for new gun restrictions. In 2018, she endorsed the idea that the U.S. government perpetrated the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and mused that a “so-called” plane had hit the Pentagon.

Greene argued in 2019 that Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), both Muslim women, weren’t “official” members of Congress because they used Qurans rather than Bibles in their swearing-in ceremonies.

Greene was once a sympathizer with QAnon, an online network that believes a global cabal of Satan-worshipping cannibals, including U.S. government leaders, operates a child sex trafficking ring. She eventually distanced herself, saying she got “sucked into some of the things I had seen on the internet.”

Price, Mascaro and Amy write for the Associated Press.

Trump praises Mamdani for ‘incredible’ victory in New York City mayoral election and focus on affordability.

United States President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani have held talks in the White House, expressing their hope for a productive and cordial relationship despite their history of mutual criticism.

Speaking to the press after their discussion on Friday, Trump praised Mamdani – the Muslim politician whom he once tarred as a “jihadist” and threatened to strip him of his US citizenship – for his successful campaign and emphasis on cost-of-living issues.

“We’ve just had a great meeting, a really productive meeting. We have one thing in common: we want this city of ours that we love to do very well,” said Trump, who grew up in New York, adding that Mamdani had run an “incredible race” and beat his rivals “easily”.

“I appreciated the meeting with the president, and as he said, it was a productive meeting focused on a place of shared admiration and love, which is New York City,” responded Mamdani, saying he discussed issues in areas such as rent, utilities and groceries.

Mamdani, a democratic socialist who embraced New York’s status as a community made up of people from around the world and offered a firm defence of Palestinian rights, is politically at odds with Trump, whose nativist politics have depicted immigrants as a dangerous internal threat and previously pushed for a ban on Muslims entering the US.

Asked about areas of disagreement with Trump, such as immigration enforcement, Mamdani said he hoped to work together towards shared goals despite their differences.

He referred to a video he shared in November 2024, in which he discussed issues such as affordability and US involvement in conflicts abroad with Trump voters after the 2024 presidential election. Mamdani said he now hopes to find common ground on ending US “forever wars” and bringing down the cost of living.

“I think both President Trump and I are very clear about our positions and our views. And what I really appreciate about the president is the meeting that we had focused not on places of disagreement, of which there are many, and focused on the shared purpose that we have of serving New Yorkers,” said Mamdani.

“That’s something that could transform the lives of 8.5 million people who are currently under a cost-of-living crisis, with one in four people living in poverty,” he said.

With polls showing growing concerns over the state of the US economy, Trump has recently spoken positively about Mamdani’s focus on cost-of-living issues, despite previous acrimony.

“He said a lot of my voters actually voted for him,” Trump told reporters. “And I’m ok with that.”

Banerji said in his resignation letter that he was unhappy about governance issues at the organisation, BBC News reported.

Shumeet Banerji has resigned from the BBC board and criticised governance issues at the organisation, the latest blow to the broadcaster weeks after its director general quit.

The BBC confirmed Banerji’s departure on Friday, saying he stepped down only weeks before the end of his four-year term.

According to BBC News, Banerji said in his resignation letter that he was unhappy about governance issues at the organisation.

He also said he had not been consulted about key developments surrounding the abrupt exits of director general Tim Davie and BBC News chief executive Deborah Turness, BBC News reported.

Both stepped down on November 9 after mounting criticism of the broadcaster’s handling of political coverage, including the editing of a Donald Trump speech delivered on January 6, 2021, shortly before his supporters stormed the United States Capitol.

‘No legal basis’

The BBC issued an apology on November 13 for how its investigative programme Panorama edited the footage. However, it insisted there was “no legal basis” for Trump to sue for defamation.

The dispute focuses on Panorama’s documentary, Trump: A Second Chance?, broadcast in October 2024, just days before Trump secured re-election.

The film stitched together two separate lines from Trump’s January 6 address, almost an hour apart, creating the impression he urged supporters to “fight like hell” while heading towards the Capitol.

Trump and his allies say the sequence was misleading and stripped away crucial context from the speech.

They argue that Trump also told the crowd “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” and encouraged supporters to “cheer on our brave senators and Congressmen and women”. The edited version, they say, suggested a more direct incitement to violence.

The scandal has intensified scrutiny of the BBC at a moment when the broadcaster is already grappling with accusations of internal bias, fuelled by a leaked internal memo.

US President Donald Trump said on social media that six Democratic lawmakers — all veterans and service members — should be arrested and put to ‘death’ for a video they published urging armed forces members to disobey ‘illegal orders’ from the administration.

The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has announced it will not release inflation information for the month of October, citing the consequences of the recent government shutdown.

On Friday, the bureau updated its website to say that certain October data would not be available, even now that government funding has been restored and normal operations have resumed.

“BLS could not collect October 2025 reference period survey data due to a lapse in appropriations,” it wrote in a statement. “BLS is unable to retroactively collect these data.”

The cancelled data includes the Consumer Price Index (CPI) — a report that is commonly used to calculate inflation by measuring the changing costs of retail items — and the Real Earnings summary, which tracks wages among US workers.

For some of the reports, including the Consumer Price Index, the bureau said it would use “nonsurvey data sources” to make calculations that would be included in a future report for the month of November.

The November Consumer Price Index will also be published later than anticipated, on December 18.

The most recent government shutdown was the longest in US history, spanning nearly 43 days.

It began on October 1, after the US Congress missed a September 30 deadline to pass legislation to keep the government funded.

Republicans had hoped to push through a continuing resolution that made no changes to current spending levels. But Democrats had baulked at the prospect, arguing that recent restrictions to government programmes had put healthcare out of reach for some US citizens.

They also warned that insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act are set to expire by the end of the year. Without an extension to those subsidies, they said that insurance premiums for many Americans will spike.

Republicans rejected the prospect of negotiating the issue until after their continuing resolution was passed. Democrats, meanwhile, feared that, if they passed the continuing resolution without changes, there would be no further opportunity to address healthcare spending before the end of the year.

The two parties hit an impasse as a result. Non-essential government functions were halted during the shutdown, and many federal employees were furloughed.

Only on November 10 did a breakthrough begin to emerge. Late that night, seven Democrats and one independent broke from their caucus to side with Republicans and pass a budget bill to fund the government through January 30.

The bill was then approved by the House of Representatives on November 12, by a vote of 222 to 209. President Donald Trump signed the legislation into law that very same day.

Trump had openly sought to leverage the shutdown to eliminate federal programmes he saw as benefitting Democratic strongholds.

He also attempted to blame the political left for the lapse in government services, though he acknowledged public frustration with Republicans after Democrats won key elections in November.

“If you read the pollsters, the shutdown was a big factor, negative for the Republicans,” he told a breakfast for Republican senators on November 5. “That was a big factor.”

The Trump administration had warned as early as October that the month’s consumer price data would be negatively affected as a result of the shutdown.

In a White House statement, Trump officials touted Trump’s economic record while slamming a potential lapse in the government’s collection of data. Once again, they angled the blame for any slowed economic growth at the Democrats.

“Unfortunately, the Democrat Shutdown risks grinding that progress to a halt,” the statement said.

“Because surveyors cannot deploy to the field, the White House has learned there will likely NOT be an inflation release next month for the first time in history — depriving policymakers and markets of critical data and risking economic calamity.”

September’s Consumer Price Index, the most recent available, showed that inflation across all retail items rose about 3 percent over the previous 12-month period.

For food alone, inflation for that period was estimated at 3.1 percent.

Nov. 21 (UPI) — Former U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, has decided not to run for governor of his state in 2026.

“After careful consideration, much prayer and reflection, and after long conversations with my family, my closest friends and advisors, I’ve made the decision not to run for governor in 2026,” Ryan said in a statement.

His bowing out will ease the path for former state health director Amy Acton, who will likely be the nominee against Republican Vivek Ramaswamy, who is endorsed by President Donald Trump.

Gov. Mike DeWine can’t run again due to term limits.

Ryan has faced criticism from Democrats for his ties to cryptocurrency. He represented some of the Akron and Youngstown areas for 20 years in Congress and ran for Senate in 2021, but lost to Vice President JD Vance.

Recently, he has been considering running for governor. An advisor said Ryan’s interest in running for governor was “renewed and heightened” by former U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown‘s decision to run for Senate again instead of Ohio governor, Cleveland.com reported.

Ryan ran for president in 2019.

Four new labour codes come into force as India seeks to attract investment and strengthen manufacturing.

India has announced a sweeping set of labour reforms, saying it will implement four long-delayed labour codes that the government says will modernise outdated regulations and extend stronger protections to millions of workers.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on X on Friday that the overhaul would provide “a strong foundation for universal social security, minimum and timely payment of wages, safe workplaces and remunerative opportunities”.

He said the changes would spur job creation and lift productivity across the economy.

The labour ministry echoed that message, saying the reforms place “workers, especially women, youth, unorganised, gig and migrant workers, firmly at the centre of labour governance”, with expanded social security and portable entitlements that apply nationwide.

The government says replacing 29 fragmented laws with four unified codes covering wages, industrial relations, social security and occupational safety will simplify compliance and make India more attractive for investment.

Many of India’s existing labour laws date back to the British colonial era and have long been criticised by businesses as complicated, inconsistent and a barrier to scaling up manufacturing, an industry that still accounts for less than 20 percent of India’s nearly $4-trillion gross domestic product (GDP).

The new rules formalise changes approved by parliament in 2020 but stalled for years due to political resistance and pushback from several states and unions.

The reforms introduce significant shifts in how factories operate. Women can now legally work night shifts, firms have greater room to extend working hours, and the threshold for companies requiring prior approval for layoffs has been raised from 100 to 300 workers.

Union opposition

Officials argue this flexibility will encourage employers to expand operations without fear of lengthy bureaucratic delays.

For the first time, the codes also define gig and platform work, offering legal recognition and expanding social protection to a fast-growing segment of the labour force.

Government estimates suggest the gig economy could reach more than 23.5 million workers by 2030, up sharply from about 10 million in 2024/25.

Economists say the changes may initially strain small and informal firms but could strengthen household incomes over time.

“In the short term, they may hurt small, unorganised firms, but in the long run … with minimum wages and increased social security, it could be positive for both working conditions and consumption,” said Devendra Kumar Pant of India Ratings & Research, speaking to the Reuters news agency.

Trade unions, however, remain fiercely opposed. “The labour codes have been implemented despite strong opposition from the trade unions and it will snatch the workers’ rights, including fixed-term jobs and rights available under the earlier labour laws,” said Amarjeet Kaur of the All India Trade Union Congress.

Los Angeles County prosecutors moved to drop manslaughter charges Friday against two Torrance police officers who shot and killed a Black man in 2018, attempting to end a seven-year saga that saw the case rejected and then reexamined by three different district attorneys.

Matthew Concannon and Anthony Chavez were indicted in 2023 for the shooting death of Christopher Deandre Mitchell, a 23-year-old car theft suspect who was in possession of an air rifle at the time he was killed.

Michael Gennaco, a special prosecutor hired earlier this year by Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman to review the case, filed a motion to dismiss charges late Thursday, saying he did not believe prosecutors could prove voluntary manslaughter at trial. Attorneys for the officers filed a joint motion in agreement, they said in court Friday.

But in a surprising move, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Sam Ohta declined to rule on the motion Friday, because the case is currently under the jurisdiction of the California Supreme Court. Concannon’s attorneys had previously filed a writ of habeas corpus after Ohta rejected a motion to dismiss the charges.

“I am not going to rule on this because it would be inappropriate for me to do that at this point. The Supreme Court has to tell us its decision,” Ohta said.

One of Concannon’s attorneys, Matthew Murphy, said he felt Ohta was punishing the defendants for exercising their right to challenge Ohta’s prior ruling. Ohta slapped that argument down, pointing out it was the defense team who put the case before the California Supreme Court.

Ohta signaled he wouldn’t decide the motion until the case was withdrawn from the Supreme Court, and even then, he would need time to review the filings.

Ohta said he was “surprised” that the motion was filed at 3 p.m. on Thursday, giving him little time to digest it ahead of Friday’s 8:30 a.m. appearance.

“It’s going to be a lot of work. I’m not just going to orally say yes go ahead and dismiss the case, case dismissed,” the judge said.

Murphy said he would move to withdraw the habeas filing.

Chavez and Concannon were among those investigated in 2021 when the district attorney’s office uncovered a thread of racist text messages sent by members of the Torrance Police Department. The Times has never seen evidence that either of the two officers sent racist messages, but the scandal infuriated community activists, who have long called for them to face justice for killing Mitchell.

Jeff Lewis, a civil attorney for Concannon, said his client “never sent or replied to any racist messages.”

The shooting incident occurred when officers approached Mitchell while he was seated in the car in a Ralph’s parking lot. They said they spotted what was later revealed to be a “break barrel air rifle” between his legs.

Concannon told authorities he saw Mitchell reaching for what he believed to be a real firearm and opened fire, according to the district attorney’s office. Chavez fired two rounds immediately after. The two officers then retreated and waited for backup.

Nearly 30 minutes elapsed before anyone checked on Mitchell, who was then pronounced dead of gunshot wounds, according to court records.

Concannon and Chavez were initially cleared of all wrongdoing by then-Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey. But when George Gascón swept into office on a police accountability platform and ousted Lacey in 2020, he hired a special prosecutor to reexamine several cases Lacey declined to prosecute, including Mitchell’s death.

But Lawrence Middleton, the special prosecutor brought on by Gascón, did not obtain an indictment in the case until 2023, more than two years after he had been hired to reconsider charges in shootings by police.

The statute of limitations for involuntary manslaughter, an easier case to prove than the voluntary manslaughter charges that Middleton brought, expired in late 2021. Concerns about the timeline Middleton would face to pursue the cases Gascón targeted were raised almost immediately after he joined the D.A.’s office.

Middleton appeared in the courtroom Friday morning and sat beside Mitchell’s mother and a number of activists who have long monitored the trial. All declined to comment.

Middleton previously argued the officers “created the jeopardy that led to the shooting,” by needlessly confronting Mitchell when he was not a threat and had no means of escaping arrest as the car was parked facing a wall, according to grand jury transcripts. But Ohta disallowed that evidence after a hearing in late 2023. The shooting happened in 2018, two years before a change in California law modified the threshold by which fatal uses of force are judged.

Hochman fired Middleton shortly after ousting Gascón in the 2024 election cycle, a move which drew praise from one of Concannon’s attorneys at the time. Gennaco was hired a short time later. He also declined to comment on Ohta’s refusal to rule on the dismissal motion.

In an interview, Hochman said that while he did not believe the officers were “innocent” he also did not think prosecutors could meet the legal bar needed to prove voluntary manslaughter. He said Gascón and Middleton bungled the case.

Hochman questioned Middleton’s attempt to argue that the officers executed the arrest of Mitchell so poorly that they caused the situation that required the use of deadly force.

That evidence of so-called “officer-created jeopardy” was deemed inadmissible by Ohta last year.

The evidence might have been admissible under a change in California law passed in 2020, which lowered the standard for charging officers in fatal use-of-force cases, but it did not apply retroactively, Hochman said.

“These are difficult cases. The fact that they’re difficult doesn’t mean we won’t bring them when they are appropriate,” Hochman said. “I’d say we probably spent hundreds of hours on the 12 seconds that were involved in the case.”

Hochman would not say directly if he believed the officers should have been charged with involuntary manslaughter.

“What we’re saying is this would have been a potential charge for the grand jury to consider. I can’t tell you how the grand jury would have come out on it,” he said. “It certainly would have been something that was up for consideration.”

Chavez is no longer employed by the Torrance Police Department. Concannon remains on administrative leave. An agency spokesman declined to comment.

In the 2021 scandal, The Times uncovered messages that were replete with racial slurs and descriptions of violence against Black men and members of the LGBTQ+ community.

In one string of messages, officers used the N-word to describe Mitchell’s relatives and joked about what would happen after Concannon and Chavez’s names were made public.

“Gun cleaning Party at my house when they release my name??” one officer asked, according to a summary of the text messages made public in a 2022 court filing, which redacted the names of the officers sending the messages.

“Yes absolutely let’s all just post in your yard with lawn chairs in a [firing] squad,” another replied.

Lewis said in a letter to The Times that Concannon was “never a part of any text thread where an N-word was used to describe Mitchell’s family.”

Concannon and Chavez are the last officers connected to the scandal with pending cases.

Cody Weldin and Christopher Tomsic — whose criminal case led to the exposure of the scandal — struck a plea deal earlier this year to vandalism charges for spray painting a swastika on a car towed from a crime scene.

David Chandler, another officer investigated as part of the scandal, pleaded no contest earlier this month to assault charges for shooting a Black suspect in the back. Chandler will eventually see his case dismissed under the terms of the agreement.

All three officers had to give up their rights to be peace officers in California under the terms of their plea deals.

The Torrance Police Department and the California Attorney General’s office entered into an “enforceable” agreement to reform earlier this year.

Nov. 21 (UPI) — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told his people that the country “may soon face an extremely difficult choice” in response to the peace plan put forward by the President Donald Trump administration.

“Either the loss of dignity or the risk of losing a key partner. Either 28 complicated points or the hardest winter yet — and the risks that follow,” the Kyiv Independent reported Zelensky said on Telegram.

The speech came just one day after U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll delivered the plan to Zelensky, who said he is willing to negotiate with Trump.

The president on Thursday indicated that he is giving Ukraine until Thanksgiving to accept the plan. He said on Fox News Radio’s Brian Kilmeade Show, “Well, we have, you know, I’ve had a lot of deadlines, but if things are working well, you tend to extend the deadlines,” Trump to a question about the deadline. “But Thursday is, we think, an appropriate time.”

The administration has said that if Zelensky doesn’t accept by the deadline, Ukraine will lose U.S. support, The Washington Post reported.

The plan asks Ukraine to allow Russia to take some Ukrainian territory in the Donbas region in southeast Ukraine. Zelensky has in the past refused any effort to give Russia land. It would also require Ukraine to significantly cut the size of its army and give up many of its weapons.

“Ukraine’s national interest must be taken into account,” Zelensky said in his speech. “We will pursue a calm dialogue with America and all of our partners. There will be a constructive search for solutions with our main partner.”

He also said that the country needs more unity.

“We need to pull ourselves together, stop the quarrels, stop the political games. The state must function. The parliament of a country at war must work in unity. The government must work effectively,” he said.

Some European leaders have voiced their support of Ukraine since the details were released. They’ve insisted that any decisions must be made by Kyiv.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer had a joint call with Zelensky Friday and, “agreed to continue to pursue the goal of safeguarding vital European and Ukrainian interests in the long term,” CNN reported.

A German press office statement said that includes “ensuring that the line of contact is the starting point for an understanding and that the Ukrainian armed forces remain capable of effectively defending Ukraine’s sovereignty.”

Zelensky told his people that he would work around the clock and would not betray his country.

“I will present arguments, I will persuade, I will offer alternatives, but we will definitely not give the enemy any reason to say that Ukraine does not want peace, that it is disrupting the process, and that Ukraine is not ready for diplomacy,” he said.

YORBA LINDA — Eulogizing his old boss here last week, even Henry A. Kissinger couldn’t help note the irony: Richard Nixon himself–the man who kept a list of “enemies” in the media–probably would have been overwhelmed by all the good press he’d been getting after his death.

The tributes for Nixon were unending, the tones reverent. Imagery of King Lear and Sophocles, of an indomitable warrior and an anguished soul, of reconciliation and forgiveness–all were dominant themes in the media for days.

But now, particularly in the days since Nixon’s burial, the tone of public debate seems to have shifted again, as many critics who had maintained a respectful silence have begun to demand a harsher assessment of a man who never gave up reinventing himself. For them, the plaudits had grown too loud, too quickly.

“Now we’re seeing the backlash the other way,” said Daniel Schorr, a commentator for National Public Radio, who earned a spot on Nixon’s “enemies list” in the early 1970s.

The protests of “enough already” have come from a variety of forums–from radio call-in shows to letters to the editor and television and newspaper commentaries.

Stanley Kutler, a University of Wisconsin historian who wrote a book on Watergate and has waged a years-long legal battle for access to more of Nixon’s records, says he is confident that the critical eye of history will largely erase the current wave of pro-Nixon nostalgia.

“I expected this kind of outpouring. Nixon spent 20 years working for it,” Kutler said. “But in the final analysis, whatever space he gets in the history books will begin with this sentence: ‘Richard Nixon, the first U. S. President to resign because of scandal . . . ‘ “

Said Tom Wicker, a New York Times columnist who wrote a widely cited biography of Nixon: “This outpouring of eulogies and great long lines (at the Yorba Linda viewing) show there was always a lot of support for Mr. Nixon among people who regretted he had to resign. . . . Out of a certain respect for the dead, (critics) haven’t had much to say lately. And only now are they coming around to say, ‘Wait a second, let’s look at reality.’ ”

Perhaps the most personal plea for more balance in the public’s ongoing farewells to Nixon has come from Jack Sirica, the son of the late federal judge who became famous because of Watergate.

A reporter for Newsday in Long Island, N.Y., Sirica said that colleagues had been urging him since Nixon’s death to write a column on his father and Nixon. He resisted for several days, he said, fearing his assessment would sound too harsh.

But Sirica said he changed his mind last week when he passed a school on his way to work and saw children playing around a flag at half-staff.

*

He had already read a story saying many children thought Nixon was a pretty good guy, and it was then, seeing that flag, that he decided to write a column. The piece recounted his father’s disillusionment in listening to the infamous Watergate tapes, and it ran the day after Nixon’s funeral under a headline that read: “My Dad Decided Nixon Was a Crook.”

“What concerned me more than anything was that the enormity of the crime seemed to have been getting lost,” Sirica, 41, said in an interview. “Watergate had become, if not a minor footnote, then at least something that could be quickly dispensed with in the historical record.”

But for many among the conservative supporters that Nixon liked to refer to as the Silent Majority, the adulation will continue unabated for the onetime hero of the GOP. They see this as a time of long-overdue recognition for a man who has been unfairly vilified because of a single event in an otherwise distinguished career of public service.

Even after a state funeral attended by dignitaries from around the world Wednesday, mourners continued to turn out by the thousands throughout the week to pay their respects to the freshly sodded grave at the Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace in Yorba Linda.

Brian Hayes, 32, took two days off work as a substitute teacher to pay homage to Nixon, and he waited patiently in line for the library to reopen to the public Thursday.

“My interest in politics came about because of him. I consider him the greatest statesman we ever had,” the Long Beach man said. “Despite Watergate, there’s an outpouring of affection for the man, and I think he richly deserves it.”

Cheri Pepka, 24, of Rancho Santa Margarita, cooed softly to her four small children about Nixon’s accomplishments as they waited to sign a guest book at the library, and she told them about a scrapbook she had started to commemorate his life and death.

“One day you’ll understand all of this. You’ll understand what he meant to our country,” she promised the children.

Democrats and Republicans alike stressed similar themes in the days following Nixon’s death on April 22, pointing to the establishment of diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China, an arms control agreement with the former Soviet Union, an end to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, and other achievements in foreign affairs.

Indeed, praise came from what once would have seemed unlikely corners.

President Clinton–who came of political age in the 1960s while protesting Nixon’s policies in Vietnam–called for a national “day of mourning” and delivered an eloquent eulogy on Nixon’s legacy. And former Sen. George McGovern, who also attended the funeral, spoke in an interview after the service about “reconciling” with the man who helped derail McGovern’s own failed bid for the Presidency in 1972 through a campaign of “dirty tricks.”

“About Nixon, Leaders Stress Triumphs, Not Downfall,” trumpeted the New York Times on its April 24 front page, a refrain carried by other newspapers around the country.

The favorable media coverage that Kissinger noted at last week’s funeral reflects a combination of dynamics–some that are particular to Nixon himself, others that are inevitable in any attempt to gauge public opinion, media and political observers say.

*

In part, the positive reaction reflects the enormous efforts that Nixon made to rehabilitate his image, writing 10 books after his resignation and making frequent appearances on the world stage. As Schorr of NPR said: “He spent 20 years running for ex-President.”

In part, it reflects the overwhelming pomp and circumstance of the first state funeral for a President in more than two decades. And in part, it reflects the feeling that there is something unseemly about criticizing someone who has just died–no matter his scandals.

“It’s almost an America truism that you speak no ill of the dead,” said KABC radio talk-show host Michael Jackson. “I had one caller (on Nixon) who said: ‘My mother always told me if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all. So goodby.’ ”

Yet Jackson said callers to his show resisted the general portrayal of Nixon in the media, openly criticizing the former President by about a 4:1 margin.

“They have been tough and blunt and to the point–that he’s been given a free ride,” Jackson said. “I was quite surprised. There were people who identified themselves as Republicans, and even they criticized him.”

Several scholars and media critics said they believe that Nixon’s treatment in the public eye after his death is an inevitable and, in some respects, appropriate phenomenon.

“When somebody dies, you try and look at the good things he did,” said Stephen Hess, a noted student of the media with the Brookings Institution in Washington.

“We were not there to write Richard Nixon’s place in history, but to bury him. What you saw (in media coverage) was in part good manners and in part tradition,” he said. “I don’t really think that’s the time to be looking for balance.”

But Dick O’Neill, a longtime Democratic activist in Orange County who headed the state party, said he was overwhelmed by the glowing coverage that Nixon received.

“I thought, ‘Jesus, this is really something. They’re burying a field marshal,’ ” he said. “It just blew my mind, considering the guy was almost impeached. To say, ‘It’s over with, let’s forget it,’ I think that’s the best way.

“But the people here in Orange County, they went bananas. . . . The young people especially–I don’t know what happened to them. They amazed me how shook up they were, as if some relative had died,” he mused.

The low point for him, O’Neill said, came when an aide working on a Democratic campaign–”a young, progressive Democrat, “ he stressed–volunteered to drive a car for the Nixon funeral last week to help transport dignitaries. “It was beyond me,” he said.

Kutler, the Wisconsin historian, isn’t worried, though. The Nixon biographer and critic says he figures that in three months, when the 20th anniversary of Nixon’s resignation is recounted around the country, the fickle currents of public opinion will find Nixon’s supporters on the defensive once more.

“Then everyone’s going to remember again, they’re going to remember the humiliation that this country went through, the national disgrace,” he said. “And they’ll get it all straight again.”

*

Times staff writer Lee Romney contributed to this report.

President Trump’s tight grip on the GOP, long assumed to be an inevitable feature of American life (like gravity or the McRib’s seasonal return), has started to loosen.

Republicans are now openly defying him. The man who once ruled the GOP like a casino boss can’t even strong-arm Indiana Republicans into gerrymandering themselves properly.

This sort of resistance didn’t emerge overnight. It fermented like prison wine or bad ideas in a faculty lounge. First came the Iran bombing: an early shock that suggested “America First” might also mean “Israel First,” at least to the populist-nationalist camp inside the GOP.

Then came the effort to muffle the Jeffrey Epstein files, a notion so foreign to MAGA’s ethos that the subsequent drama, according to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), “ripped MAGA apart.”

Greene also expressed concern that the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies are set to lapse, and that Republicans have no plan to fix the imminent premium spikes — an occurrence that threatens to alienate the very working-class voters that MAGA now insists it represents.

All the while, another MAGA soap opera was churning. Tucker Carlson decided to “platform” white nationalist and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes, leading to an outcry of criticism that prompted the Heritage Foundation’s president to defend them (sparking another Republican “civil war” subplot).

The common thread in these stories is the sense that Trump’s days are numbered. The question of “Who gets MAGA when Dad can no longer operate the remote?” has become unavoidable.

True, pundits have been prematurely writing Trump’s political obituary since he first came down that escalator. But it feels different this time. The question is why.

There are likely numerous reasons, but I’ve zeroed in on the five that I think are the most important.

The first, and most obvious, reason is that Trump is now a lame duck, and everyone knows it.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) made the logic explicit when, during the Epstein-file fight, he warned his colleagues: “Donald Trump can protect you in red districts right now … but by 2030, he’s not going to be president, and you will have voted to protect pedophiles if you don’t vote to release those files.”

Once politicians and influencers start imagining their post-Trump resumes, his spell over them shatters. This probably explains why Trump has dangled the idea of an unconstitutional third term.

The second reason we are seeing Trump’s grip weaken is that, frankly, Trump’s not popular. In fact, according to a new Reuters poll, his approval rating is just 38%.

This rating plummets when it comes to the issues that divide Republicans. For example, according to that same survey, a mere 20% of American adults — including just 44% of Republicans — approve of Trump’s handling of the Epstein files.

The third reason is that Trump is increasingly isolated from the constituency that once fine-tuned his political instincts.

The Trump of 2016-2020 essentially crowdsourced his political instincts at rallies, where he learned to read the room like a comedian. Now he’s physically isolated and increasingly out of touch with his base. His inner circle consists of ideologues and billionaires — people who don’t worry about the price of milk.

So when Trump insists the economy is thriving, as he hosts Gatsby-themed soirees and tears down the East Wing of the White House to build a new ballroom, populists look up from their grocery bills, spy Trump on TV meeting with the Saudi crown prince, and are suddenly flooded with buyer’s remorse. This creates an opening, and the movement’s would-be heirs can sense it.

Of course, Trump could conceivably adjust his policies and rhetoric in an effort to restore his populist appeal.

But the fourth reason for Trump’s loss of power within the GOP concerns his mortality: Trump is the oldest person to win the presidency in U.S. history. He has had two “annual” physicals this calendar year — including an MRI no one will adequately explain (this is not part of a routine physical).

This brings us to the fifth and final reason the cracks are starting to show: Trump’s 2024 coalition was always like a game of Jenga.

It was a convenient alliance of disparate factions and individuals whose interests converged because Trump’s charisma (and lack of a coherent political worldview) was like the glue holding incompatible pieces together. But as that binding force weakens, the contradictions become clear, and open warfare is inevitable.

For years now, Trump imposed peace the way an aging rock frontman keeps peace within a band. But once that star starts forgetting lyrics or showing up late, his bandmates start imagining solo careers.

We’re watching MAGA realize that the Trump era is ending, and that the next battle is about what — or who — will fill the vacuum when he’s gone.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has announced new oil drilling off the California and Florida coasts for the first time in decades, advancing a project that critics say could harm coastal communities and ecosystems, as Trump seeks to expand US oil production.

The White House announced the news on Thursday.

The oil industry has been seeking access to new offshore areas, including Southern California and off the coast of Florida, as a way to boost US energy security and jobs.

What’s in the plan?

The administration’s plan proposes six offshore lease sales through 2030 in areas along the California coast.

It also calls for new drilling off the coast of Florida in areas at least 160km (100 miles) from that state’s shore. The area targeted for leasing is adjacent to an area in the Central Gulf of Mexico that already contains thousands of wells and hundreds of drilling platforms.

The five-year plan also would compel more than 20 lease sales off the coast of Alaska, including a newly designated area known as the High Arctic, more than 320km (200 miles) offshore in the Arctic Ocean.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in announcing the sales that it would take years for the oil from those parcels to get to market.

“By moving forward with the development of a robust, forward-thinking leasing plan, we are ensuring that America’s offshore industry stays strong, our workers stay employed, and our nation remains energy dominant for decades to come,” Burgum said in a statement.

The American Petroleum Institute said in response that the announced plan was a “historic step” towards unleashing vast offshore resources. Industry groups have pointed to California’s history as an oil-producing state and say it already has infrastructure to support more production.

Political pushback

Leaders in both California and Florida have pushed back on the deal.

Last week, Florida Republican Senator Ashley Moody and Rick Scott co-sponsored a bill to maintain a moratorium on offshore drilling in the state that Trump signed in his first term.

“As Floridians, we know how vital our beautiful beaches and coastal waters are to our state’s economy, environment and way of life,” Scott said in a statement. “I will always work to keep Florida’s shores pristine and protect our natural treasures for generations to come.”

A spokesman for California Governor Gavin Newsom said Trump officials had not formally shared the plan, but said “expensive and riskier offshore drilling would put our communities at risk and undermine the economic stability of our coastal economies”.

California has been a leader in restricting offshore oil drilling since the infamous 1969 Santa Barbara spill that helped launch the modern environmental movement. While there have been no new federal leases offered since the mid-1980s, drilling from existing platforms continues.

Newsom expressed support for greater offshore controls after a 2021 spill off Huntington Beach and has backed a congressional effort to ban new offshore drilling on the West Coast.

A Texas-based company, with support from the Trump administration, is seeking to restart production in waters off Santa Barbara damaged by a 2015 oil spill. The administration has hailed the plan by Houston-based Sable Offshore Corp as the kind of project Trump wants to increase US energy production as the federal government removes regulatory barriers.

The announcement comes as Governor Newsom attended the COP30 climate conference in Brazil.

“He [Trump] intentionally aligned that to the opening of COP,” Newsom said.

Even before it was released, the offshore drilling plan met strong opposition from Newsom, a Democrat who is eyeing a 2028 presidential run and has emerged as a leading Trump critic.

Newsom pronounced the idea “dead on arrival” in a social media post. The proposal is also likely to draw bipartisan opposition in Florida. Tourism and access to clean beaches are key parts of the economy in both states.

Democratic lawmakers, including California Senator Alex Padilla and Representative Jared Huffman, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, warned that opening vast coastlines to new offshore drilling would hurt coastal economies, jeopardise national security, ravage coastal ecosystems, and put the health and safety of millions of people at risk.

“With this draft plan, Donald Trump and his Administration are trying to destroy one of the most valuable, most protected coastlines in the world and hand it over to the fossil fuel industry,” Padilla and Huffman said in a joint statement.

The federal government has not allowed drilling in federal waters in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, which includes offshore Florida and part of offshore Alabama, since 1995, because of concerns about oil spills. California has some offshore oil rigs, but there has been no new leasing in federal waters since the mid-1980s.

Since taking office for a second time in January, Trump has systematically reversed former President Joe Biden’s focus on slowing climate change to pursue what the Republican calls US “energy dominance” in the global market.

Trump, who recently called climate change “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world,” created a National Energy Dominance Council and directed it to move quickly to drive up already record-high US energy production, particularly fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas.

Meanwhile, Trump’s administration has blocked renewable energy sources such as offshore wind and cancelled billions of dollars in grants that supported hundreds of clean energy projects across the country.