Politics

The killing of Sarah Beckstrom, a 20-year-old serving her country in the National Guard to help pay for college, is horrific.

Her fellow soldier, Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, remains in a fight for his life.

Their alleged attacker, Afghan national Rahmanullah Lakanwal, 29, is in custody and will likely face the federal death penalty.

It’s important that we stop for a moment and recognize the unacceptable terror of two people serving our country being gunned down in an apparently targeted attack just blocks from the White House a day before Thanksgiving. It’s also important we examine Lakanwal’s path to the United States to understand whether any red flags were missed.

But it’s equally important to stop pretending that Trump’s increasingly overt racism passes for sound immigration policy.

As infuriating and saddening as this crime is, it is not a remark on all immigrants. Yet, here he goes again.

“We don’t want those people,” he said Sunday night, speaking of refugees from Third World countries.

That was around the same time the official White House account posted a video of Trump reciting the civil rights song “The Snake” by Oscar Brown Jr.

“ ‘Oh shut up, silly woman,’ said that reptile with a grin,” Trump intoned over footage of immigration agents rounding up, you guessed it, brown people. “You knew damn well I was a snake before you brought me in.”

I mean, the Klan would blush at some of this stuff.

While we’ve seen it before, this time Trump’s attack on non-white immigrants seems like a move not to placate his MAGA voters but to marginalize them — an embrace of an increasingly powerful farther-right-than-MAGA contingent of his base that is open in its disdain for pluralism and equality.

Shortly after the tragedy in Washington, Trump vowed on social media to “remove anyone who is not a net asset to the United States, or is incapable of loving our Country.”

Please note that he completely dropped any charade of this being about violent criminals or even those who crossed the border illegally — the people MAGA (and many others) thought would be targeted in an immigration crackdown.

Instead, he seems to be cultivating support from younger, angrier Republican men who eschew traditional conservatism as weak and misguided. Sadly, there are a growing number of these small-tent conservatives who are open in their belief that America should be a white Christian nation governed by men.

The America First folks, led by Nick Fuentes, are the most high-profile of these types outside of the administration, but there are other groups, some affiliated and some openly hostile of one another, that are amassing power both within the Republican base and in its power structure. On the inside, one need look no further than the ranting of Stephen Miller for proof that racism is increasingly official Trump policy, stretching far beyond closing our borders or removing undocumented people.

Sound alarmist? Let’s let Trump finish.

He promised in a social media post a few days ago to “denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility, and deport any Foreign National who is a public charge, security risk, or non-compatible with Western Civilization. These goals will be pursued with the aim of achieving a major reduction in illegal and disruptive populations … Only REVERSE MIGRATION can fully cure this situation.”

Disruptive populations. Like U.S. citizens of Mexican origin? Indian Americans? Or maybe protesters? Or voters?

Before you hit the keyboard to tell me it’s just another Trump rant with no teeth, check out the official account of the Labor Department, which recently posted a picture of the Lincoln Memorial with the text (in a font associated with the Third Reich) that reads, “(t)he fight for Western Civilization has begun — and Americanism will Prevail.”

Or look at the Department of Homeland Security, which recently posted “Remigration now,” and has for months also been claiming we are in a battle for “Western civilization.”

That particular term, remigration, is used by far-right believers of the Great Replacement Theory for the idea that white-majority counties can only survive if they — peacefully or violently — remove non-white people.

“Give me your tired, your hungry, your blonde,” if you will. Keep your “shithole” residents.

In the lull of the holidays, with other issues on our minds, like how to pay for Christmas, many have felt a lessening of tension around this rogue administration. The Democrats seem to be gaining traction for the upcoming midterms, offering the hope of a Congress that isn’t supine.

The media have started referring to Trump as a “lame duck” on his way out, ignoring to the point of journalistic malpractice his groundwork to undermine or even rig the next election — whether the GOP candidate is a third-term Trump or a not-so-great-replacement like Vice President JD Vance.

But this is a moment of consequence, when the mask is off.

Funding is kicking in to supercharge the deportation machine to new levels. Literally billions of dollars will be devoted to rounding up and removing those here without proper papers, including people who have lived here for decades and done nothing but work hard and raise families.

That has left American immigrants, citizens or not, afraid. Our schools have lost students, our businesses are missing customers. We have pushed even legal immigrants into an underground, uncertain who or what is safe.

At the same time, the midterms are less than a year away, and the election deniers Trump has installed in key posts are already working to create systems that will likely make it harder for poor and marginalized Americans to vote. That involves curtailing mail-in ballots (leaving some to decide whether to take time off of work to vote) or imposing identification rules that could disenfranchise married women, foster kids, naturalized citizens and more.

This should be a moment for the nation to pay tribute to Beckstrom and pray for Wolfe. Profiles of Beckstrom describe her as a caring, public-spirited young woman who wanted to make a difference and serve her country. She never got the chance.

But it’s also a moment to be honest about what is happening. We have a president who is saying all brown and Black immigrants are a problem, even some who have earned citizenship.

It was never about the “worst of the worst,” but it is about being able to tell the difference between the snake and its victim.

Dec. 2 (UPI) — Voters in central Tennessee are heading to the polls Tuesday for a special election that could be a bellwether for how party control of the U.S. House of Representatives will shake out in next year’s midterm elections.

Those who live in the 7th Congressional District just west of Nashville will decide between former state Department of General Services Commissioner Matt Van Epps, a Republican, and state Rep. Aftyn Behn, a Democrat, in the election.

The special election was called in response to the resignation of Republican Rep. Mark Green, who was first elected in 2018.

In 2024, 60% of voters in the district voted for the re-election of President Donald Trump.

While the district has historically leaned Republican, redistricting in 2020 made the 7th District slightly less rural and could give Democrats the chance to whittle away at the Republican control of the U.S. House.

Former Vice President Al Gore, who represented Tennessee in the U.S. Senate, said he’s noticed a political shift in the district. He spoke Monday at a virtual rally for Behn.

“Having had the privilege of representing Tennessee in years past, I want to tell you that I have never seen the political tides shift as far and as fast as we’re seeing them move in this election,” he said, according to CNN.

Behn, 36, was elected to the Tennessee legislature’s 51st District in Davidson County in 2023 as part of a special election to replace the late Rep. Bill Beck. She won re-election in 2024.

Before that, she was an activist who pushed for affordable cost of living, Medicaid expansion and fought against hospital closures in rural areas, USA Today reported.

Endorsed by Trump, Van Epps, 42, was relatively unknown in the world of politics before receiving the backing of a billionaire-funded super PAC. He’s a combat veteran who served 10 years in the U.S. Army with deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq.

NPR reported the election has received more than $6.5 million in funding, including some $1.6 million coming from a pro-Trump super PAC.

MacArthur Park has come to symbolize some of Los Angeles’ most intractable issues.

Homeless people crowd the park and streets nearby. Drug dealers peddle fentanyl in public. Businesses struggle to stay afloat. The mayor and other city leaders have searched for answers.

Now, a City Council candidate is vowing to live in a trailer at the park if he is elected.

Raul Claros, a 45-year-old community organizer hoping to unseat Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, said he will use the trailer as his home and office, taking meetings there, until the park is “cleared out and cleaned up.”

“We need to do something out of the box,” Claros said. “MacArthur Park itself and the immediate area has now become a disaster zone, a multilayered crisis.”

Claros, who lives in Chinatown, acknowledged his plan is a publicity stunt but hopes the publicity will get results.

“We definitely do want the attention,” he said. “We want the attention of every department and resource.”

A spokesperson for Hernandez, whose district includes the park, shot down Claros’ plan.

“Our office remains focused on delivering results, not exploiting low-income neighborhoods for publicity stunts or misleading residents about how the city works,” spokesperson Naomi Villagomez Roochnik said.

Problems with drug dealing and drug use in and around the park worsened in recent years. Norm Langer, who owns the iconic Langers Delicatessen on the southeast end of the park, has said he might have to close, asserting that crime and homelessness are keeping customers away.

On Labor Day a dead man was pulled out of the park’s lake, and last year a man was stabbed to death nearby.

The city committed significant resources to the park, from increased foot patrols and street medicine teams to a plan to build a $2.3-million fence. Mayor Karen Bass said in March that conditions have improved, crediting the patrols and mental health outreach workers who help people experiencing drug overdoses.

“The results are beginning to show,” she said at the time.

Community organizer Raul Claros hopes to be elected to the City Council and promises change.

(Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times)

Claros, who was executive director of the American Red Cross Los Angeles Region, most recently founded a nonprofit called California Rising, which advocates for safer, cleaner neighborhoods and describes itself on Instagram as “questioning DSA policies” — a reference to the Democratic Socialists of America.

Claros said the city’s actions in MacArthur Park haven’t been enough, noting that the area has been dubbed “Skid Row West” by some.

“There’s drug addicts living in and around the park,” he said. “It’s a free-for-all for organized crime. There’s human trafficking and sex trafficking.”

He hopes that by living there, he would bring increased scrutiny and investment to the park. If he holds meetings there as a council member, he said, every city department head will have to come to the park to speak with him.

“If any department wants my vote for their budget, they will have a list of items that need to be fixed before they get any vote,” Claros wrote in an Instagram post.

Villagomez Roochnik said Hernandez brought cleaning teams, violence prevention workers and street medicine teams to the park. Overall, the council office has invested $27 million in the park and surrounding areas.

“Councilmembers can’t hold the entire city’s budget hostage over personal demands — the Charter doesn’t allow it, and ethically it would be unacceptable,” Villagomez Roochnik said.

Claros is one of eight candidates vying to unseat Hernandez to represent Council District 1, which includes Westlake, Koreatown, Lincoln Heights and more. Claros has raised the third-most money in the race, after Hernandez and Sylvia Robledo, who once served as a council aide in the district.

Claros is running on a public safety agenda. He wants to bring the Los Angeles Police Department up to 10,000 officers and supports an increase to the L.A. Fire Department’s budget.

He called for the LAPD to protect him while he lives at the park, which he said would bring additional officers to the area and make the park safer. He said he would use the city’s anti-camping laws to drive homeless people from the park and hopes to work with the district attorney to enforce a proposition passed in 2024 that authorized greater consequences for drug dealers whose sales of fentanyl result in a death.

Andrew Wolff, corresponding secretary of the MacArthur Park Neighborhood Council, said he supports Claros’ pledge to live at the park.

“We need as much attention as we can get,” Wolff said. “Right now, the park is X-rated, and we want the park to be G-rated.”

Outraged Santa Barbara residents jumped into action when a developer unveiled plans last year for a towering apartment complex within sight of the historic Old Mission.

They complained to city officials, wrote letters and formed a nonprofit to try and block the project. Still, the developer’s plans went forward.

Then something unusual happened.

Four hundred miles away in Sacramento, state lawmakers quietly tucked language into an obscure budget bill requiring an environmental impact study of the proposed development — which housing advocates allege was an attempt to block the project.

The legislation, Senate Bill 158, signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom, didn’t mention the Santa Barbara project by name. But the provision was so detailed and specific it couldn’t apply to any other development in the state.

The fallout was swift: The developer sued the state and a Santa Barbara lawmaker, the powerful new president of the state Senate, is under scrutiny over her role in the bill.

The current property located at the proposed location for the eight-story apartment tower.

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

The saga highlights the governor’s and state Legislature’s growing influence in local housing decisions, and the battle between cities and Sacramento to address California’s critical housing shortage.

In the face of California’s high cost of housing and rent, state leaders are increasingly passing new housing mandates that require cities and counties to accelerate the construction of new housing and ease the barriers impeding developers.

In this case, the law targeting the Santa Barbara development does the opposite by making it harder to build.

‘A horrendous nightmare’

The fight started last year after developers Craig and Stephanie Smith laid out ambitious plans for an eight-story housing project with at least 250 apartments at 505 East Los Olivos St.

The five-acre site is near the Old Mission Santa Barbara, which draws hundreds of thousands of tourists each year.

In Santa Barbara, a slow-growth haven where many apartment buildings are two stories, the Los Olivos project was perceived as a skyscraper. The mayor, Randy Rowse, called the proposal “a horrendous nightmare,” according to local media site Noozhawk.

But the developer had an advantage. California law requires cities and counties to develop plans for growth every eight years to address California’s increasing population. Jurisdictions are required to pinpoint areas where housing or density could be added.

If cities and counties fail to develop plans by each eight-year deadline, a provision kicks in called “builder’s remedy.”

It allows developers to bypass local zoning restrictions and build bigger, denser projects as long as low or moderate-income units are included.

Santa Barbara was still working with the state on its housing plan when the deadline passed in February 2023. The plan was complete by December of that year, but didn’t become official until the state certified it in February 2024.

Opponents of the proposed Santa Barbara development, clockwise from bottom left: Cheri Rae, Brian Miller, Evan Minogue, Tom Meaney, Fred Sweeney and Steve Forsell.

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

A month prior, in January, the developers submitted their plans. And since they included 54 low-income units, the city couldn’t outright deny the project.

“The developers were playing chess while the city was playing checkers,” said Evan Minogue, a Santa Barbara resident opposed to the development.

He said older generations in California resisted change, leaving the state to come in with “heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all policies to force cities to do something about housing.”

Santa Barbara, a wealthy city that attracts celebrities, bohemian artist-types and environmental activists, has a long history of fighting to keep its small-town feel.

In 1975, the City Council adopted a plan to limit development, along with water consumption and traffic, and keep a cap on the city’s population at 85,000. In the late ‘90s, actor Michael Douglas — an alum of UC Santa Barbara — donated money to preserve the city’s largest stretch of coastal land.

Hemmed in by the Santa Ynez Mountains, the city is dominated by low-slung buildings and single-family homes. The median home value is $1.8 million, according to Zillow. A city report last year detailed the need for 8,000 more units, primarily for low-income households, over the coming years.

Stephanie and Craig Smith, the developers of the project at 505 East Los Olivos Street.

(Ashley Gutierrez)

Assemblymember Gregg Hart, whose district includes Santa Barbara, supports the language in the budget bill requiring the environmental review. He doesn’t want to see the proposed development tower over the Old Mission and blames the builder’s remedy law for its introduction.

“It’s a brilliant illustration of how broken the ‘builder’s remedy’ system is,” said Hart. “Proposing projects like this undermines support for building density in Santa Barbara.”

Similar pushback has been seen in Santa Monica, Huntington Beach and other small cities as developers scramble to use the builder’s remedy law. A notable example recently played out in La Cañada Flintridge, where developers pushed through a mixed-use project with 80 units on a 1.29-acre lot despite fierce opposition from the city.

Still, the controversial law doesn’t exempt developments from review under the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA, the state’s landmark policy requiring a study of the project’s effects on traffic, air quality and more.

The developers behind the Los Olivos Street project sought to avoid the environmental review, however, because of a new state law that allows many urban infill projects to avoid such requirements. Assembly Bill 130, based on legislation introduced by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), was signed into law by Newsom in June.

When the Los Olivos developers asked city officials about using AB 130 for their project, a Santa Barbara community developer director told them in July 2025 that the CEQA review was necessary. AB 130 doesn’t apply if the project is planned near a creek and wetland habitat, or other environmentally sensitive area, the director wrote.

Months later, the state Legislature passed its budget bill requiring the review.

Santa Barbara residents who oppose the project said they didn’t ask for the bill.

But if the review finds that traffic from the development would overwhelm fire evacuation routes, for instance, they may have an easier time fighting the project.

“We don’t want to come off as NIMBYs,” resident Fred Sweeney, who opposes the project, said, referring to the phrase “not in my backyard.” Sweeney, an architect, and others started the nonprofit Smart Action for Growth and Equity to highlight the Los Olivos project and a second one planned by the same developer.

Standing near the project site on a recent day, Sweeney pointed as cars lined up along the main road. It wasn’t yet rush hour, but traffic was already building.

A ‘really strange’ bill

Buried deep in Senate Bill 158, the bill passed by state lawmakers targeting the Los Olivos project, is a mention of the state law around infill urban housing developments. Senate Bill 158 clarified that certain developments should not be exempt from this law.

Developments in “a city with more than 85,000 but fewer than 95,000 people, and within a county of between 440,00 and 455,000 people,” and which are also near a historical landmark, regulatory floodway and watershed, are not exempt, the bill stated.

According to the 2020 census, Santa Barbara has a population of 88,768. Santa Barbara County has a population of 448,229. And the project sits near both a creek and the Santa Barbara Mission.

The controversial development fit the bill.

Monique Limón is president pro tem of the California state Senate.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

A representative for Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón told CalMatters that the senator was involved in crafting that exemption language.

During a tour of an avocado farm in Ventura last month, Limón declined to comment on her role. She cited the lawsuit and directed questions to Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office.

Limón, who was born and raised in Santa Barbara, confirmed that she did talk to Sweeney — who started the nonprofit to fight the development — about opposition to the development.

The Los Olivos project had “a lot of community involvement and participation,” she said. “In terms of feedback, what I understand, reading the articles, there are over 400 people that have weighed in on it … it’s a very public project.”

Limón also defended her housing record.

“Every piece of legislation I author or review, I do so based on the needs of our state but also with the lens of the community I represent — whether that is housing, education, environmental protections or any other issues that come across my desk,” Limón said.

The developers filed a lawsuit against the city and state in October, claiming that SB 158 targets one specific project: theirs. As such, it would be illegal under federal law, which bans “special legislation” that targets a single person or property.

The home currently located at the proposed development site.

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

The suit claims that Limón promoted and ushered the bill through the state Senate, argues that it should be overturned and questions the required environmental review, which would likely add years to its timeline and millions to its budget.

Stephanie Smith, one of the developers, told The Times that the bill was born of the “protests of wealthy homeowners, many of whom cosplay as housing advocates until the proposed housing is in their neighborhood.”

“As a former homeless student who worked full time and lived in my car, I know what it means to struggle to afford housing. Living without security or dignity gave me a foundational belief that housing is a nonnegotiable basic human right,” Smith said.

Public policy advocates and experts expressed concern about state lawmakers using their power to meddle with local housing projects, especially when carving out exemptions from laws they’ve imposed on everyone else in the state.

“It’s hard to ignore when legislation is drafted in a narrowly tailored way — especially when such language appears late in the process with little public input,” said Sean McMorris of good government group California Common Cause. “Bills developed in this manner risk fostering public cynicism about the legislative process and the motivations behind narrowly focused policymaking.”

UC Davis School of Law professor Chris Elmendorf, who specializes in housing policy, called the bill’s specific language “really strange” and questioned whether it would survive a legal challenge.

He expects to see more pleadings for exemptions from state housing laws.

“Local groups that don’t want the project are going to the legislature to get the relief that, in a previous era, they would have gotten from their city council,” Elmendorf said.

UC Santa Barbara student Enri Lala is the founder and president of a student housing group. He said the bill goes against a recent pro-housing movement in the area.

“It’s certainly out of the ordinary,” said Lala. “This is not the kind of move that we want to see repeated in the future.”

Mandy Pifer, a therapist, was with a client in Los Angeles on Dec. 2, 2015, when she received a text about a mass shooting in San Bernardino. Her fiance, Shannon Johnson, was a restaurant inspector there.

She didn’t panic until, driving home, she heard on the radio that the victims were employees of the desert city’s environmental health department. She grabbed her phone and dialed Shannon’s number over and over, but it kept going straight to voicemail. That’s when, she said, she knew, “in my bones,” he was gone.

She was right. Earlier that morning, the man she loved and planned to marry used his body to shield a 27-year-old co-worker in what would become the deadliest terror attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. His last words, as he held his terrified colleague close, were, “I got you.”

Johnson’s death “changed the whole trajectory of my life,” Pifer said through tears in a recent interview. “Everything now is before or after ‘the event.’”

Tuesday marks the 10th year since restaurant inspector Syed Rizwan Farook, a U.S. citizen, and his Pakistan-born wife, Tashfeen Malik, walked into his office holiday party with military-style assault rifles and shot more than 30 people, killing 14.

The unspeakable violence, apparently inspired by jihadist propaganda online, thrust the often-overlooked, and financially bankrupt, city of San Bernardino into the global spotlight.

1

2

3

1. Police and emergency vehicles line Waterman Avenue in front of the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, scene of a mass shooting on Dec. 2, 2015. (Luis Sinco/Los Angeles Times) 2. Then-San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan speaks during a press conference after a mass shooting at the Inland Regional Center on Dec. 2, 2015. (Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times) 3. San Bernardino County sheriff‘s deputies draw guns and crouch behind a minivan on Richardson Street during a search for the suspects involved in the mass shooting. (Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

The U.S. has suffered deadlier shootings since San Bernardino — including the 2016 massacre at Pulse, an LGBTQ+ nightclub in Orlando, Fla., in which another American inspired by online terrorist propaganda killed 49 — but the December 2015 California attack had the most sweeping impact on American politics, and ushered in the nation’s current era of divisive immigration enforcement.

Less than a week after the killings, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump used the tragedy to call for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”

His proposed “Muslim ban” was widely criticized, including from members of his own party. But Trump stood by his words, saying on “Good Morning America” that “we are now at war.”

That proposal was so popular with Republican voters, it helped propel Trump to the party’s nomination the following summer and helped win him the election in November 2016. A week after taking the oath of office in January 2017, Trump imposed a ban on people traveling from seven majority Muslim countries, but not Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, where Malik had lived.

Trump’s stance was hardened by last week’s attack on two National Guard soldiers in Washington, D.C. An Afghan national — who was granted asylum in the United States after working with the CIA in his native country — has been charged with first-degree murder in the shooting, which killed one of the soldiers and left the other in critical condition.

The president said he wants to “permanently pause migration” from poorer nations and expel millions of migrants from the United States by revoking their legal status.

A painful day for survivors and family members

The Curtain of Courage memorial at the San Bernardino County Government Center honors the 14 people slain in the Dec. 2, 2015, terrorist attack at the Inland Regional Center.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

At 10:59 that December morning, San Bernardino police dispatchers received their first report of a “possible active shooter” at the Inland Regional Center. Farook and Malik had walked into the Christmas party and opened fire, killing and wounding dozens of his co-workers.

They escaped out a side door and died hours later in a spectacular gunfight with police on a busy roadside less than two miles away.

A decade later, survivors, family members, police and terrorism experts are still sorting through the wreckage the couple left behind. They are trying to draw useful lessons and to put shattered lives, and a shattered community, back together.

For some residents who lost loved ones, this day is so painful they have told county officials they’d prefer if there were no public memorial each year.

For homeland security analysts, the San Bernardino attack was a wake-up call. At the time, they were still intensely focused on preventing terrorists trained in foreign lands from infiltrating America’s porous borders — as the 9/11 hijackers had. Now they were confronted with the grave threat that American citizens were being radicalized online.

Members of the Arias family — Junior, 2, and Jenesis, 5 — say a prayer with their parents, Robert and Sierra, as the family pay their respects on Dec. 3, 2015, to victims of the San Bernardino attack.

(Marcus Yam / Los Angeles Times)

A month earlier, terrorists trained by Islamic State in Syria had killed 130 people in a string of suicide bombings and a mass shooting in the center of Paris. That set security forces around the world on high alert for military-age young men who had recently traveled to the war-torn Middle East nation.

But Farook was an American citizen born in Chicago and raised in Riverside. Malik was born in Pakistan and had lived most of her life in Saudi Arabia. Like many other couples, they met online and she emigrated to the U.S. on a fiancee visa in July 2014. They married and, at the time of the attack, had a 6-month-old baby girl.

Understandably, they were not on any security force’s radar and had no apparent links to international terror networks — until Malik pledged allegiance to the ISIS leader on Facebook shortly before the attack.

Investigators later discovered that the two had discussed jihad and martyrdom in private online chats for at least two years before that fateful day, and that they had drawn inspiration from Islamic State’s robust social media, which included videos depicting a Jordanian pilot being burned to death inside a locked cage and the beheadings of two American journalists. The group had also posted videos showing children horribly maimed by U.S. airstrikes in the Middle East, exhorting sympathizers around the world to rise up and take revenge.

“That really got the FBI’s attention and galvanized them to start looking at the propaganda ISIS was putting out” on YouTube and through other online platforms, said Robert Pape, a professor who studies terrorism and other security threats at the University of Chicago.

None of the family members of San Bernardino shooting victims interviewed for this story supported the ban on people traveling from Muslim countries.

“I disagreed with it completely,” said Renee Wetzel, who was 32 years old when her husband, Mike, was killed in the attack, leaving her to raise their six kids without him.

Wetzel said she was shocked that the entire populations of those countries — amounting to millions of people — could be banned from traveling to America because of an evil act committed by two individuals, one of whom was born and raised in the U.S. and another who didn’t come from any of the countries on the list.

“That just blows my mind,” Wetzel said. For a lot of people who immigrate, America is a “last resort,” she said. “When did we stop caring about other people?”

In Muslim communities, alarm and dread

Muslims including Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Los Angeles, center, pray at Dar Al Uloom Al-Islamiyah of America, a mosque in San Bernardino, on Nov. 26, 2025.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

For many Muslims in and around San Bernardino, the attack provoked fears of violent backlash. In response, Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Los Angeles, organized a news conference within hours. He brought Farook’s brother-in-law, Farhan Khan, who stood before TV cameras to denounce the violence and offer condolences to the victims.

Still, Farook’s family and the broader community were so frightened that during a visit to Khan’s house shortly after the attack, Ayloush heard children crying. He was stunned to learn the family was hungry because they were too scared to leave the house and buy groceries.

Community members listen to speakers at a candlelight vigil at San Manuel Stadium in San Bernardino on Dec. 3, 2015, honoring the victims of the mass shooting at the Inland Regional Center.

(Marcus Yam / Los Angeles Times)

Ayloush bought some for them, adding: “It broke my heart because no one there in that house was guilty of anything.”

Burying the shooters became a separate ordeal. Local cemeteries refused to take the bodies because they had received threats, said Ayloush, who spent several days trying to find a place that would take them.

In San Bernardino, there “were people camping outside the mortuary,” Ayloush said, so the bodies had to be spirited out a back exit.

The name of the out-of-town cemetery that eventually accepted them, Ayloush said, was made public, and it was vandalized just after the attackers were buried. Still, because of community efforts, the region largely avoided “this becoming an act that pitted people against each other on the basis of religion or nationality.”

1

2

3

4

1. Muslims pray at Dar Al Uloom Al-Islamiyah of America, a mosque in San Bernardino. (Christina House/Los Angeles Times) 2. Religious books inside the mosque. (Christina House/Los Angeles Times) 3. Dr. Tariq Jamil, a pulmonary specialist in San Bernardino, puts his shoes back on after prayer at Dar Al Uloom Al-Islamiyah of America. (Christina House/Los Angeles Times) 4. Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Los Angeles, is photographed at Dar Al Uloom Al-Islamiyah of America. (Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

For the county’s Division of Environmental Health Services, the immediate challenge was helping surviving employees cope with their trauma. When the shooting occurred, employees had gathered for a training session and holiday celebration in a conference room at the Inland Regional Center.

Several survivors had trouble returning to their workspace on the second floor of the San Bernardino County Government Center.

“We couldn’t let people come back to their cubicles because there were so many people missing,” said San Bernardino County Assessor Josie Gonzales, who was a county supervisor at the time.

The workers were temporarily moved as their floor was completely remodeled. Some who were present that day still work for the county, she said. Others never came back to work. Some moved away.

Outside the San Bernardino County Government Center, there’s now a Curtain of Courage — 14 bronze alcoves, each curved like a protective wall and dedicated to one of the victims. It was completed and unveiled in 2022.

Textbook response by law enforcement

Det. Shaun Sandoval is photographed at the San Bernardino Police Department on Nov. 18, 2025. Sandoval was one of the first police officers to enter the Inland Regional Center on Dec. 2, 2015.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

For law enforcement, the quick and decisive response to secure the scene — so the surviving victims could begin receiving aid — became a global model for how to handle mass shootings. The need for prompt confrontation became painfully obvious years later when a Texas police department failed to follow San Bernardino’s example during the Uvalde school shooting, with tragic results.

Shaun Sandoval, a patrol officer with the San Bernardino Police Department, was one of the first to arrive. The scene was pure chaos: thick smoke from gunpowder still hanging in the air, water cascading from ruptured pipes in the ceiling, alarms blaring, strobe lights flashing.

But none of that compared to the sight of so many people on the ground, “in agony and pain, screaming for help,” Sandoval recalled.

Mike Madden, now retired from the San Bernardino Police Department, is photographed in Beaumont, Calif. He was one of the first rescuers to enter the Inland Regional Center after the shooting on Dec. 2, 2015. .

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

As three other officers arrived, they realized how ill-equipped they were: None of them had a rifle, one had no body armor. If the shooters were inside waiting for them, they’d be hopelessly outgunned. But if they didn’t go in, people on the ground were going to bleed to death.

So they drew their pistols (Sandoval also had a shotgun), gathered in a defensive diamond formation, and started inching their way past the outstretched, pleading arms of injured people, focused solely on finding and confronting the shooters.

“I remember the victims reaching out, I remember people asking for help and crying,” Sandoval said. “Unfortunately, even after all this time, those sounds are not forgotten.”

It took only a few minutes — which felt like “eternity,” Sandoval said — to determine the shooters had fled through a separate exit. That meant other police and paramedics who were waiting outside could rush in and start saving lives.

Jarrod Burguan, former San Bernardino police chief, is photographed in La Quinta on Nov. 22, 2025. Burguan led the Police Department during the attack 10 years ago.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Since then, the actions of those four officers have become a textbook example of how to respond, taught in law enforcement training seminars around the world. “I think the old way of standing outside and waiting forever for more and more people to come before you go in, those days are long gone,” Sandoval said.

That lesson was brutally reinforced in Uvalde, Texas, in 2022, when a lone gunman entered an elementary school and shot 19 children and two teachers. Some of the injured died while police — who had plenty of armor and high-powered rifles — waited more than an hour to enter the classroom and confront the shooter.

Retired San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan said the heroism of his officers that day provided a recruiting boost to the beleaguered department, which had lost more than a third of its members due to municipal bankruptcy.

“In a strange way, there was a silver lining for the psyche of the organization,” Burguan said. “It restored a little bit of pride.”

“Thought we were going to be together forever”

A memorial bench in San Bernardino honors those who lost their lives or had lives changed in the terrorist attack.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

For some victims’ family members, it provided a purpose.

Tina Meins, whose father, Damian, who was shot five times and died at the foot of the party’s Christmas tree, vowed to make something good come of the tragedy.

“So I quit my job, I went and I got a public policy degree from Georgetown,” she said in a recent interview.

She’s now a senior program manager at Everytown for Gun Safety, a national advocacy group that lobbies for gun control. The work is rewarding, she said, but always tinged with regret.

“Every victory is a little bittersweet,” Meins said, because she can’t share it with her dad. “He’s the person you want to tell. And every challenge is a little harder because he’s not around.”

Like everyone else interviewed for this story, Meins said she has noticed that interest in the San Bernardino shooting has waned significantly over the last decade.

“It’s possible people are just so desensitized because mass acts of violence are commonplace, ubiquitous,” Meins said.

With the roar of gunfire long faded, and the urgent call to action colliding with the slow grind of politics as usual, what’s left for most survivors is a profound sense of loss, an emptiness that nothing quite fills.

“We thought we were going to be together forever,” Wetzel said last month. But her kids, who ranged from 1 year old to 14 at the time of the shooting, have now spent a decade passing milestones — birthdays, father-daughter dances, driving tests — without their dad at their side.

But it’s the little, nagging empty spaces that plague her most.

Every night when Mike came home, she would meet him at the door, give him a hug and a kiss, and then hand off the baby, Wetzel said with a chuckle. For years after the shooting, just before six p.m., she could still feel the relief building — “my body would just, like, expect him to come walking in” — only to have it snatched away when the door didn’t open.

A plaque with the names of the 14 people killed in the Dec. 2, 2015, attack at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino. The victims are honored along with survivors and first responders in the Curtain of Courage memorial.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

The 27-year-old colleague whom Shannon Johnson saved — who declined to be interviewed — has gone on with her life. She and her husband had their first child not long after the shooting, they now have a second, and they still live in the area near her parents and sisters, according to a friend.

For Johnson’s fiancee, Mandy Pifer, time stood still for a while. She struggled with depression and addiction, she said, adding, “I just became kind of a blob of a person. … I just didn’t care.”

It took most of the decade to pull out of that hole, she said, to start traveling and enjoying life again. But she still lives in the same apartment with the elderly cat she and Shannon adopted before he died.

She remembers him whenever she strokes the cat, especially if she’s wearing short sleeves, exposing the small black letters tattooed on her forearm: “I got you.”

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro told supporters at a rally in Caracas he wants “peace with sovereignty”, amid increasing pressure over potential US military action against Venezuela.

Salman Shahid travels frequently between Srinagar, the biggest city in Indian-administered Kashmir, and New Delhi. He runs Rise, a private coaching centre for students aspiring to join the Indian Institutes of Technology – the country’s premier engineering schools – in Srinagar, but his family is based in New Delhi.

Flying helps him save time. But increasingly, he just cannot afford it.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, Shahid says, a one-way flight from Srinagar to New Delhi would cost him about 3,300 rupees ($37.20) on average. “Now, the same ticket is over 5,000 rupees ($56), and that, too, with very limited time options,” he points out.

This 50 percent surge in airfare has significantly affected his travel routine. “I don’t travel that frequently now,” he says. “Earlier, I would make at least four round-trips a month. Now, it’s come down to just two.”

He recalls once booking a ticket for just 1,700 rupees ($19) on Vistara, a domestic airliner, during a sale in 2019. “That kind of pricing now feels like a dream,” he says, adding that he struggles to understand how airfare has escalated so sharply in such a short period.

He is not alone.

According to a study published last November by Airports Council International (ACI), a global trade association representing more than 2,000 airports in more than 180 countries, India saw a 43 percent rise in domestic airfares in the first half of 2024, compared with 2019, the second-highest in the Asia Pacific and West Asia regions after Vietnam.

International fares also rose by 16 percent. India was third in this category. A study representing 617 airports in the Asia Pacific and West Asia regions, conducted by ACI in partnership with Flare Aviation Consulting, a management consulting boutique specialised in the aviation and airports sector, attributes this surge to high demand, limited competition on some routes, and a 38 percent spike in aviation turbine fuel (ATF) costs since 2019.

Prices rose from 68,050 rupees ($759) per kilolitre in cities like Delhi in January 2019 to 93,766 rupees ($1,046) per kilolitre in October 2025. Airlines are also recovering pandemic-era losses, further pushing fares up.

And even though there is no comprehensive study capturing fare trends in 2025, yet, experts say prices have continued to rise throughout the year.

“Despite the huge surge already, airfares aren’t coming down and are only going up,” said Vandana Singh, the chairperson of the Aviation Cargo Federation of Aviation Industry in India (FAII), a government-recognised body that promotes India’s aviation sector.

“The relentless increase in airfare does not reflect well on the accessibility of aviation in India,” Singh added, cautioning that the middle and economically weaker sections of society may soon find themselves excluded from the air travel landscape altogether.

‘Hollow catchphrase’

In October 2016, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched what his government has called the UDAN scheme – “Udan” means “flight” in Hindi, but the acronym stands for Ude Desh ka Aam Nagrik (Let the Common Citizen Fly). The stated aim of the scheme was to dramatically expand India’s aviation infrastructure, and open up dozens of new routes to make air travel accessible to lower-income Indians and people in smaller towns and cities.

While flagging off the first flight under the scheme in April 2017, Modi said, “I want to see people who wear hawai chappals [flip-flops] flying in a hawai jahaaz [aeroplane].”

His comments effectively became a slogan for the campaign, touted as the government’s bid to make flying affordable and accessible for millions of people from small-town India, many of whom cannot even afford shoes.

But that slogan now carries a tinge of irony, Singh said.

“With fares escalating consistently over the past few years, this inspiring slogan now risks becoming a hollow catchphrase rather than a lived reality.”

Under the Modi government, India has indeed witnessed a rapid expansion in the number of cities and towns connected by air, with airports more than doubling from 74 in 2014, when Modi came to power, to 157 in 2024.

But the numbers mask a deeper crisis that afflicts Indian aviation, experts say. Because the number of flights and routes has gone up, the total volume of travellers in India has remained high, even if soaring prices mean that many individual passengers are reducing air travel.

The country is the world’s third-largest domestic aviation market, and witnessed a 15 percent increase in air passengers, year-on-year, in the 2024 financial year, according to government figures.

Still, signs of turbulence are visible, even in the data. Domestic air traffic dipped to 12.6 million passengers in July 2025, compared with 13.1 million in June 2025. The numbers recovered in August to 13.2 million, but then dipped again in September (12.6 million), before rising in October to 14.3 million passengers.

Rohit Kumar, an aviation economist and a faculty member at Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University, said that while passenger numbers have not fallen, “the rise in fares has quietly pushed the lower and lower-middle classes out of the skies”. New airports, more routes, and upper-middle-class travellers, who value time over cost, are continuing to keep total passenger numbers up.

Kumar added that the remote working culture that many technology and service-driven industries in India have continued to embrace since the pandemic has allowed employees to travel more frequently than before. This has boosted occasional air travel among higher-income professionals, he said.

However, despite year-on-year growth, the sector remains deeply unequal. India’s aviation sector, Kumar cautioned, is being carried by a small, affluent section, while the vast majority – emerging flyers that the UDAN scheme was meant to serve – are increasingly being left behind.

Singh of the FAII was even more blunt.

“The very people the [Modi] slogan referred to, those who wear chappals, are now being priced out of the skies,” she said.

‘Monopolistic trends’

More routes are not the only factor allowing airlines to keep raising fares, even if they are pricing out many passengers. They are also helped by shrinking competition.

In recent years, several major airlines have shut down, while others have merged after acquisitions.

Go First, which once held more than 10 percent of India’s domestic and international market, with 52 aircraft, ceased operations in May 2023 after filing for bankruptcy. Jet Airways, with a 21 percent market share and 124 aircraft at its 2016 peak, halted operations in 2019.

SpiceJet teetered on the edge of insolvency, especially between 2022 and 2024, due to mounting debt, legal issues, and grounded aircraft. In July 2022, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), India’s aviation regulator, cut SpiceJet operations by 50 percent. The DGCA cited “poor internal safety oversight and inadequate maintenance actions”. SpiceJet also faced significant delays, with a reported on-time performance (OTP) of 54.8 percent in January 2025, making it the least punctual airline among major carriers at the time.

Defaults on lease payments also led to aircraft repossessions, shrinking SpiceJet’s fleet from 118 in 2019 to just 28 operational planes by January 2025.

“The back-to-back shutdown of airlines in India severely impacted air travel, paving the way for monopolistic trends,” said Singh. With fewer players in the skies, dominant airlines can dictate prices and raise them at their discretion, she added.

In another major shake-up, Air India, India’s only public sector airline, was officially privatised in January 2022, when the Tata Group took over full ownership.

Following this, Vistara, an airline already jointly owned by Tata and Singapore Airlines, was merged with Air India in November 2024. The merger raised concerns and faced strong opposition from critics, including trade unions and opposition parties, who feared that the consolidation of Air India, Vistara, and AirAsia India – another Tata Group subsidiary also merged with the other two – would lead to an aviation oligopoly, reducing competition and consumer choice in the Indian market.

Zuhaib Rashid, an economics and research associate at the Isaac Centre for Public Policy, New Delhi, said the merger handed over control of India’s skies to just two private players, posing a serious threat to competition.

The only other major aviation player in India today is Indigo, which has 61 percent market share. Together, IndiGo and Air India now control 91 percent of India’s airline market.

Rashid argued that, had the government retained a stake in Air India, it could have ensured fare regulation. “Fully privatising airlines has reduced government control over pricing, and has allowed private players to dominate in a country where air travel remains a luxury,” he added.

Their dominance of the market also allows Air India and Indigo to jack up prices dramatically  during peak travel seasons or emergencies, tour operators and experts say, citing two recent examples.

Sajad Ismail Sofi, a Srinagar-based air travel agent, pointed to the aftermath of the deadly April attack on tourists in Pahalgam, a popular resort town in Indian-administered Kashmir, in which 26 civilians were killed. As tourists in other parts of Kashmir scrambled to leave the region, one-way ticket prices from Srinagar to other parts of India skyrocketed from 5,000 rupees ($56) to nearly 12,000 rupees ($135).

After airlines faced major criticism and accusations of profiteering from a national crisis, prices came down.

Earlier in the year, Singh from the FAII recalled, one-way airfares from India’s financial capital, Mumbai, to the temple town of Prayagraj soared to 50,000 rupees ($564) – more expensive than flights to Paris – during the Mahakumbh Mela, one of Hinduism’s most sacred events in which devotees take dips in the Ganga river. The government eventually stepped in to pressure airlines to curb prices. However, Singh said that most pilgrims had already bought their tickets by then.

Al Jazeera has sought responses from Indigo and Air India to the criticism and allegations of using their market dominance to charge exorbitant rates. Neither airline has responded.

Higher taxes adding to the burden

Experts point out that airlines alone are not responsible for the rising fares. India’s high aviation taxes are a key factor too.

The country imposes the highest taxes on aviation turbine fuel (ATF) in Asia, which account for 45 percent of air ticket prices. By mid-2024, jet fuel prices in cities like Delhi and Mumbai were nearly 60 percent higher than in global hubs like Dubai, Singapore, and Kuala Lumpur, largely due to value-added taxes (VAT), central excise duties and additional cesses.

Passengers are also charged, as part of their tickets, a user development fee, ranging from 150 rupees ($1.7) to 400 rupees ($4.5) depending on the airport; a passenger service fee of about 150 rupees ($1.7); an aviation security fee of 200 rupees ($2.3) per passenger; a terminal fee of 100 rupees ($1.2); and a regional connectivity charge between 50 rupees ($0.6) and 100 rupees ($1.2) per passenger. Each of these amounts is small, but together, they add up. And they do not go to the airline, but to the airport or the government.

In June, the International Air Transport Association (IATA), which represents more than 350 airlines globally, called for greater clarity in India’s taxation system, arguing that it was too complex.

Amjad Ali, a travel operator from New Delhi, said he had been in the air ticketing business since 2005, and had never witnessed a sharp rise in airfares until 2020. “Fares used to increase gradually, but since 2020, they have shot up rapidly,” he said.

Ali usually books tickets on routes like Delhi–Mumbai, Delhi–Patna, and Delhi–Purnea. Patna and Purnea are cities in the eastern Indian state of Bihar.

He said that new airports, such as Purnea, have brought in more passengers due to the introduction of new routes. Before the pandemic, a Mumbai–Delhi ticket, booked well in advance, used to cost about 3,800 rupees ($43), but now, it is hard to find one below 6,000 rupees ($68) for the same journey.

Meanwhile, airlines have also started cutting discounts they used to offer to some sections of flyers. Previously, Air India offered a 50 percent concession on the base fare for domestic student travel, but after privatisation, this was reduced to only 10 percent.

The result, Ali said, is a noticeable decline in student travellers. “We rarely see students flying these days,” he said.

Ultimately, Singh from the FAII said, the industry was shooting itself in the foot by making flying unaffordable for millions of Indians.

“If we want air travel to become truly accessible to a larger section of the population, particularly those with limited financial means, the government and aviation stakeholders must work towards reducing these taxes and surcharges,” she said.

Until then, a plane ride will remain a flight of fancy for most of India’s 1.4 billion people.

Dec. 1 (UPI) — Multiple bomb threats were made Monday morning against the offices of New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader said, as threats of violence targeting U.S. lawmakers increase.

“This morning, I was informed by New York law enforcement of multiple bomb threats made against my offices in Rochester, Binghamton and Long Island,” Schumer said in a Senate floor speech.

The threats against his offices were made by email. The subject line read “MAGA,” the acronym for the Make America Great Again movement, founded by President Donald Trump. According to Schumer, the threats included the unfounded claim that the 2020 election, which Trump lost to former President Joe Biden, was rigged.

Local and federal law enforcement responded “immediately,” Schumer said, and his offices were being swept as he spoke.

The investigation is ongoing, he said.

“Everyone, thank God, is safe,” he said, while expressing gratitude to federal and local law enforcement.

“As I have said many times, these kinds of violent threats have absolutely no place in our political system. No one — no public servant, no staffer, no constituent, no citizen — should ever be targeted for simply doing their job.”

The threats were made amid heightened political tensions in the United States, where there have been several attacks on high-profile leaders in recent years.

In 2022, David DePape broke into the home of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, and bludgeoned her husband, Paul Pelosi, with a hammer.

Trump, a Republican, survived two assassination attempts, including one that resulted in a bullet wound to his ear, in 2024.

This year, the residence of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, was damaged in an arson attack in April; two Democratic state representatives for Minnesota were shot in June, one fatally; and in September, well-known conservative activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated.

“The bomb threats directed at Sen. Schumer’s offices are reprehensible,” Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., said in a statement.

“Disagreement is part of democracy. Violence and intimidation are not. This is not a Republican or Democratic problem. It is everyone’s problem and both parties must stop it.”

Threatening emails say ‘2020 election was rigged’, echoing Trump’s false claims about the vote.

The top Democrat in the United States Senate, Chuck Schumer, has said that three of his New York state offices were targeted with emailed bomb threats alleging the “2020 election was rigged”.

In a statement on social media, Schumer said that local law enforcement on Monday received bomb threats referencing his offices in Rochester, Binghamton and Long Island with the email subject line “MAGA”.

“Local and federal law enforcement responded immediately and are conducting full security sweeps,” Schumer said on X.

“Everyone is safe, and I am grateful for their quick and professional response to ensure these offices remain safe and secure for all New Yorkers.”

A law enforcement source confirmed to the Associated Press news agency that police in Suffolk County on Long Island responded to Schumer’s area office, but could not confirm the details of the threat. The person requested anonymity due to the ongoing investigation.

US Capitol Police declined to comment, saying it does not discuss member security for safety reasons.

Schumer condemned political violence, which has surged in recent years in the US, saying that “these kinds of violent threats have absolutely no place in our political system”.

“No one—no public servant, no staff member, no constituent, no citizen—should ever be targeted for simply doing their job,” he said in the statement.

US President Donald Trump lost the 2020 election to former President Joe Biden, but has falsely maintained since then that the vote was “rigged” or “stolen”. The claim, which is not backed by evidence, was a key message of Trump’s successful 2024 presidential run.

Courts across the country have dismissed or ruled against the Trump campaign and its allies in dozens of lawsuits. The 2020 election results were certified by election officials in all 50 states.

New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani condemned the threats at a news conference during an event in support of Starbucks workers.

Although none of the threats impacted offices in New York City, Mamdani said that a country where political violence is the norm “is one that we should never accept”.

“That is incumbent on all of us to be fighting for that future across this country, no matter party,” Mamdani added.

WASHINGTON — On its surface, nothing could be more absurd. No matter how much money a highly paid corporate executive makes, his federal income tax rate will never exceed 28%. Meanwhile, a successful university professor with lower earnings of $100,000 a year must pay an extra $330 in taxes for every additional $1,000 he makes on the lecture circuit.

The apparent unfairness of this “bubble” in the tax code, under which families with taxable income between roughly $75,000 and $210,000 face a 33% tax rate on a portion of their income while those earning more pay a flat 28% but lose some of their basic deductions, has become a staple of Democratic political rhetoric in recent years.

“The highest-income people should be paying the highest tax rate, and not the people who are a step below,” said House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.). “In correcting that, we are not creating a new tax.”

Congress created the confusing bubble in the tax code as part of the sweeping 1986 tax revision. It established a “phantom” tax rate of 33% to enable the government to phase out certain tax benefits for the wealthy while keeping the official top income tax rate as low as possible.

Complaints about the disparity get an especially receptive hearing among congressional lawmakers, whose own salaries–and opportunities for lecture fees and other honorariums–make them all but certain victims of the bubble.

In Washington, though, what’s on the surface doesn’t always reflect reality. Democrats have a good case that the tax system has become less progressive in the last decade–but it’s not because of the bubble.

On the contrary, tax experts explain, the bubble was designed to prevent the wealthy from taking advantage of tax benefits available to everyone else, and it actually helps make the current system more taxing for the rich, not less.

“Many people believe–incorrectly–that taxpayers subject to the 33% rate are being treated unfairly compared to higher-income taxpayers whose marginal rate is 28%,” Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), one of the key architects of tax reform, pointed out in a recent letter to his Senate colleagues. “In fact, the ‘bubble’ does not reward the rich . . . it enhances the tax system’s progressivity.”

This paradox of the historic 1986 tax revision law is at the center of the current budget negotiations between the White House and Congress. Democrats are intent on trying to exact a greater share of taxes from the wealthy after a decade in which the overall tax burden generally was cut far more for the rich than for the poor and middle class. But rather than saying so explicitly, lawmakers prefer to focus the public’s discontent on an all-too-confusing anomaly in the tax code.

As a result, bursting the bubble has become the minimum price that Democrats are demanding for their acceptance of the Bush Administration’s plan to cut taxes on capital gains–the profits that come from the sale of capital investments such as stocks or real estate. That would boost taxes for those with incomes above $200,000, but it also would give it all back–and more–to many of the same people.

Boosting the top rate to 33% for everyone in the upper bracket would raise about $42 billion over five years, taking all the money from the richest 600,000 taxpayers with incomes above $200,000. On the other hand, a capital gains tax cut, while initially generating tax revenues by encouraging investors to sell some of their assets, would provide more than 60% of its tens of billions in benefits to the 1% of families earning more than $200,000, according to congressional tax specialists.

Moreover, tax analysts say, whatever the economic benefits that might flow from reducing tax rates on capital gains, doing so also would heighten presure among the affluent to escape the higher general tax rates by converting ordinary income into investments. In fact, they contend, the perverse result of such a deal could well be to enhance the very unfairness and capriciousness that Democratic lawmakers say they want to overcome.

Why does the bubble exist? To understand the issue, it helps to go back to the unusual political climate in 1986 that made tax revision possible. With Republicans in control of the White House and the Senate and Democrats dominating the House, few people expected a sweeping overhaul of the tax system to succeed.

All but buried in the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, the tax reform corpse was revived in May, 1986, with a plan by then-Chairman Bob Packwood (R-Ore.) that eventually created only two basic rates–15% for lower-income taxpayers and 28% for upper-income taxpayers. (The old system had involved 14 brackets, culminating in a top rate of 50%.) To keep a fair share of the tax burden on the affluent, however, the Packwood proposal eliminated or pared many of the loopholes used by the wealthy to slash their tax bills under the old system.

But Congress went even further. Keeping the top rate well under 30% was critically important to the Republicans who were backing tax reform. Making sure that more-affluent taxpayers continued to pay a greater percentage of their income than those with lower income was essential to Democrats.

As frequently is the case, the lawmakers settled on a gimmick that accomplished both goals: Wealthier taxpayers would lose the benefit of today’s $2,050 personal exemption and also give up the advantages of the 15% rate on their first $32,450 in income ($19,400 for singles).

The end result is that the richest taxpayers have no personal exemptions and pay a flat 28% on all their taxable income.

To phase out the tax benefits smoothly, the lawmakers saddled taxpayers in lower brackets (with incomes of roughly $75,000 to $210,000 for a family of four and $45,000 to $100,000 for singles) with a 5% surcharge on the portion of their income that falls within the bubble. Those taxpayers pay a higher marginal rate of 33% on part of their income, but they also retain some of the benefits of the personal exemption and the 15% rate, so that their average tax rate is always lower than the maximum 28%.

The bottom line is that the bubble helps ensure that a person’s effective income tax burden still rises with his income, maintaining the modest progressivity of the federal tax system.

“The irony is that the reformers who built more progressivity into the code are now being attacked for doing the right thing,” said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute here. “But few people understand that this was not some crazy anomaly put in there to give an extra break to the rich.”

Despite all that, the bubble still has become a symbol of unfairness in the tax code. While Republicans would like to leave income tax rates alone in the current budget negotiations, Democrats believe that the bubble provides them the most powerful lever for extracting a tax increase from the well-to-do.

President Bush is determined to lower capital gains tax rates on long-term investments to 20% because he thinks a change would enhance economic growth. Although most congressional Democrats oppose such a rate cut as a giveaway to the rich, many concede that the White House is likely to get its wish.

So now that Bush is prepared to junk the basic trade-off of lower rates for fewer loopholes that was embodied in the 1986 tax revision law, most Democrats see no reason to preserve it, either. The result may be to impose slightly higher tax rates on the rich, while restoring their favorite tax break–a reduction in tax rates for capital gains.

By eliminating many of the tax breaks that invited abuse and kept hordes of tax lawyers busy helping people and corporations minimize their taxes, the 1986 law significantly improved the progressivity of the tax system.

But it was not enough to overcome the regressive impact of the huge 1981 tax cut–which showered most of its benefits on the affluent and corporate shareholders–and the 1983 Social Security changes, which ushered in a wave of payroll tax increases that landed most heavily on middle-income Americans.

Although the White House and congressional Republicans are searching for other ways to tax high-income Americans that might well enhance progressivity–such as imposing a small tax on stock transactions or further paring back the business-meal deduction–the goal of eliminating the bubble remains at the top of the Democratic agenda.

Meanwhile, Byrle M. Abbin, the top tax specialist in the Washington office of Arthur Andersen, the accounting firm, captures the full irony of today’s debate. “The bubble,” he said, “may be the first tax provision ever repealed simply because it was hard to explain why and how it works.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said that protecting Ukraine’s territorial integrity remains the “biggest challenge” in ongoing negotiations over a US plan to end the war, following discussions in Paris with European and US officials.

Speaking alongside French President Emmanuel Macron at a joint news conference on Monday, Zelenskyy said Ukraine’s priorities include security guarantees, sovereignty and preventing concessions that would legitimise Moscow’s occupation of Ukrainian land.

“Our biggest challenge is the territorial issue,” he said, urging partners to avoid any outcome that “rewards the war it [Russia] started”.

The comments came as officials from France, Germany, Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom joined discussions in Paris, holding calls with US special envoy Steve Witkoff as part of an intensifying diplomatic push to end the war, which Russia launched with its full-scale invasion in February 2022.

Zelenskyy said the meeting also reviewed the substance of talks held a day earlier between Ukrainian and American officials in the United States, adding that more meetings are being prepared across Europe.

Macron reiterated that “Ukraine must be the one to decide its own territorial boundaries”, while signalling that further discussions are planned between Washington and European allies on potential security guarantees for Ukraine should a deal to end the war emerge.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni also emphasised the need for unity between Europe and the US on a pathway towards peace. In a statement, she praised Zelenskyy’s “consistently constructive approach” and said she hoped Russia would “offer its own concrete contribution” to future talks.

Territorial question deepens diplomatic tensions

The territorial issue is shaping up to be the most sensitive point in negotiations, as Witkoff and US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, prepare to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday.

Zelenskyy has said he hopes to speak with Trump after those talks. But Ukrainian officials have already told the US that Kyiv will not accept any settlement requiring it to cede territory.

“We told the American side that it is unacceptable for Russia to continue its occupation of our territory and then demand that we grant it legitimacy,” Zelenskyy’s adviser, Rustem Umerov, told Al Jazeera Arabic. “Giving up our territory means that international law no longer exists and that any party can use force to abolish the sovereignty of another party.”

Umerov said security guarantees remain a delicate part of discussions, because “we are seeking security for both Europe and Ukraine”. He added that negotiations will be “extremely difficult” if Russia genuinely engages, arguing that Moscow still believes “continuing the war is less costly than ending it”.

Reporting from Brussels, Al Jazeera’s Hashem Ahelbarra said that European Union leaders are insisting that no major concessions be made to Russia, and that “instead of handing over territory, there need to be land swaps that can only be decided by the Ukrainian people”.

It comes after a draft US plan was leaked to the press in mid-November, prompting criticism in Ukraine and among its European allies, who said the document heavily favoured Moscow.

The plan had proposed to limit Ukraine’s army strength to 600,000 men, with no mention of any cap on Russia. It also barred Kyiv from ever joining NATO, and included plans for Moscow to keep captured Ukrainian territories.

Russian strikes hit Dnipro

As diplomatic efforts accelerate, Ukraine suffered another deadly attack earlier on Monday. Local officials said at least four people were killed in a Russian missile strike on the central city of Dnipro.

Interfax reported that injuries have risen to 43, citing Vladyslav Haivanenko, the acting head of the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Military Administration. He said 10 people were in serious condition. The strike damaged an administrative building, several businesses, four educational institutions, multiple high-rise buildings, two service stations and more than 50 vehicles.

Dnipro, located about 100km (62 miles) from the front line and home to nearly one million people before the war, is frequently targeted by Russian bombardments.

Russia’s Ministry of Defence said its forces had “liberated” the settlement of Klynove in Ukraine’s Donetsk region, claiming it had advanced deep into Ukrainian positions. However, the Ukrainian army has refuted these claims.

Moscow said Ukraine lost about 1,415 troops across the front over the past 24 hours. Kyiv, meanwhile, reported eliminating 1,060 Russian troops, one tank, six armoured vehicles, 14 artillery systems, 239 drones and 71 vehicles in the same period.

Al Jazeera could not independently verify either side’s battlefield claims.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is facing sharp scrutiny this week over its approach to Venezuela after turning its focus to the beleaguered nation, weighing U.S. military strikes against a Latin American state for the first time in more than 35 years.

President Trump scheduled a meeting with top generals and Cabinet officials on the matter at the White House on Monday evening, debating target options now available with the deployment of more than a dozen warships to the Caribbean Sea.

Trump has sent conflicting signals to the country’s dictatorial president, Nicolás Maduro, whose grip on power since 2013 has decimated Venezuela’s economy and prompted a massive migration crisis. Trump warned air traffic away from Venezuelan skies before speaking by phone with Maduro over the weekend, only to caution reporters trying to interpret his actions against predicting his next moves.

Whether Trump will choose to go to war with Venezuela has become a source of alarm on Capitol Hill as new revelations emerge about his team’s tactics for escalating the conflict.

The White House has accused Maduro of driving migrants and drugs across America’s borders, and has begun pressuring his government with military strikes targeting maritime vessels — in international waters, but departing from Venezuela — that the Defense Department claims have been used to smuggle illegal narcotics.

The first of those attacks targeting alleged drug traffickers, conducted on Sept. 2, included a second strike ordered by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to “kill them all,” according to a report by the Washington Post.

The Post report has prompted the Republican-led House and Senate committees overseeing the Pentagon to vow “rigorous oversight” of the boat strikes. Trump told reporters Sunday that he “wouldn’t have wanted” the military to launch a second strike to kill those who survived the initial attack.

“The first strike was very lethal, it was fine, and if there were two people around,” Trump said before quickly adding, “but Pete said that didn’t happen. I have great confidence in Pete.”

Yet White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed Monday that multiple strikes were authorized by Hegseth against the target that day.

Hegseth authorized Adm. Frank M. Bradley, the commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, to conduct strikes “well within his authority and the law to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States was eliminated,” Leavitt said at a press briefing.

Trump also confirmed that he spoke by phone with Maduro, but declined to elaborate on what was discussed.

“I wouldn’t say it went well or badly,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One. “It was a call.”

The disclosure of the conversation came as the administration intensified its pressure campaign on Caracas over the holiday weekend, starting with the president issuing a series of warnings.

Trump warned airlines and pilots on Saturday that the airspace above and surrounding Venezuela should be considered “CLOSED IN ITS ENTIRETY.”

Trump told reporters he made the declaration “because we consider Venezuela not to be a very friendly country.” But when asked whether his warning signaled an imminent U.S. airstrike in Venezuela, Trump demurred, telling a reporter: “Don’t read anything into it.”

There is no guarantee that talks with Maduro will lead to his exit, or that the Trump administration would be satisfied with any other outcome, said Geoff Ramsey, a Venezuela expert at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based research group.

Maduro could pitch Trump on access for U.S. oil companies — possibly at the expense of Russian and Chinese competitors — without any move toward democratization in Venezuela, an outcome that would disappoint many seeking leadership change in Caracas.

“A clear sticking point here is what kind of negotiations that Caracas and Washington want. The Trump administration so far has expressed interest in negotiating which flight Maduro takes out of the country,” Ramsey said. “For Maduro, that’s clearly a nonstarter. So until we see a clear sense of flexibility from Washington and Caracas, I think this stalemate is going to continue.”

Maduro has consistently refused to leave office, despite punishing U.S. sanctions, massive protests, and various offensives during the first Trump administration that Caracas deemed as coup attempts. “The reality is that many previous attempts to condition talks of Maduro’s immediate departure have led nowhere,” Ramsey added.

There are no signs of weakening support for Maduro within the military, nor have there been the kinds of large-scale defections that were seen within his security forces in 2019, when Trump, in his first term, initially sought to oust Maduro. At that time, he refrained from a direct military attack.

A few hours after the president’s remarks, Hegseth posted an altered image of the children’s book character Franklin the Turtle reimagined as a militarized figure using a machine gun firing at suspected drug boats. The mock book cover was titled: “A Classic Franklin Story: Franklin Targets Narco Terrorists.”

Hegseth posted the image on social media with the caption: “For your Christmas wish list … ”

Trump sparked more controversy in the region when he announced Friday his plan to pardon Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras who was convicted last year on cocaine trafficking charges and sentenced to 45 years in U.S. prison.

U.S. prosecutors said Hernández received millions of dollars in bribes to help traffickers smuggle 400 tons of cocaine into the United States. Once, they alleged, the right-wing president bragged about stuffing “drugs up the gringos’ noses.”

Trump said Hernández had been a victim of political persecution, although he offered no evidence of that claim.

News of the pardon shocked many in Latin America and raised new doubts about Trump’s U.S. military campaign in the region, which White House officials insist is aimed at combating drug cartels that they compare to terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda.

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) accused Trump of hypocrisy for freeing a convicted drug smuggler and suggested that the ongoing U.S. military campaign in the region was politically motivated.

“Don’t tell me Donald Trump is killing people in boats in the Caribbean to stop drug trafficking,” Castro said on X.

While Trump’s endgame in Venezuela is unclear, he has made his desires in Honduras explicit.

Ahead of Sunday’s presidential election in the Central American nation, Trump endorsed conservative candidate Nasry “Tito” Asfura of the National Party, which Hernández also belonged to. An early vote count Monday showed Asfura with a narrow lead over Liberal Party candidate Salvador Nasralla.

Times staff writers Wilner and Ceballos reported from Washington, Linthicum and McDonnell from Mexico City.

Nigeria authorises protection for Guinea-Bissau opposition leader Fernando Dias da Costa, citing ‘imminent threat to his life’.

A delegation from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has visited Guinea-Bissau for mediation talks with leaders of last week’s coup, as regional pressure mounts on the military leaders who seized power after a disputed election.

The mission, led by ECOWAS chairman and Sierra Leone’s President Julius Maada Bio, came to Guinea-Bissau on Monday to urge the military authorities for a “complete restoration of constitutional order.”

The military has tightened restrictions in the country, banning all demonstrations and strikes.

“We’ve had today very fruitful discussions,” said Sierra Leone’s Foreign Minister Timothy Musa Kabba. “Both sides have expressed their different concerns.”

Joao Bernardo Vieira, the newly appointed foreign minister of Guinea-Bissau, said it was “very clearly established” that ECOWAS would not leave the country “during this difficult period.”

“The transitional authorities and the military will continue their discussions,” he said.

The coup unfolded three days after the country’s closely contested presidential election, with both main contenders – incumbent President Umaro Sissoco Embalo and opposition candidate Fernando Dias da Costa – claiming victory before provisional results were due to be announced. No results have been released since.

During the takeover, Embalo told French media by phone that he had been deposed and arrested. He has since fled to Brazzaville, the capital of the Republic of Congo.

Guinea-Bissau military officials appointed former army chief of staff General Horta Inta-A to lead a one-year transition government. On Saturday, Inta-a named a new 28-member cabinet, made up largely of figures allied with the deposed president.

Nigeria, meanwhile, said its President Bola Tinubu had authorised protection for opposition leader Dias da Costa, citing an “imminent threat to his life”.

According to a letter sent to ECOWAS by Nigeria’s minister of foreign affairs, Dias da Costa is currently at the Nigerian embassy in Bissau. The letter requested an ECOWAS troop deployment to provide security for the opposition candidate.

Separately, the main opposition African Independence Party for Guinea and Cape Verde (PAIGC) said in a statement that its headquarters had been “illegally invaded by heavily armed militia groups” in the capital.

The party had been barred from presenting a presidential candidate in the November 23 election, a move criticised by civil rights groups as part of a wider clampdown on dissent.

ECOWAS, widely seen as West Africa’s leading political and regional authority with 15 member states, responded to the coup by suspending Guinea-Bissau from all its decision-making bodies “until the restoration of full and effective constitutional order in the country”.

International condemnation has continued to grow, with United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres saying that he is gravely concerned and condemning the military takeover, warning that ignoring “the will of the people who peacefully cast their vote during the November 23 general elections constitutes an unacceptable violation of democratic principles”.

Guterres called for the “immediate and unconditional restoration of constitutional order” and the release of all detained officials, including electoral authorities and opposition figures.

Dec. 1 (UPI) — The United States and the United Kingdom have agreed on a zero-tariffs deal for medications manufactured in the U.K.

In the agreement, the U.K. will pay more for medications through the National Health Service and the United States will keep import tariffs on U.K. pharmaceuticals at zero for three years.

It’s the first time the NHS will pay more for medicine in more than 20 years.

Medications are one of the U.K.’s biggest exports to the United States, and in September, President Donald Trump threatened to raise the tariffs to 100%.

Trump is also adding a 25% tariff on all heavy-duty trucks and 50% on kitchen and bathroom cabinets.

“The reason for this is the large-scale ‘FLOODING’ of these products into the United States by other outside Countries,” Trump posted on Truth Social on Thursday.

Neil Shearing, chief economist at Capital Economics, told the BBC that the announcement wasn’t as big of a deal as it appears.

“Many of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies either already have some production in the U.S. or have announced plans to build production in the near future,” he said.

A press release from the U.K. government said, “Tens of thousands of NHS patients will benefit from a landmark trade deal between the U.K. and the U.S., which will secure and expand access to vital drugs, safeguard our medicines supply chain, and drive crucial investment while supporting U.K. patients and industries.”

The deal also includes investment from the U.K. government of about 25% more in “innovative, safe, and effective treatments — the first major increase in over two decades. It means the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence will be able to approve medicines that deliver significant health improvements but might have previously been declined purely on cost-effectiveness grounds — this could include breakthrough cancer treatments, therapies for rare diseases, and innovative approaches to conditions that have long been difficult to treat. These changes will ensure that NICE is able to continue its world-leading approach to assessing drugs and treatments and keep pace with the commercial and economic environment in which pharmaceutical companies are operating in today.”

“This will support thousands of skilled jobs, boost our economy and ensure that the breakthroughs that happen in our labs turn into treatments that benefit families across the country,” said Science and Technology Secretary Liz Kendall in a statement.

“This deal guarantees that UK pharmaceutical exports — worth at least $6.6 billion a year — will enter the U.S. tariff free, protecting jobs, boosting investment and paving the way for the U.K. to become a global hub for life sciences,” said Business and Trade Secretary Peter Kyle in a statement.

The spending increase will stay in place for at least the next three years.

The United States has announced a new trade deal with the United Kingdom that includes zero tariffs on pharmaceutical and medical products in exchange for the UK spending more on medicines, the first significant spending increase in more than 20 years, and overhauling how it values drugs.

As part of the deal announced on Monday, the state-run National Health Service (NHS) will spend 25 percent more on treatments for at least the next three years.

“The United States and the United Kingdom announce this negotiated outcome pricing for innovative pharmaceuticals, which will help drive investment and innovation in both countries,” US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement.

The USTR statement said the UK would increase the net price it pays for new medicines by 25 percent under the deal. In exchange, UK-made medicines, drug ingredients and medical technology would be exempted from so-called Section 232 sectoral tariffs and any future Section 301 country tariffs.

Two sources familiar with the deal said it involved a major change in the value appraisal framework at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), a UK government body that determines whether new drugs are cost-effective for the NHS, the sources said.

NICE’s “quality-adjusted life year” measures the cost of a treatment for each healthy year it enables for a patient, with the upper threshold being 30,000 pounds ($39,789) per year.

US President Donald Trump has pressed the UK and the rest of Europe to pay more for US medicines, part of his push for their costs to be brought more in line with those paid in other wealthy nations.

The pharmaceutical industry has criticised a tough operating environment in the UK, and some big firms have cancelled or paused investment in the UK, including AstraZeneca, the largest on the London Stock Exchange by market value.

One point of contention between the sector and the government has been the operation of a voluntary pricing scheme, which sees firms put a proportion of sales to the NHS back into the health service.

The office of the USTR said the UK had committed that the rebate rate would decrease to 15 percent in 2026.

‘Cutting-edge medicines’

British science and technology minister, Liz Kendall, said on Monday a new pharmaceutical deal with the US will encourage life sciences companies to continue investing and innovating in the UK.

“This vital deal will ensure UK patients get the cutting-edge medicines they need sooner, and our world-leading UK firms keep developing the treatments that can change lives,” Kendall said in a statement.

“It will also enable and incentivise life sciences companies to continue to invest and innovate right here in the UK,” Kendall added.

Among those companies is Bristol Myers Squibb. The pharmaceutical giant’s CEO said it will be able to invest more than $500m over the next five years because of the deal.

On Wall Street, the stock, which is traded under the ticker symbol BMY, is down by 0.1 percent. Other heavily affected pharmaceutical companies include AstraZeneca, which was down by about 1 percent, and GSK, down by 0.4 percent.

Dec. 1 (UPI) — Honduran presidential candidate Nasry “Tito” Asfura — whom President Donald Trump urged voters to support — is leading in preliminary results from Sunday’s general elections with a slight edge over fellow right-wing candidate Salvador Nasralla.

However, with 55% of polling stations counted, the difference between the two candidates is minimal — fewer than 3,000 votes — and could shift at any moment.

According to the National Electoral Council, Asfura leads the race with 40.1% of the vote, while Nasralla has 39.2%, the newspaper El Heraldo reported.

The electoral process was marked by accusations of fraud among the candidates and widespread public distrust. For that reason, the main opposition candidates, Nasry Asfura, Salvador Nasralla and Mario Rivera, signed the Democratic Agreement for Honduras-Defense of the Vote on Nov. 11, committing to ensure transparency and defend the results.

The campaign was shaken by comments from President Donald Trump, who on Nov. 28 announced a pardon for former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, convicted in New York on drug trafficking charges, and urged voters to support Asfura.

“Tito Asfura is the only true friend of freedom in Honduras,” Trump said.

Ruling party candidate Rixi Moncada released an exit poll Sunday that placed her as the winner, even though the National Electoral Council had warned that no candidate should declare victory before the first official update.

“The trend favors us and the people have already decided,” Moncada said at a news conference.

However, official figures place her in third with only 19.5%.

Election day was also marked by failures on the Electoral Council’s official results website, which stopped working early Monday and cut off access to the electronic transmission of results during the count.

Election authorities have not said what caused the outage, but the disruption has left the public waiting for new tally sheets, La Prensa reported.

WASHINGTON — R.V. had already spent six months detained at a facility in California when he won his case in immigration court in June.

He testified that he had fled his native Cuba in 2024 after protesting against the government, for which he was jailed, surveilled and persecuted. So, after being kidnapped in Mexico, he entered the U.S. illegally and told border agents he was afraid for his life.

An immigration court judge granted him protection against deportation to Cuba, and R.V., 21, was looking forward to reuniting with family in Florida.

But R.V., who asked that his full name not be used for fear of retaliation from the government, hasn’t been released. At the detention center, he said, agents have told him they’ll still find a way to deport him — if not to Cuba, then maybe Panama or Costa Rica.

“The wait is so hard,” he said in an interview. “It’s as if they don’t want to accept that I won.”

R.V. is among what immigration attorneys describe as an escalating trend: some immigrants who win protection from deportation to their home countries are being detained indefinitely.

Often, the person has been held while the federal government appealed their win or sought another country willing to take them in.

The government has long had the ability to make such appeals or to seek another country where it could deport someone; the Department of Homeland Security generally has 90 days to find somewhere else to send them.

But, in practice, such third-country removals were rare, so the person was typically released and allowed to remain in the U.S.

That practice has changed under the Trump administration. Recent instructions to Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel favor keeping people detained. A June 24 memo, for instance, states that “field offices no longer have the option to discretionarily release aliens.”

At issue are cases involving immigrants who, rather than winning asylum, are granted one of two kinds of immigration relief, known as orders of “withholding of removal” and protection under the international Convention Against Torture. Both have higher burdens of proof than asylum but don’t provide a pathway to citizenship.

These forms of relief differ from asylum in a key way: while asylum protects against deportation anywhere, the others only protect against deportation to a country where the person risks harm or torture.

Jennifer Norris, an attorney at the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, said the government’s actions now effectively render withholding of removal and protection under the anti-torture convention meaningless.

“We have entered a dangerous era,” Norris, said. “These are clients who did everything right. They won their cases before an immigration judge and now they’re treated like criminals and remain in detention even after an immigration judge rules in their favor.”

Laura Lunn, advocacy and litigation director with the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network in Colorado, noted that rules against double jeopardy do not apply in these cases, so the government has the ability to appeal when it loses.

“Here, they have so much control over whether someone remains detained because, if they just file an appeal, that person can just sit in detention for at least six months or what could be years,” Lunn said.

Homeland Security did not respond to specific questions and declined to comment.

Lawyers representing immigrants in prolonged detention say the government is keeping people locked up in hopes of wearing down their clients so they abandon their fight to remain in the U.S.

Ngựa, a Vietnamese man who asked to be identified by his family nickname, meaning horse, has been detained in California since he crossed the southern border illegally in March.

Ngựa fled Vietnam last year after being tortured by police officers who tried to extort him for a “protection tax,” according to his asylum application. When he refused, the officers beat and jailed him, and threatened to kill him and his family.

An immigration judge recently denied Ngựa asylum but granted him protection under the anti-torture convention. His pro bono lawyers have appealed the asylum denial.

In an interview through an interpreter, he said he chose to seek safety in the U.S. because he believed that the government of any other country would deport him back to Vietnam. He said he didn’t anticipate that U.S. officials would try to get rid of him.

Ngựa said ICE officers told him they know they can’t send him back to Vietnam, but will find another country willing to take him in. Every morning, he said, an officer goes from dormitory to dormitory asking whether anyone wants to self-deport.

The thought of being sent away keeps him up at night, but the alternative is nearly just as bad: “I’m afraid that I will be detained here for years,” he said.

DHS regulations allow continued detention when “there is a significant likelihood of removing a detained alien in the reasonably foreseeable future.”

Such scenarios are increasingly possible since a Supreme Court ruling in June broadened the ability for immigration authorities to quickly deport people to countries where they have no personal connection.

After the ruling, ICE released guidance directing agents to generally give migrants slated for removal to a third country “at least 24 hours” notice, but as little as six hours in “exigent circumstances.”

The guidance also said the U.S. needs to receive credible diplomatic assurances that the deported people will not be persecuted or tortured.

This year, the Trump administration has brokered deals with several countries, including Ghana, El Salvador, and South Sudan — which is on the brink of civil war — to accept deportees.

“It has just become more of a regular practice for the government to hold onto people who win protection because they are actively looking, in most cases, for a third country to accept them,” said Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance.

Realmuto is one of the lead attorneys in the case challenging Homeland Security’s practice of third-country removals.

Federal law states that Homeland Security should first seek out alternative countries to which the person being deported has some personal connection, and then, if that’s “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible,” find a country whose government is willing to accept them.

Realmuto said the Trump administration is skipping straight to that last resort. As a result, she said, several people who were deported to a third country have been sent by officials there back to the country they originally fled.

Among them is Rabbiatu Kuyateh, a 58-year-old woman who fled Sierra Leone’s civil war 30 years ago and settled in Maryland until ICE agents detained her this summer during her annual check-in.

NBC News reported that because a judge had banned ICE from sending her back to Sierra Leone, where she had been tortured, the agency deported her to Ghana. But Ghanaian officials forcibly put her on a bus to Sierra Leone.

In fiscal year 2024, 2,506 people were granted withholding of removal or protection under the anti-torture convention, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Realmuto said that, like Kuyateh, tens of thousands of immigrants have been granted withholding or deferral relief over the course of several decades. Such people could now be at risk of being detained again while the government works to remove them to another country, she said.

The case of F.B., a 27-year-old Colombian woman who entered the U.S. at the San Ysidro port of entry in 2024, further illustrates the government’s approach toward the anti-torture convention. F.B. asked to be identified by her initials out of fear of retaliation by the U.S. government.

In February, F.B. won protection under the anti-torture convention. But instead of releasing her, Homeland Security said it was attempting to remove her to Honduras, Guatemala or Brazil.

In September, lawyers for F.B. filed a petition in federal court for her release.

“It’s kind of hard to argue somebody’s removal is imminent when they’ve been detained for eight months,” said her attorney, Kristen Coffey.

Court records show the judge initially denied the petition after ICE officials claimed they had booked a flight for her to Bolivia that would leave three days later.

But a month after that, she was still in U.S. custody.

In an order granting F.B.’s release last month, U.S. district court judge Tanya Walton Pratt in Indiana said the government’s claim that F.B. would be imminently deported had “proven false,” and that keeping her detained was “contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

She was released the same day.

The United Kingdom’s new left-wing political party, Your Party, cofounded by former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, has become mired in a bitter divide between its leaders.

On Saturday, Your Party cofounder Zarah Sultana said she would skip the first day of the newly formed group’s inaugural two-day conference following a serious disagreement over who could attend.

What is Your Party?

After the UK’s last general election in 2024, which the Labour Party won in a landslide following 14 years of Conservative Party rule, Corbyn and four other left-leaning independents – Shockat Adam, Adnan Hussain, Ayoub Khan and Iqbal Mohamed – formed the Independent Alliance, which focused heavily on taking a pro-Palestine position over Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

Corbyn, 76, stepped down as leader of the Labour Party following yet another election defeat to the Conservatives in 2019.

Among other issues, Corbyn had long weathered accusations of anti-Semitism during his leadership of Labour, something many described as a “witch-hunt” against him and his supporters.

In 2020, the Equality and Human Rights Commission published its findings that Labour had broken the law on anti-Jewish racism. It partially blamed “serious failings” under Corbyn’s leadership of the party.

In response, Corbyn stated that anti-Semitism was “absolutely abhorrent”, but added: “The scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media.”

As a result, he was immediately suspended from the party. He was readmitted in 2020, but ultimately left the Labour Party altogether in 2024 – after nearly 60 years of membership – to become an independent MP.

In late July this year, he announced that he would cofound a new socialist party with fellow independent MP Zarah Sultana, 32, who also became an independent after leaving Labour on July 3. Other members of the Independent Alliance also joined. The aim was to present the new party as a credible left‑wing alternative to the governing Labour Party.

In a statement at the time, Corbyn and Sultana said: “The system is rigged when the government says there is no money for the poor, but billions for war.”

The statement added that they envisioned a party “rooted in our communities, trade unions and social movements”.

“As a party, we’ve got to come together and be united because division and disunity will not serve the interests of the people that we want to represent,” Corbyn said during the inaugural conference, which took place in the northwestern English city of Liverpool and finished with a rousing rendition of Bella Ciao – an Italian antifascist folk song – by attendees.

Why did Sultana refuse to attend the first day?

Sultana announced on Saturday that she would not attend in protest against one of her supporters being denied entry to the event and several others being expelled from the party for also allegedly being members of the far-left Socialist Workers Party.

Sultana told the Press Association news agency: “I’m disappointed to see on the morning of our founding conference, people who have travelled from all over the country, spent a lot of money on their train fare, on hotels, on being able to participate in this conference, being told that they have been expelled.”

She added: “That is a culture that is reminiscent of the Labour Party, how there were witch-hunts on the eve of conference, how members were treated with contempt.”

However, an unnamed spokesperson for Your Party defended the decision to bar members of the Socialist Workers Party. The spokesperson told UK media: “Members of another national political party signed up to Your Party in contravention of clearly stated membership rules – and these rules were enforced.”

Sultana attended the second day of the conference on Sunday, when she apologised for what she described as “hiccups” during the launch of the party.

However, she added, “The expulsions, bans and censorship on conference floor are unacceptable. It’s undemocratic. It’s an attack on members and on this movement.”

What else have the leaders disagreed about?

The fledgling party has been beset by disagreements over several issues.

Funding

In November, senior figures including Corbyn, Iqbal Mohamed, and Adnan Hussain accused Sultana of withholding more than 800,000 pounds ($1.06m) in donations made to the party when it was first announced in July.

Since the party was still in the process of being formally registered as a legal entity, the funds were temporarily collected by a private company called MoU Operations Ltd, which is controlled by Sultana.

The BBC reported on November 8 that an unnamed spokesperson for Sultana said she “is in the process of transferring all funds and data” but was conducting “essential due diligence as part of this process”.

As of mid-November, the party had received a “small portion” of the funds, according to a statement by Your Party leaders. There has not been a more recent update on the status of the remaining funds.

Leadership model

There was a disagreement over how the newly formed party should be led.

While Sultana was pushing for a collective of leaders to reflect grassroots representation – what she terms “maximum member democracy” – Corbyn said a single, traditional leader would be more effective.

In the end, the party voted for a collective of leaders by a narrow margin of 51.6 percent to 48.4 percent.

This means that the party will now be headed by a collective of leaders, which will be overseen by a party member who is not a member of parliament.

Ultimately, many see the problems which have beset the party as being down to a fight for control between Corbyn and Sultana.

The UK media have reported that Corbyn supporters were irritated by Sultana’s decision to hold a pre-conference rally on the night before the conference began. While she called it a Your Party event, they claimed it was organised solely by her.

Party desertions

Several members of the new party, including some working MPs, have already quit as supporters of Corbyn accuse Sultana of trying to undermine him and vice versa. On November 14, Blackburn MP Adnan Hussain announced in an X post that he had decided to leave.

“The culture surrounding the party has become dominated by persistent infighting, factional competition and a struggle for power, position and influence rather than a shared commitment to the common good,” Hussain wrote in a statement.

“Instead of openness, cooperation and outward focus, the environment has too often felt toxic, exclusionary and deeply disheartening,” he added.

After much thought, I have made the difficult decision to step out of the steering process for Your Party.

I wish those who continue to work on this endeavour the very best of luck and hope their hard work achieves the results they desire. pic.twitter.com/zz4EevEIzu

— Adnan Hussain MP (@AdnanHussainMP) November 14, 2025

A week later, Dewsbury and Batley MP Iqbal Mohamed also announced his departure.

In a statement posted on X on November 21, Mohamed said: “The many false allegations and smears made against me and others, and reported as fact without evidence, have been surprising and disappointing. However, I am confident that my colleagues and I have acted professionally, patiently, and in good faith throughout.”

My statement on my departure from Your Party. pic.twitter.com/NsoNLHU7xI

— Iqbal Mohamed MP (@iqbalmohamedMP) November 21, 2025

SACRAMENTO — Maybe we’ve all been wrong — we political junkies. Because it is possible, after all, for a Republican to be elected California governor next year.

I know, do the math: It’s impossible to elect a Republican governor in this deep blue state, right? Wrong. Calculate again and it’s conceivable that a GOP candidate could replace termed-out Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom.

That would turn California upside down politically and be an upset for the ages.

It’s not at all likely. But contrary to common wisdom, it’s within the realm of possibility — if too many ambitious Democrats leap into the race and keep running. Then they could splinter the vote.

There’d be too many Democratic candidates dividing up the party pie and ending up with small slices in the primary election. Just two Republicans could split the GOP vote. In that scenario, the Republican pair could both finish ahead of any Democrat.

Remember, in California’s open primary system, the top two vote-getters advance to the November general election regardless of their party affiliation. No other candidate is allowed on the ballot. And write-in candidacies aren’t permitted.

So it’s remotely possible for two Republicans to exclusively compete for the California governorship next November — with no way to elect a Democrat.

“Given that there are so many Democrats running without name ID and no front-runner, it‘s becoming more plausible, if still unlikely,” says Republican consultant Rob Stutzman.

Tony Quinn, a Republican political analyst, says that “Democrats are taking a real chance with too many people running.

“It would be funny if they woke up the morning after the primary and two Republicans were in the runoff. They could do nothing about that. Even the California Supreme Court couldn’t save them.”

As of this writing, there are eight major — more or less — Democrats competing against each other. At least two others also are thinking about entering the race. Only two major Republicans are running.

Let’s review the core political stats:

Of California’s 23 million registered voters, roughly 45% are Democrats, 25% are Republicans and 23% are independents who tend to lean left. Another 7% are members of minor parties.

American politics has arguably never been more polarized. Unlike past eras, voters today mostly stay within their own parties when casting ballots.

No Republican has won a statewide race in California since 2006. That’s an alluring fact for Democratic gubernatorial wannabes and one reason why so many have been drawn into the 2026 race.

For Republicans, the more Democrats the merrier.

The Democratic field — basically in the order of their independent poll rankings — includes:

Former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, former U.S. Health Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former state Controller Betty Yee, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer, former legislator Ian Calderon and San Francisco Bay Area Rep. Eric Swalwell, who hasn’t been a candidate long enough to be listed in polls.

Additionally, two other Democrats have been seriously thinking about running: billionaire Los Angeles developer Rick Caruso and state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta.

“All the chatter and the polling shows voters are looking at the field like a hungry person who keeps reopening the fridge, hoping something worth eating shows up,” says Bonta advisor Dan Newman.

The filing deadline is March 6 for getting on the June 2 primary ballot.

The two major Republican candidates are Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton.

A late October poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies showed that a vast 44% of registered voters were undecided. Republican Bianco led all candidates with 13%, followed by Democrat Porter, 11%, and Becerra and Hilton each at 8%.

Every Democrat’s goal is to qualify for the November faceoff against a Republican. Then the Democrat would be home free, given the makeup of California’s electorate. But if two Democrats competed against each other, it could be a tough fight.

Political data expert Paul Mitchell ran 1,000 simulations of the primary and found that “the most common outcome” was a Democrat and Republican finishing in the top two.

There was a 15% to 20% possibility of two Democrats surviving the primary — and a 7% to 10% chance of two Republicans shutting out all Democrats.

Mitchell estimates that Democratic candidates will draw around 59% of the primary vote, Republicans 38% and minority parties 3%.

As for a shutout of Democrats, Mitchell asserts: “It’s easy to say it will never happen. But we’ve seen it happen in congressional and legislative races” in both parties — ”2% to 3% end up in these flukey contests.”

Mitchell points to “the most famous example” when Redlands Rep. Pete Aguilar, now chair of the House Democratic Caucus, initially ran for Congress in 2012. He lost in the primary when four Democrats split the vote and only two Republicans ran.

“It cost Democrats a seat they were virtually guaranteed to win in a general election with President Obama on the ballot,” Mitchell says. Obama carried the Democratic-leaning district by 16 percentage points. But there was no Democratic House candidate because too many ran in the primary.

If a Republican ever were elected governor, the lucky victor probably would instantly face a Democratic recall effort, Stutzman says. “Democrats would say ‘this a fluke who doesn’t represent the state.’”

It was the GOP that set the precedent for gubernatorial recalls. Republicans recalled Democratic Gov. Gray Davis and installed Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003 — then tried unsuccessfully to boot Newsom in 2021.

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The whole idea of electing a Republican governor seems wacko.

Of course, wacko things happen in today’s politics.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Californians sharply divided along partisan lines about immigration raids, poll finds
TK: This rural hospital closed, putting lives at risk. Is it the start of a ‘tidal wave’?
The L.A. Times Special: What a scandal! (Or not.) How things have changed

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

Los Angeles County supervisors plan to vote soon on an ordinance that would prohibit law enforcement, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, from wearing masks or disguising their identities while conducting operations in unincorporated L.A. County, probably setting up a legal battle with the Trump administration.

On Tuesday, L.A. County supervisors Janice Hahn and Lindsey P. Horvath will introduce the ordinance for a vote. The ordinance would also require law enforcement officers, including local, state and federal, to wear identification and make clear their agency affiliation.

Since immigration agents began raiding Los Angeles neighborhoods and worksites in June, many local leaders have pushed for action on the issue. Residents are concerned about the masked agents, often disguised with face coverings and masks. The masks and lack of identification have sowed fears the armed men could be people posing as law enforcement officers. Residents have called on sheriff’s deputies and police for help, only to be told that local agencies do not interfere with federal operations.

If the ordinance is approved, it will — per county policy — go again before supervisors for a second vote, scheduled for Dec. 9. It would then go into effect 30 days later. But legal experts have cast doubt that federal agents would be required to follow the ordinance, and federal officials have already issued a legal challenge to similar state-level legislation.

L.A. County counsel Dawyn R. Harrison told the supervisors the ordinance “would most likely be challenged on the supremacy clause,” which holds that federal law supersedes state and local law.

Hahn has acknowledged that the federal government will probably take action against the ordinance. Still, she said in a statement, she never thought she would see the day when a “masked, anonymous federal police force” would target people based on their skin color and spoken language and force people into unmarked vans at gunpoint.

Just last week, her office said, nine people were picked up by masked ICE agents at worksites across Long Beach. According to the Long Beach Post, ICE agents chased a gardener into a restaurant in front of Long Beach police officers. Hahn said that the ordinance is driven by repeated instances of L.A. County residents encountering plainclothes or masked agents who refuse to identify themselves or show ID.

“This is how an authoritarian’s secret police operate — not legitimate law enforcement in a democracy,” she said. “This is about our residents’ constitutional rights — and this ordinance is designed to protect them. So, if this means a fight with the federal government in the courts, I think it is a fight worth having.”

Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin has defended the tactic of agents wearing masks in order to protect their identities and keep them safe amid reported increased violence against federal officers. Previously, she stated that officers do verbally identify themselves, wear vests identifying their agency and use vehicles that include the name of the department, although agents are also often seen detaining people while wearing street clothing, without visible badges and driving unmarked cars.

McLaughlin said the administration will not abide by any attempt to ban masks.

“Sanctuary politicians attempting to ban our federal law enforcement from wearing masks is despicable and a flagrant attempt to endanger our officers,” she said in a statement.

Hahn, when asked if the board is considering alternatives if the ordinance fails to stand legal muster, said supervisors would “cross that bridge if we come to it.”

Since the immigration raids began on June 6 in Los Angeles through Aug. 26, the Department of Homeland Security has arrested at least 5,000 undocumented people in the county, the board’s Tuesday motion states, a number that has only gone up with the raids continuing. The motion states the ordinance would make exceptions for law enforcement officers wearing face coverings during undercover operations, as part of SWAT duties or for protection reasons.

“In an unprecedented moment when Los Angeles County’s immigrant communities are under attack, it is essential that the Board implement policies that cement its support for immigrants’ rights, and the rights of all people who may interact with law enforcement,” Hahn wrote in a motion for the ordinance. “It is reasonable to expect all officers — local, state, and federal — to comply with an ordinance that simply requires them to clearly show the public that they actually are law enforcement officers who are acting within the course of their duties.”

The California Legislature passed a similar bill that would require agents to identify themselves and prohibit on-duty officers from covering their faces.

After Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill, the federal government sued to stop it from taking effect.

Atty Gen. Pam Bondi made it clear the government would challenge any and all similar legislation, which she said is unconstitutional.

“California’s anti-law enforcement policies discriminate against the federal government and are designed to create risk for our agents,” Bondi said in a statement. “These laws cannot stand.”

Concerns over masked federal immigration agents have been ongoing and have also come from the federal government itself.

In October, the FBI issued a memo urging agents to show their identification when they are out in public, after a string of incidents that included masked criminals posing as immigration agents. The memo, first reported by Wired magazine, cited cases that included kidnappings, street crime and sexual violence.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu testified on Monday for the first time in his years-long corruption trial, appearing in court days after formally requesting a presidential pardon. The legal saga, now entering its fifth year, continues to polarise Israelis at a moment of deep national instability.

Below is a full breakdown of the charges, legal stakes and political implications.

What Are the Charges?

Netanyahu was indicted in 2019 in three separate criminal cases on bribery, fraud and breach of trust. He denies all wrongdoing and has pleaded not guilty. The trial began in 2020 and has dragged on through multiple election cycles and ongoing conflict.

This is the most serious case.

Prosecutors allege Netanyahu granted regulatory benefits worth 1.8 billion shekels (around $500 million) to Bezeq Telecom in exchange for favourable coverage of himself and his wife on a news website controlled by then-Bezeq chairman Shaul Elovitch.

Netanyahu faces bribery, fraud and breach of trust charges.
Elovitch denies wrongdoing.

Case 1000: Gifts of Champagne and Cigars

Netanyahu and his wife Sara allegedly received nearly 700,000 shekels ($210,000) worth of luxury gifts cigars, champagne and jewellery from Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan and billionaire James Packer.

In return, Netanyahu is accused of using his influence to advance Milchan’s business interests.

Neither Milchan nor Packer face charges.
Netanyahu is charged with fraud and breach of trust.

Prosecutors say Netanyahu negotiated a deal with the owner of Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, Arnon Mozes, offering legislation that would weaken a rival paper in exchange for more favourable coverage.

Netanyahu faces fraud and breach of trust.

Why the Trial Is Taking So Long

Because Netanyahu refuses a plea bargain and fights every charge, the trial moves at a slow pace hearings, cross-examinations and procedural motions. A verdict is unlikely anytime soon unless his legal strategy shifts.

Could Netanyahu Be Pardoned?

Netanyahu’s lawyers have asked President Isaac Herzog for a pardon, arguing that:

• continuous court hearings hinder his ability to govern
• granting a pardon would serve national interest during wartime
• the president has constitutional authority to intervene

However:

• Israeli presidents traditionally only grant pardons after conviction
• there is no precedent for pardoning a sitting prime minister mid-trial
• Netanyahu has not admitted any guilt, making a pardon even less likely

How Is He Still Prime Minister While on Trial?

Israeli law does not require a prime minister to step down unless convicted. Even upon conviction, they may stay in office throughout the appeals process.

This legal loophole has allowed Netanyahu to govern while fighting charges for years.

Could Netanyahu Go to Prison?

• Bribery carries up to 10 years in jail
• Fraud and breach of trust carry up to 3 years

If convicted on the most serious charges, Netanyahu could face a lengthy sentence though appeals could drag the process out for years.

Impact on Israeli Society and Politics

Before the 2023 Hamas attacks and the subsequent Gaza war, Netanyahu’s trial was at the centre of national division, sparking mass protests and contributing to five election cycles.

After returning to power in 2022, his government launched a sweeping judicial overhaul that critics argued was designed to weaken the courts ahead of his trial. Massive protests followed, straining relations with the U.S. and Europe.

The war temporarily shelved these debates, but Netanyahu has recently revived rhetoric against the judiciary, reigniting old tensions.

International Angle

• Western allies privately worry that the trial and judicial overhaul weaken Israel’s democratic institutions.
• Netanyahu’s wartime leadership is judged through the lens of his corruption cases, raising questions about political survival, credibility and motivations.
• Allies fear both instability and the perception of democratic erosion.

Broader Implications

• Governance Paralysis: A prime minister fighting for political survival may prioritize personal protection over strategic decision-making.
• Institutional Pressure: The judiciary faces immense political strain, risking long-term damage to Israel’s democratic credibility.
• Public Trust: With society deeply split, the trial undermines trust in government, media and legal institutions.
• Security Environment: Political instability during war raises fears about decision quality, national direction, and accountability.

Personal Analysis

Netanyahu’s trial is no longer just a legal battle — it is a referendum on Israel’s democratic identity. His ability to govern while under indictment exposes structural weaknesses in the Israeli political system. The war has muted criticism for now, but the underlying fissures remain and are reopening as he ramps up attacks on the judiciary.

The trial will likely continue for years, shaping Israeli politics long after the conflict ends. Whether Netanyahu secures a pardon or not, the case has already transformed Israeli society, reshaped alliances, and deepened polarisation. In many ways, the outcome of the trial whenever it comes will signal what kind of democracy Israel chooses to be.

With information from Reuters.