politics

Donald Trump wanted only the pretty ones, his employees said.

After the Trump National Golf Club in Rancho Palos Verdes opened for play in 2005, its world-famous owner didn’t stop by more than a few times a year to visit the course hugging the coast of the Pacific.

When Trump did visit, the club’s managers went on alert. They scheduled the young, thin, pretty women on staff to work the clubhouse restaurant — because when Trump saw less-attractive women working at his club, according to court records, he wanted them fired.

“I had witnessed Donald Trump tell managers many times while he was visiting the club that restaurant hostesses were ‘not pretty enough’ and that they should be fired and replaced with more attractive women,” Hayley Strozier, who was director of catering at the club until 2008, said in a sworn declaration.

Initially, Trump gave this command “almost every time” he visited, Strozier said. Managers eventually changed employee schedules “so that the most attractive women were scheduled to work when Mr. Trump was scheduled to be at the club,” she said.

A similar story is told by former Trump employees in court documents filed in 2012 in a broad labor relations lawsuit brought against one of Trump’s development companies in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The employees’ declarations in support of the lawsuit, which have not been reported in detail until now, show the extent to which they believed Trump, now the Republican presidential nominee, pressured subordinates at one of his businesses to create and enforce a culture of beauty, where female employees’ appearances were prized over their skills.

A Trump Organization attorney, in a statement to The Times, called the allegations “meritless.”

In a 2009 court filing, the company said that any “allegedly wrongful or discriminatory acts” by its employees, if any occurred, would be in violation of company policy and were not authorized.

Employees said in their declarations that the apparent preference for attractive women came from the top.

“Donald Trump always wanted good looking women working at the club,” said Sue Kwiatkowski, a restaurant manager at the club until 2009, in a declaration. “I know this because one time he took me aside and said, ‘I want you to get some good looking hostesses here. People like to see good looking people when they come in.’ ”

As a result, Kwiatkowski said, “I and the other managers always tried to have our most attractive hostesses working when Mr. Trump was in town and going to be on the premises.”

Trump has struggled to win the support of female voters as he seeks the nation’s highest office. In the past, he has insulted women’s appearances, sometimes calling them “pigs” or “dogs.”

Trump’s record with women got renewed attention after this week’s presidential debate, when Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton told the story of a former beauty pageant winner who said Trump called her “Miss Piggy” when she gained weight.

Trump has previously defended himself by saying he has “great respect for women” and “will do far more for women” than Clinton. He has also said that “all are impressed with how nicely I have treated women.”

As part of the lawsuit over a lack of meal and rest breaks at Trump’s golf club about 30 miles south of downtown Los Angeles — his largest real estate holding in Southern California — several employees said managers staffed Trump’s clubhouse restaurant with attractive young women rather than more experienced employees in order to please Trump.

The bulk of the lawsuit was settled in 2013, when golf course management, without admitting any wrongdoing, agreed to pay $475,000 to employees who had complained about break policies. An employee’s claim that she was fired after complaining about the company’s treatment of women was settled separately; its terms remain confidential.

A public relations firm working for the Trump campaign referred questions about the lawsuit to one of the attorneys who represented the Trump National Golf Club in the case.

“We do not engage in discrimination of any kind and have always complied with all wage laws, including by providing our employees with meal and rest breaks,” said the attorney, Jill Martin, assistant general counsel for the Trump Organization.

The former employees’ statements primarily describe the club’s work culture from the mid- to late 2000s. The Times spoke at length to one of the ex-employees, who described in detail the allegations about workplace culture. The person declined to be quoted by name, citing a fear of being sued.

In their sworn declarations, some employees described how Trump, during his stays in Southern California, made inappropriate and patronizing statements to the women working for him.

On one visit, Trump saw “a young, attractive hostess working named Nicole … and directed that she be brought to a place where he was meeting with a group of men,” former Trump restaurant manager Charles West said in his declaration.

“After this woman had been presented to him, Mr. Trump said to his guests something like, ‘See, you don’t have to go to Hollywood to find beautiful women,’” West said. “He also turned to Nicole and asked her, ‘Do you like Jewish men?’”

One of the few older people on the wait staff who served Trump, Maral Bolsajian, said she was “uncomfortable” when he visited, calling his behavior toward her “inappropriate.”

“Although I am a grown woman in my forties, Mr. Trump regularly greeted me with expressions like ‘how’s my favorite girl?’” Bolsajian said in a declaration. “Later, after he learned (by asking me) that I was married — and happily so — he regularly asked, ‘are you still happily married?’ whenever he saw me.”

Trump also asked her to pose for photos with him, said Bolsajian, who added that she felt she “had little recourse given that Donald Trump is not only the head of the company but also one of the most powerful, well-known people in the United States.”

Bolsajian said, “In short, I consistently found Mr. Trump to be overly familiar and unprofessional.”

The lawsuit focused on the course’s high-pressure work culture. Employees said they were not allowed to take the breaks required under California law.

The statements about Trump’s preference for young, attractive employees were filed in support of a separate claim for retaliation, lodged after former restaurant host Lucy Messerschmidt, then 45, contended that she had been fired for complaining about age discrimination.

Jeffrey W. Cowan, a Santa Monica attorney who represented the employees in the lawsuit, said the case targeted Trump’s development company, VH Property Corp., but “the evidence certainly suggested” that the club’s work culture flowed from Trump.

Donald Trump takes an unfinished pathway at the Trump National Golf Club in Rancho Palos Verdes in 2005.

(Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times )

Although Trump was mostly absent from the course he purchased in 2002, workers said his company maintained a rigorous work environment that often left workers exhausted.

Employees said managers urged them to hurry through brief meal breaks, sometimes even expressing impatience with bathroom breaks.

“My manager insisted that because this was Trump’s golf course, it had to be top-notch,” one employee said in a declaration. “He was concerned that if Trump observed employees eating or resting, Trump would not be pleased.”

Another employee said his manager “seemed obsessed with the fact that this was Donald Trump’s golf course,” believing that “Mr. Trump wouldn’t like it if he saw employees sitting around because he would think the golf course was inefficient and overstaffed.” A valet described a stretch where “someone got fired every week.”

One busboy said in a declaration that he took up smoking so that he would have an excuse for going outside for a break.

In response, Trump’s company filed declarations from more than a dozen other employees who said they regularly were offered lunch breaks of at least 30 minutes for every five-hour shift, and were counseled by managers if they didn’t take them.

Lili Amini, general manager, said in a declaration that the company implemented a firm policy about such breaks in 2009.

Employees said managers started instituting breaks after the class-action lawsuit was filed.

The Trump National Golf Club on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in 2005.

(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times )

Female employees said they faced additional pressures.

Strozier, the former catering director, said Vincent Stellio — a former Trump bodyguard who had risen to become a Trump Organization vice president — approached her in 2003 about an employee that Strozier thought was talented.

Stellio wanted the employee fired because she was overweight, Strozier said in her legal filing.

“Mr. Stellio told me to do this because ‘Mr. Trump doesn’t like fat people’ and that he would not like seeing [the employee] when he was on the premises,” wrote Strozier, who said she refused the request. (Stellio died in 2010.)

A year later, Mike van der Goes — a golf pro who had been promoted to be Trump National’s general manager — made a similar request to fire the same overweight employee, Strozier said.

“Mr. van der Goes told me that he wanted me to do this because of [the employee’s] appearance and the fact that Mr. Trump didn’t like people that looked like her,” Strozier wrote.

When Strozier protested, Van der Goes returned a week later “and announced he had a plan of hiding [the employee] whenever Mr. Trump was on the premises,” Strozier wrote.

West, who worked as a restaurant manager at the club until 2008, wrote that Van der Goes ordered him “to hire young, attractive women to be hostesses.” West also said Van der Goes insisted that he “would need to meet all such job applicants first to determine if they were sufficiently pretty.”

Van der Goes, who worked at the club until 2008, did not respond to requests for comment, though he defended Trump in a February interview with the Santa Clarita Gazette.

“He’s not a racist. He’s not a bigot,” said Van der Goes, who called Trump “an astute businessman and a marketing genius.”

Employees said several women quit or were fired because they were perceived as unattractive.

A server, John Marlo, recalled seeing a co-worker crying in 2007. The woman had wanted to be promoted to server.

“She told me that she was upset because a manager had told her that she couldn’t be a server because of she had acne on her face,” Marlo said in a declaration. “According to her, she was qualified for the job and wanted it, but couldn’t get it solely because of her acne.”

The woman quit soon after, Marlo wrote.

Messerschmidt, the employee who said she was fired in retaliation for complaining about age discrimination, said in 2008 that one of her managers, Brian Wolbers, changed her schedule to give her time off during one of Trump’s visits because Trump “likes to see fresh faces” and “young girls.”

Wolbers did not respond to a request for comment.

Gail Doner, who worked as a food server from 2007 to 2011, wrote that she was 60 and had often been frustrated by the inefficiency of the restaurant’s young, inexperienced hostesses, who “usually were not competent but were kept anyway.”

“The hostesses that were the youngest and the prettiest always got the best shifts,” Doner wrote.

Meanwhile, Doner — who had 20 years of experience working for wine vendors, and was at “the top of [her] game” while working for Trump National — said managers slowly cut back her shifts until they stopped scheduling her at all, “effectively firing [her].”

“It did not appear to me that this reduction in shifts was happening to any of the younger, more attractive female food servers,” Doner said. She added: “I chose not to fight to get my job back because by that point I was fed up with the toxic environment and the way that I was treated.”

matt.pearce@latimes.com

Twitter: @mattdpearce

WASHINGTON — Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Tex.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, is examining ways to reduce capital gains taxes, it was reported today.

Bentsen told the Wall Street Journal in a telephone interview that he intends to ask his tax-writing committee to devise a bill that would raise federal revenues about $8 billion in fiscal 1990, which begins Oct. 1.

Such an increase would extend several tax breaks that are about to expire, including the credit for research and development expenditures.

Bentsen said a capital gains tax cut “is one of those things we’ll have to take a look at” as part of the tax package.

This is the April 14, 2021, edition of the Essential Politics newsletter. Like what you’re reading? Sign up to get it in your inbox three times a week.

Former President Trump‘s banishment from Twitter has had a calming effect on the country that even some of his sharpest critics did not foresee.

Yet political discourse on social media has not fundamentally changed. It remains nasty and brutish at times.

Good morning and welcome to Essential Politics, Kamala Harris edition. This week, I’ll talk about my takeaways from reporting on the vice president’s biggest online cheerleaders, the KHive, a loose-knit network of supporters who say they are responding to the toxicity of social media by fighting back when it comes to Harris. Their critics say they are part of the problem.

KHive and the political questions it raises.

The story about the KHive, published online last week and in print on Sunday, told of the comradery, celebration and mutual sense of purpose its members find, mostly on Twitter, where they defend Harris against what they see as an unfair standard applied to political women of color. The Harris fans’ biggest fights, with fellow liberals, have gotten personal at times. Some members have had their accounts suspended by Twitter.

I hope you will read the story, because they are an interesting group of people. A few broader political points are worth considering as you do:

These kinds of online groups will be an important force in 2024 and beyond.

Ashley Bryant, a Democratic strategist who specializes in digital politics, told me she sees the early fights among the KHive, Bernie Bros (the nickname for Bernie Sanders’ progressive fans) and other groups as a precursor to the party’s next presidential nomination fight.

That could come in 2024 or 2028, depending on whether President Biden runs for reelection. Hard-core partisans are getting a head start.

Republicans have their social-media fights as well. But Trump’s still-dominant presence in the party, combined with his Twitter ban, has given the Republican version of this battle a different flavor.

Many in the NeverTrump faction seem to have given up on the Republican Party, while the post-Trump crowd of potential presidential aspirants and their followers is paralyzed by Trump’s hold on the party’s base. This week, for example, former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley backtracked on her prior comments disavowing Trump, telling reporters she would support him if he chose to run in 2024.

But I thought Twitter isn’t real life!

This is an important point. The Biden team’s motto, both when he was a candidate and now that he’s president, is that Twitter is not real life. By that they mean that some of the strongest opinions shared by the partisans and pundits who dominate the platform do not often reflect the broad swath of voters who decide primaries and general elections.

That posture helped Team Biden avoid overreacting to criticism or praise shared on Twitter. And the contrast with Trump, who exhausted Americans with his constant provocative presence online and in the news, appears to be playing a big part in Biden’s relative popularity. Politico published a smart story on Biden’s lower-volume media strategy this week, summarizing his approach as “First, do no self-harm.”

One important caveat: Online debates may not be the driving force in public opinion, but they can stoke debate in Congress. For example, the fight over whether to abolish the filibuster in the Senate — which requires many bills to garner a supermajority of 60 votes to pass — has been much hotter online than it is with the general public, though a change in that relatively obscure practice could have significant policy implications for the country.

Notwithstanding Biden’s relatively low-key online persona, Harris has courted the in-your-face KHive. And it’s easy to see why. Its members provide a sense of passionate support, something she lacked in her 2020 presidential primary run. Some members I spoke with spend 20 hours or more online each week. Others said they are active offline in volunteering for her and the Democratic Party.

But such occasionally confrontational groups also pose risks for her, if she becomes too reactive to online debates or gets dragged into some of the more personal and provocative squabbles among partisans.

Democrats are content right now but still divided.

There is also risk for the Democratic Party. Online, Sanders and Harris boosters accuse each other of all manner of attacks, including a practice known as doxxing, in which a target’s personal information is posted online.

Among many, anger lingers from the 2016 nomination contest between Hillary Clinton and Sanders — when Clinton supporters blamed the other side for costing her the election by resisting her candidacy, and Sanders supporters accused Clinton proxies of controlling the party apparatus to stymie Sanders. Some of the Clinton supporters are now behind Harris.

If Democrats want to hold on to the White House and Congress, they need to hash out policy debates but stay unified.

“I don’t have a crystal ball, I don’t know what 2024 could potentially look like,” Bryant said. “But you don’t want voters not even being willing to open their eyes to another candidate just because they’re aligned to one that may not get the nomination.”

The latest from the White House

— From David S. Cloud and Tracy Wilkinson: Biden is planning to withdraw all remaining troops from Afghanistan and will complete the pullout before Sept. 11, the 20th anniversary of the terrorist attacks that sparked the United States’ longest war, according to a senior U.S. official.

— Biden began to fill the top posts at the Homeland Security Department on Monday. Its ranks were hollowed out by his predecessor amid politicization and record vacancies. Almost all the appointees have California ties, reports Molly O’Toole.

— Lifting kids out of poverty could be Biden’s legacy. Yet the future of his policies remains uncertain as the administration’s ambitions run into spending limits, writes David Lauter.

— Biden spoke Tuesday morning with Russian President Vladimir Putin, warning him against aggressive moves toward Ukraine but also inviting him to a summit meeting, Lauter and Wilkinson write.

— Biden will address a joint session of Congress for the first time on April 28 after receiving an invitation from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

The view from Washington

— Congress has a very short window to reverse regulatory actions approved by President Trump’s administration before he left office. Sarah D. Wire writes that at least two are expected to get Senate votes in the coming weeks. Also from Wire: Can Biden really cancel student debt? Here’s where the debate stands.

— The Supreme Court is set to decide soon whether conservative Christians can refuse to work with same-sex couples in a city-funded foster care program. David G. Savage writes that it’s the latest clash at the high court between religious liberty and marriage equality.

— Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill are negotiating a modest bill designed to help law enforcement combat the rise in hate crimes targeting Asian Americans, a rare moment of potential bipartisan compromise on legislation, Jennifer Haberkorn reports.

The view from California

— In 2020, demonstrators began ditching traditional protest venues to instead chant, fulminate and sit-in outside the front doors of officials’ homes. Sacramento has begun to push back, with officials saying “no more,” reports James Rainey.

— There have been hundreds of attempts to break up California. Those forces are driving the effort to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom, writes columnist Mark Z. Barabak.

— And speaking of the recall effort: a colorful cast of hopefuls who want to replace the Democratic leader has started to emerge, including former porn star Mary Carey and Los Angeles billboard icon Angelyne. Both ran in the 2003 recall election to replace then-Gov. Gray Davis, writes Faith E. Pinho.

— A far-reaching proposal to outlaw hydraulic fracturing and ban oil and gas wells from operating near homes, schools and healthcare facilities failed in the California Legislature on Tuesday, writes Phil Willon.

— From John Myers: California law enforcement officers could lose their certification based on the decisions of a panel that includes victims of police misconduct under legislation that moved forward Tuesday in the Legislature. Lawmakers also supported an expansive ban on policing techniques that obstruct a person’s breathing.

A watered-down resolution calling for Congress to “repair” the nation’s “historically broken” immigration laws won bipartisan support by the state Senate on Monday.

The Senate voted 32 to 0 to support Senate Joint Resolution 8 by Sen. Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana).

The measure originally called for illegal immigrants to have access to “a logical and streamlined path to citizenship,” but it was changed to provide that path for “individuals after they gain legal status.”

The resolution also originally said: “This reform should also include a way to help families remain together throughout the lengthy bureaucratic process,” but that provision was removed. It now calls for the reform to “recognize the societal and cultural benefits of keeping the family unit intact.”

Senate Republican leader Robert Huff of Diamond Bar noted that California is home to a large number of illegal immigrants, many of them providing important work in agriculture, and he said immigration laws are not working.

“The status quo is hurting our state,” Huff said.

Sen. Anthony Cannella of Ceres is among the Republicans who have supported proposals in Washington that include a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

“We must recognize the hard work and contribution of our immigrant community,” Cannella told his colleagues Monday.

ALSO:

Brown goes electric to lure Chinese tourists

Brown’s first day in Shanghai is heavy on ceremony

Skelton: Special interests give Brown a free ride to China

patrick.mcgreevy@latimes.com

March 27 (UPI) — An ethics adjudicatory subcommittee found Friday that 25 of 27 charges of ethics violations against Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, D-Fla., had been “proven by clear and convincing evidence.”

“Following the hearing, the adjudicatory subcommittee moved into executive session to deliberate. After careful deliberation that lasted until well past midnight, the adjudicatory subcommittee found that Counts 1-15 and 17-26 of the [Statement of Alleged Violations] had been proven,” the release from the Committee on Ethics said.

Cherfilus-McCormick, who maintains her innocence, was indicted in November on the federal charges along with her brother, Edwin Cherfilus.

The representative’s family owns Trinity Healthcare Services. The company had a FEMA-funded contract to register people for COVID-19 vaccines, but in July 2021 was accidentally overpaid by $5 million by a Florida agency, the indictment said. Instead of returning the funds, Cherfilus-McCormick allegedly moved the money to different accounts “to disguise its source,” the Justice Department said. She then allegedly used some of the funds to finance her campaign.

The full ethics committee is scheduled to have a hearing when the House comes back from its two week recess beginning Friday, “to determine what, if any, sanction would be appropriate for the Committee to recommend,” Ethics Chair Michael Guest, R-Miss., and Ranking Member Mark DeSaulnier, D-Calif., said in a joint statement.

The hearing lasted nearly seven hours Thursday night.

Cherfilus-McCormick has denied any wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty in a federal criminal case.

William Barzee, Cherfilus-McCormick’s lawyer, argued that the facts in the committee’s motion were in dispute and that the federal charges kept her from responding to the Ethics panel because of concerns about self-incrimination in the trial.

Barzee argued in the hearing that there was evidence of a “profit-sharing agreement” for the family company, which means she was “entitled to every single penny that she received” from her family’s company after the improper payment. Lawmakers appeared skeptical of that argument and of the evidence of a profit-sharing agreement.

The committee said Cherfilus-McCormick failed to file accurate financial disclosure forms, accepted improper campaign contributions from others and provided special favors in connection with community project funding requests, The Hill reported.

The panel did not approve two of the 27 counts.

It said that Cherfilus-McCormick: “had knowledge that some or all information identified as inaccurately disclosed in numerous FEC reports filed on behalf of her campaign were false” and that she “caused her campaign to submit false records to the FEC.”

Another charge it didn’t approve was lack of candor and diligence in ethics investigations, because she missed deadlines and canceled interviews, but her lawyer said that her previous lawyer had told her not to cooperate because of the federal charges.

“You can’t crime your way into legitimate power,” Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., posted on X. “Since she was found guilty, she should resign or be removed.”

When asked if she should stay in the House, Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., didn’t answer.

FT. WORTH — In the city that Jim Wright represented for 34 years, the House Speaker’s resignation Wednesday prompted fear, sorrow and anger at Republicans.

“Anybody who knows anything of the American political process knows the loss of the speakership is a major loss for this area,” said Mayor Bob Bolen, whose city has long counted Wright as a major asset in attracting defense jobs.

Officials said it may be impossible to rebuild the political power or match the economic gain the region enjoyed from Wright’s 34-year tenure and his leadership in the Democratic Party.

“We just lost our right arm in Ft. Worth,” state Rep. Doyle Willis, who represents the city in the Texas House, said in Austin. “I think he got a dirty Republican deal. I think they were after him, and they finally got him.”

In Wright’s 12th Congressional District, people gathered around televisions in an electronics shop to watch his resignation speech.

“I think it’s horrible,” Lynn Bratcher said. “He’s the only one I could call on for help when I needed help. . . . He’s the only one that has ever really done anything for anyone for Texas.”

Thick, black smoke rose from Kuwait International Airport Saturday after suspected Iranian drone strikes damaged radar systems and fuel storage facilities, state media said. No fatalities were reported. The airport has been repeatedly targeted since the US-Israeli war on Iran erupted.

State Sen. Lucy Killea’s decision to quit the Democratic Party and become an independent is not going to fool any Republicans in her largely GOP district.

But she may succeed in exacerbating the very cynicism toward politicians that she says prompted her to make the change.

In a scathing criticism of her colleagues, Killea said lawmakers “have lost the public’s confidence.” She’s right.

A recent Times Poll found that only 25% of San Diegans have confidence in local elected officials. She also pointed to the public’s deep dissatisfaction and resentment, and its view that the “Legislature is interested only in itself.”

Those are easy chords to strike. Too easy. The public has made its frustration known loudly and repeatedly in recent years.

Quitting the Democratic Party isn’t going to lessen the public fury, and it won’t reform the system.

Plus, Killea’s request for a change in state law to allow her to appear on the June, 1992, ballot as an independent–current law requires at least a year’s notice–smacks of the same self-serving politics of which she accuses her colleagues.

She is also guilty of some of the sins for which she castigated them. For instance, she criticized the Legislature for trying to “undo the will of the people” by going to court to overturn the initiative limiting legislative terms and cutting office budgets by 40%.

Yet, Killea is one of only two state senators who have failed to make the budget-reduction goals set by the Senate. She was supposed to cut $110,000 from her $869,000 budget, but has only cut about $65,000.

It’s hard to figure how leaving the Democratic Party will help Killea. She will lose the considerable Democratic financial support that helped her win in 1988.

And the way she is making her exit is winning her no new friends and probably earning the enmity of current allies. How can she help her constituents if she is frozen out of the system?

Her departure also weakens the already ailing Democratic Party. Republicans outnumber Democrats in the county 47.8% to 37.7%–almost 120,000 voters–and GOP registration is still on the rise.

If they lose much more strength, San Diego County Democrats run the risk of becoming an endangered species, as they already are in Orange County. And that could reduce debate on important policy issues, here and in Sacramento.

Killea’s frustrations with the current system, and the “old-boy network,” are understandable. The public may give a brief cheer to hear Killea express its sentiments on the Senate floor.

But Killea’s dramatic gesture is a hollow one that could do more damage than good.

March 27 (UPI) — Uruguayan Minister of Economy and Finance Gabriel Oddone said the United States is exerting “unimaginable” and “unsustainable” pressure on his South American country to break its trade relationship with China, according to remarks made at a private meeting.

The comments during a session with business leaders were reported by the local weekly Búsqueda.

With about 3.5 million inhabitants and a territory comparable to the state of Florida, Uruguay has had China as its main trading partner for more than 14 years, accounting for about 26% of its exports.

Oddone said the pressure is applied daily and channeled through different areas of the bilateral relationship.

According to attendees at the meeting with the Confederation of Business Chambers, the minister said that if Uruguay does not comply with Washington’s demands, its trade relationship with the administration of President Donald Trump “will not improve and could get worse.”

The remarks came Tuesday during a meeting at the Technological Laboratory of Uruguay, attended by more than 20 business representatives, along with the director of the Office of Planning and Budget, Rodrigo Arim.

The meeting lasted more than two hours and addressed economic and trade issues in a context described as “very complex.”

China is the main destination for key exports, such as beef, soybeans and cellulose. The pressure from the United States comes amid growing geopolitical rivalry between Washington and Beijing, which is affecting countries with trade ties to both powers.

According to attendees cited by Búsqueda, Oddone acknowledged that the government has “little room for maneuver” due to the fiscal situation inherited from the previous administration and internal differences within the ruling coalition over advancing economic reforms.

On the domestic front, the minister defended the country’s economic performance despite lower-than-expected growth.

Uruguay’s gross domestic product grew 1.8% in 2025, below the official projection of 2.6%, while analysts have already cut expectations for 2026 to around 1.6%.

Facing criticism from the private sector over the size and slow pace of the state, Oddone urged business leaders to also consider positive aspects.

“We should not only see the glass as half-empty,” he said, noting that the economy continues to grow despite an adverse international environment in which Uruguay is “swimming in dulce de leche,” a colloquial phrase interpreted as meaning it is difficult to move quickly.

The minister also ruled out improving competitiveness through a depreciation of the exchange rate.

“Uruguay is not going to become a cheap country,” he said, adding that improvements will come from microeconomic changes to reduce costs and streamline foreign trade.

Asked by Búsqueda, the minister declined to comment publicly on the meeting, as it was a private event. Some participants described it as useful, but with “mixed” feelings, while others said they valued explanations from the economic team.

At the close, Oddone adopted an optimistic tone.

“Believe me, we will do well,” he said, highlighting the country’s institutional and economic strengths to face an international scenario marked by trade tensions and regional slowdown.

WALTHAM, Mass. — “Throughout my public career,” President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, “I have followed the personal philosophy that I am a free man, an American, a public servant and a member of my party, in that order always and only.”

In the wake of the Sept. 11 tragedies, Americans have shown their patriotic colors. But, as Johnson made clear, patriotism does not require us always to put our national identity first when considering the various roles we play in the world. Our commitment to country is always stronger when it complements and builds upon other commitments. In the 21st century, we should expand Johnson’s list to include our role as citizens of the world.

Americans, after all, are not only Americans. We also belong to a global community.

Americans tend to shy away from thinking of themselves as global citizens. For all our bravado, we are insecure about the depth and the power of our national identity. We worry that something essential to the American character will be lost if we dilute our national feeling with too much commitment to the international.

Global citizenship and patriotism need not compete. Indeed, the one is bound to enrich the other. If we think deeply about the United States and its place in the world, we are bound to think more creatively and more deeply about which aspects of our country matter most to us.

Here are four ways in which we might begin.

First, we can recognize that the sense of suffering, grief and fear we’ve felt so intensely in recent weeks is not uncommon around the globe. Violence on a catastrophic scale is a new experience for most Americans alive today, but it is all too familiar to many people around the world. We miss a vital opportunity for establishing strong bonds across oceans when we neglect to think of our losses as a part of a larger contemporary human tragedy.

Second, we might extend this sense of connection with the fears and passions of others by toning down the constant–and very public–celebration of our national destiny and greatness. It was natural for us to react in the immediate aftermath of tragedy with the swollen rhetoric of injured pride: Our enemies attacked us because we are so strong and so good, we will triumph because no national spirit matches our own, and other similar sentiments.

The time has come to scale back our self-righteousness. Our enemies never bought our assertions of American greatness. Our friends, however, even our closest allies, are beginning to resent our self-importance. Efforts to build a global coalition are bound to be more fruitful if we approach potential partners, not as a swaggering savior, but as fellow citizens of a world in peril.

Third, thinking of ourselves as global citizens can dissuade us from making the glib assumption, underlying one leading edge of patriotic fervor, that “American values” represent the pinnacle of political and cultural ideals. I agree with those who believe that freedom and equality have flourished in the United States to a much greater degree than they have in most other parts of the world. But since we argue among ourselves about the meaning, the priority and the implementation of these ideals at home, we should expect and welcome vigorous debates about the goals of human society in an international context. And we should respect the international organizations and institutions that embody those contested universal ideals. International courts have already played a significant role in helping the world come to terms with atrocities in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda. Americans have been reluctant to support a strong international justice system, but without one, we now lack a crucial element in the struggle against terrorism.

Fourth, and most important, we must recall the essential duty of any patriot: the task of careful, penetrating national self-criticism. This not a matter of tolerating dissent, which we already do reasonably well.

I am speaking of something grander than permitting expressions of outrage: I mean to suggest a collective effort to use the perspective of global identity to reflect on our values, our language and our actions. A consistent effort to see ourselves from outside ourselves paves the way for actions that are considered and collaborative.

The patriotism that emerges from this dialogue will not just be about flags and parades. If we take an active role in making and remaking American ideals and aspirations, if we talk candidly about our nation’s weaknesses, as well as its strengths, we will find it easier to persuade our friends abroad to join with us in causes that matter, and we will find it easier to sustain strong national feeling across the widest spectrum of the American public. That patriotism will flourish, because it is not something static, not something that has simply been handed to us. Global commitment will make America stronger, precisely because it will make us humbler.

Do newspaper endorsements for president still matter? Certainly not as much as they once did, but that doesn’t stop most newspapers (including this one) from exercising their 1st Amendment right to spout off about their choice of candidate, and it doesn’t stop the presidential campaigns from breathlessly reporting each and every endorsement as if it were handed down by the Oracle of Delphi.

So who’s winning the endorsement race?

That all depends on how you look at it.

According to Editor & Publisher, the longtime bible of the newspaper business, the tally as of Saturday was 112 for Republican Mitt Romney and 84 for President Obama. That list didn’t include papers from Sunday, when many delivered their endorsements, but it suggested a shift from 2008, when E&P;’s final tally showed daily newspapers — which historically have skewed Republican — endorsing Obama over Republican John McCain by a better than 3-2 margin, 296 to 180

The American Presidency Project at UC Santa Barbara has also been tracking endorsements, but it limits its list to the 100 largest newspapers. On average, they tend to have more liberal editorial pages, presumably reflecting their locations in Democratic-leaning big cities. As of Sunday, the project showed 33 endorsements for Obama and 27 for Romney. (Although most newspapers have issued their endorsements by now, a significant number are apparently waiting for the final week of the campaign.)

The tally reflects some notable gains for the GOP, however. According to the American Presidency Project, nine of the 100 top newspapers have switched sides from Obama to Romney since 2008, whereas only one went the other direction.

Among those abandoning the president was his Arlington Heights, Il., Daily Herald in his home state, which cast its lot — albeit a bit hesitantly– with Romney on Sunday.

“We believe that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are good and decent men who care about the country,” the newspaper wrote. “We believe each possesses extraordinary skills and talent. But, philosophically, it is clear that one trusts government too much; the other appears to trust it too little.” The editorial went on to criticize “the tone of Obama’s relentless insinuations that wealthy Americans refuse to pay their fair share. That tone is divisive and damaging for the nation and for our economy. It creates villains and victims, and unfairly so.” That, it said, was, “ultimately, the point where we must break with him.”

The San Antonio Express-News was the only one of the big papers to go the other way. It had endorsed McCain in 2008. This year, it said that while Obama has “had his failings,” such as a failure to pursue immigration reform and to tackle the debt crisis, “These shortcomings … don’t justify a change in leadership, particularly when many of Mitt Romney’s proposals — such as an across-the-board 20 percent cut in taxes and the elimination of unspecified itemized deductions — invite skepticism.”

Concluded the Express-News: “No candidate has all the right policies — that includes Barack Obama. But having weathered the challenges of the last four years, we believe he is in a better position to guide the nation over the next four years — and has earned from voters the privilege to do so.”

It is probably in the nature of newspaper editorials to stop short of adulation and unbridled enthusiasm. That certainly is the case with virtually all the endorsements of Obama and Romney, very few of which are wholehearted.

The Chicago Tribune (owned by the Tribune Co., which also owns The Times) endorsed Obama, but its editorial page editors said, “On questions of economics and limited government, the Chicago Tribune has forged principles that put us closer to the challenger in this race, Republican Mitt Romney. We write with those principles clearly in our minds. Romney advocates less spending, less borrowing — overall, a less costly and less intrusive role for government in the lives of the governed.” So why not just endorse Romney? The Trib concluded that he had been “astonishingly willing to bend his views to the politics of the moment: on abortion, on immigration, on gun laws and, most famously, on healthcare.”

And several newspapers that did endorse Romney expressed the hope that, if elected, he would turn out to be the moderate Romney, not the “severe” conservative he presented himself to be in the Republican primaries.

“Let us stipulate,” said the Houston Chronicle, the largest newspaper to switch from Obama in 2008 to Romney this year. “The Mitt Romney we are endorsing is the Massachusetts moderate who worked successfully alongside an 88 percent Democratic majority in the state Legislature to produce what the Obama administration says became its model for national healthcare reform.”

Not everyone was so equivocal. The New York Post, never known for mincing words, did not choose this occasion to begin.

“Four frustratingly long years ago, a war-weary and economically battered America took a flier on a savior,” the Post wrote.

Next paragraph, in full: “It didn’t work out.”

Some newspapers that endorsed candidates in 2008 decided not to pick anyone this year. The Oregonian, in Portland, supported Obama four years ago, during a campaign in which he held one of his largest rallies in that city. The paper sounded a bit miffed this year when it said it wasn’t endorsing anyone this time around because the candidates hadn’t campaigned in Oregon. “The access and close observation that inform our endorsements for state and local offices and Congress do not apply in a national race; our CNN-level view of the presidential race is similar to everyone else’s,” the paper said.

The New York Times was the largest of the nation’s newspapers to endorse a candidate. It concluded Saturday that Obama “has formed sensible budget policies that are not dedicated to protecting the powerful, and has worked to save the social safety net to protect the powerless.” Romney, it said, “has gotten this far with a guile that allows him to say whatever he thinks an audience wants to hear. But he has tied himself to the ultraconservative forces that control the Republican Party and embraced their policies, including reckless budget cuts and 30-year-old, discredited trickle-down ideas.”

The two largest newspapers in the country, the Wall Street Journal and USA Today, do not usually issue formal endorsements, although the Journal has made no secret of its strong preference for Romney.

The Los Angels Times, for what it’s worth, endorsed Obama and followed up with an explanation from Editorial Page Editor Nick Goldberg of why the newspaper endorses anyone at all, given its mandate to be nonpartisan and unbiased in its news articles. The article contained one reminder of the historically less-than-awesome power wielded by newspaper endorsements: The Times’ first endorsement, in 1884, was for Republican James G. Blaine.

Remember him?

mitchell.landsberg@latimes.com

Twitter: @LATlands

A record wave of early voting promises to cut crowding on election day, but the trend has also front-loaded this year’s election with problems — long lines at early-voting stations, missing absentee ballots and controversy over retooled rules for early balloting.

Analysts and opinion surveys project that more than 26 million of an estimated 120 million voters might cast their ballots before the traditional start of polling — at midnight on election eve in Dixville Notch, N.H.

Despite hopes that early voting would reduce anxiety after a highly contentious 2000 election, a recent survey found that 40% of Americans believe that most of the problems exposed in that election have not been corrected. And nearly half of Americans in another survey said they think this year’s results will be challenged in court.

Many local election officials share those fears. Already overtaxed by voting that now lasts for weeks, some doubt that their work will be finished Tuesday.

“It will not be over on Nov. 2, and you can put that on the record,” said Susan Miller, elections director for Colorado’s Jefferson County. “We have 12 days to certify provisional ballots. In Colorado, there is more than likely to be a recount.”

Miller says she has already been told about four or five groups that might file lawsuits to challenge results in her county, which includes the town of Golden. She worries that “another Florida” — with its 36-day recount and disputed ballots — could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

“We’ve been working six-day weeks, 12-, 14-hour days for a month,” Miller said. “When the public calls and says they don’t trust us, it breaks my heart…. We’re at the point where we don’t care who wins. We just want him to win by a landslide. Then we don’t have to recount the ballots.”

The Washington-based Committee for the Study of the American Electorate has projected turnout as high as 60% this year (compared with 54% in 2000), which would mean voting by more than 120 million Americans. Twenty-two percent of them, or more than 26 million, planned to cast votes before Tuesday, according to the National Annenberg Election Survey.

That trend has been evident across the country, in states where the presidential election is close and where it is not, such as California.

In Palm Beach County, Fla., requests for absentee ballots have more than doubled, and retirees and others have waited as long as two hours in line at satellite voting stations. Iowa has seen a nearly 55% jump in absentee ballot requests. New Mexico’s secretary of state expects half of her votes to be cast before Tuesday. The number of residents on the Hawaiian island of Oahu asking for mail-in ballots has spiked by nearly 82%.

In California, an enormous jump in absentees has been led by Orange County, with an increase of 200,000 to about 450,000. Los Angeles County has seen a more modest 18% increase, to 740,000, said Conny McCormack, the county’s registrar-recorder.

Officials nationwide say the deluge of early voting has them in effect running two elections — requiring extra staffing and long shifts to handle absentees and then a second push to prepare election day polling places.

“It’s time-consuming and tiring,” McCormack said.

Most of those voting by mail will avoid such a crunch and should have their ballots counted without glitches, experts said. But there already have been some trouble spots.

In Broward County, north of Miami, officials have been deluged with hundreds of complaints from voters who say they never received their absentee ballots. U.S. Postal Service investigators were trying to find an undetermined number of the 60,000 ballots the county mailed out Oct. 7 and 8.

“That is something beyond our control,” said the county’s deputy supervisor of elections, Gisela Salas. “We really have no idea what’s going on.” Salas advised voters who did not receive their ballots to go to the county’s early-voting stations.

But Florida’s voting stations — at libraries, city halls and other civic buildings — have not necessarily made balloting easier.

In Del Rey Beach, Judy Sternberg nearly fainted after a two-hour wait in the sun. Paramedics came to her aid, but Sternberg, 69, was not about to go home.

“They really wanted me to come back a day later,” said Sternberg, who voted for President Bush. “I said, ‘I am not coming back. I am voting.’ ”

Attempts to clarify rules since the 2000 election have not eliminated disputes, particularly over how mail-in ballots should be treated. One of the most emotional and politically charged disagreements has been over military ballots from overseas.

Republican Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania has been pressuring Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell to accept ballots from military personnel up to 15 days after the election.

Rendell has declined, saying he had already attended to the issue by making special accommodations for two counties, Venango and Huntingdon, which have presented evidence that military personnel got their ballots late. Those service members got new absentee ballots by express mail, with prepaid express mail envelopes in which to send their completed ballots back.

A federal judge last week backed Rendell, saying that overseas military voters should cast their ballots by Tuesday.

But other states, including Arkansas, Colorado and Florida — will allow absentee ballots from overseas to arrive at elections offices as much as 10 days after the election, as long as they were postmarked by Tuesday.

Another group that has complained about access to absentee ballots is college students. Although well over half of collegians this year plan to vote absentee, according to a Harvard University study, six states have laws that can make that difficult. In Louisiana, Tennessee, Michigan, Illinois, Nevada and West Virginia, voters must cast their first ballot in person, according to election watchers at Rock the Vote.

That means young people from those states who attend out-of-state universities may not get to vote, said Hans Riemer, Washington director for Rock the Vote.

“This is really made to disenfranchise college students,” Riemer said.

An additional concern could be presented to students in New Hampshire, who are warned on the secretary of state’s website that establishing their residence in the Granite State could affect insurance and some types of financial aid.

“This is a totally outrageous, preposterous, outlandish intimidation of young people,” Riemer said of state restrictions that affect students.

Not surprisingly, supporters of both Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry have claimed their side is getting the best of the early voting.

In most jurisdictions it is impossible to tell who is right. But a few states record the party affiliation of those voting absentee or at early voting locations.

In Polk County, the most populous in hard-fought Iowa, Democrats had a nearly 2-to-1 edge in early ballots cast — 32,924 to 17,340.

In Los Angeles, McCormack was crossing her fingers that voters were prepared for a long ballot, jammed with state propositions. If not, she predicted, “it could be really ugly.”

Gary Smith, the Forsyth County, Ga., director of elections, said many of his colleagues had taken to reciting what he called the “night-before prayer”:

“Dear God, don’t let this election be close.”

For the second year in a row, United States Vice President JD Vance has topped the straw poll at the 2026 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), one of the biggest right-wing gatherings in the country.

The poll is a bellwether – albeit, not necessarily an accurate one – for who might ultimately become the Republican nominee for the next presidential race.

During this year’s four-day conference, attendees were asked which candidate they would prefer at the top of the Republican Party ticket for the 2028 election.

The results were revealed on stage Saturday. Vance had swept up 53 percent of the votes cast by nearly 1,600 attendees.

But rising up the ranks was another senior official under US President Donald Trump: his top diplomat, Secretary of State Marco Rubio. A former senator from Florida, Rubio notched 35 percent of the vote.

It was a markedly improved standing for Rubio, who tied for fourth place at last year’s CPAC straw poll.

That poll, taken within weeks of Trump starting his second term, showed Vance with 61 percent support, former Trump adviser Steve Bannon with 12 percent, and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis with 7 percent. Rubio and Representative Elise Stefanik both earned 3 percent.

Attendance at CPAC, an annual conference, tends to skew away from the political centre and farther to the right.

Speakers at this year’s conference included Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Iranian opposition leader Reza Pahlavi, and Eduardo and Flavio Bolsonaro, the sons of Brazil’s former far-right president Jair Bolsonaro, who was imprisoned last September for attempting to subvert his country’s democracy.

But this year’s straw poll comes at a critical time for the Republican Party.

Less than eight months remain until November’s midterm elections in the US, and Republicans are hoping to defend their congressional majorities at the ballot box.

Trump, long the standard-bearer for his party, has seen his approval numbers sink since his return to office in 2025. Earlier this week, a survey from the news agency Reuters and the research firm Ipsos found that only 36 percent of US citizens approved of his job performance, a new low.

The ongoing war in Iran and economic frustrations, including rising gas prices linked to the conflict, are among the factors contributing to the slump.

While Trump has teased he may seek a third term, US law prevents modern presidents from serving more than two. His second presidency is set to expire in 2028.

That leaves an open question as to who may succeed the 79-year-old Republican.

Vance, a veteran and former single-term senator from Ohio, is seen to represent a more isolationist branch of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) base. He has generally been opposed to US involvement in foreign conflicts, though he has defended Trump’s decision to join Israel in joint strikes on Iran.

Rubio, meanwhile, has a longer political resume than Vance and is seen to be more hawkish towards regime change, particularly in his family’s ancestral home of Cuba. He served as a senator for Florida from 2011 until his unanimous confirmation as secretary of state in 2025.

Both men had been critical of Trump before joining his administration. Vance once called Trump “unfit” for office, and Rubio derided Trump as a “con artist” and an “embarrassment” when he was a rival candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

CPAC tends not to survey participants about who should be president when a Republican is already in the Oval Office.

But the straw polls it held before and after Trump’s first term, from 2017 to 2021, have shown a noticeable realignment in the Republican Party.

In the decade leading up to the 2016 election – Trump’s first successful campaign for office – moderate Republican Mitt Romney and libertarian Rand Paul consistently topped the CPAC straw polls.

Ever since his first term, however, Trump has trounced the competition.

Despite his 2020 election defeat, he still topped the straw poll in 2021, with 55 percent support, and his numbers climbed each successive year, through to his re-election in 2024.

Experts have noted that the Republican Party has largely consolidated around Trump’s politics, with the few remaining moderate and critical voices increasingly marginalised.

The CPAC straw poll, however, is not always accurate. Ahead of Trump’s victory in 2016, the majority of straw poll participants backed Senator Cruz of Texas to be the next president. Trump came in third place with 15 percent support, trailing Rubio at 30 percent.

Minnesota public universities can continue to offer in-state tuition and scholarships to some immigrants in the country without legal status, a federal judge ruled Friday, dismissing a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Justice Department last summer that attempted to halt the programs.

The decision follows a series of clashes between the federal government and Minnesota officials over immigration enforcement.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez said in her decision that the federal government failed to prove that programs offering in-state tuition for immigrants without legal status discriminated against U.S. citizens.

The federal lawsuit named Democratic Gov. Tim Walz and Democratic state Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison as defendants, along with the state’s Office of Higher Education. It said Minnesota law discriminates against U.S. citizens because it provides in-state tuition and scholarships to students living in the U.S. illegally if they attended a Minnesota high school for three years, and U.S. citizens who attended schools outside of the state cannot receive the same benefits. States generally set higher tuition rates for out-of-state students.

The federal government said those state statutes “flagrantly” violate a federal law that prevents states from providing preferential benefits to immigrants in the U.S. illegally regardless of whether or not they meet residency requirements.

“No state can be allowed to treat Americans like second-class citizens in their own country by offering financial benefits to illegal aliens,” U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in a statement after the lawsuit was filed last year.

Menendez said the Justice Department misinterpreted the law, enacted during the Clinton administration, because anyone who attended a Minnesota high school for at least three years are granted the same public benefits, regardless of their U.S. residency or immigration status.

She also said the federal government didn’t have standing to sue the state attorney general or governor since neither has the power to change the state laws that determine tuition eligibility.

Ellison celebrated the decision in a statement Friday.

“Today, we defeated another one of Donald Trump’s efforts to misconstrue federal law to force Minnesota to abandon duly passed state laws and become a colder, less caring state,” he wrote.

The funding for immigrants without legal status represents an “investment for our state to do everything we can to encourage a more educated workforce,” Ellison wrote.

The U.S. Justice Department didn’t respond to an email request for comment Friday.

The department has filed similar lawsuits this month against policies in Kentucky and Texas. Last week, a federal judge in Texas blocked that state’s law giving a tuition break to students living in the U.S. illegally after the state’s Republican attorney general, Ken Paxton, said he supported the legal challenge.

In discussing the Texas case last year, Bondi suggested more lawsuits might be coming.

Florida ended in-state tuition eligibility for immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. At least 22 states and the District of Columbia have laws or policies granting the in-state benefit, according to the National Immigration Law Center. Those states include Democratic-led California and New York, but also Republican states including Kansas and Nebraska.

According to the center, at least 13 states in addition to Minnesota allow immigrant students without legal status to receive financial aid and scholarships on top of in-state tuition.

Riddle writes for the Associated Press.

March 28 (UPI) — Nepal’s former prime minister, KP Sharma Oli, was arrested on Saturday for crackdowns during protests last year, which more than 70 people being shot by police.

Former Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak was also arrested for the response to the so-called Gen Z protests, which started after the government shutdown access to social media sites and inspired larger protests across the country over government corruption and a faltering economy.

Oli, whose administration deployed the Nepali Army after violence as police employed brutal tactics to quell the initial rallies, including shooting people in their teens and early 20s, resigned as a result of the protests.

Oli and his attorneys have accused the new government of Balendra Shah and his cabinet has said that the arrests were unnecessary and illegal because neither is likely to flee the country.

“No one is above the law,” new Home Minister Sudan Gurung wrote on Instagram, The Guardian reported.

“We have taken former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and former Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak under control,” said Gurung, who was a significant figure in the protests. “This is not revenge against anyone, just the beginning of Justice.”

Shah, a former hip hop artist, ran partially on promises of holding former government officials accountable for the crackdowns and allowing police to shoot protesters, The BBC reported.

The day after police shot protesters at the youth-led rallies, the protests spread, with government offices set on fire, even more protesters killed and Oli’s resignation.

A government panel that investigated the protests recommended that Oli, Lekhak and other officials be tried for their roles in the deaths.

Although the panel’s report does not show that police were ordered to fire on protesters, it said that “no effort was made to stop or control the firing and, due to their negligent conduct, even minors lost their lives.”

If convicted, the men face up to 10 years in prison.

Iranian opposition leader calls on Trump administration to ‘stay the course’ as the US and Israel continue to wage war on Iran.

Amid questions about the future of Iran’s government, the son of the former shah has pitched himself to a right-wing summit in the United States and received a raucous welcome.

Reza Pahlavi spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Texas on Saturday, urging US President Donald Trump not to cut a deal with Iran and instead seek regime change.

“Can you imagine Iran going from ‘Death to America’ to ‘God Bless America’?” the self-styled crown prince asked his audience in Grapevine, Texas.

“President Trump is making America great again. I intend to make Iran great again,” he added, receiving a standing ovation from the crowd.

His remarks came on the one-month anniversary of the US and Israel’s decision to launch a war against Iran. As the conflict enters its second month, at least 1,937 people in Iran have been killed, and tens of thousands more injured, with no end to the fighting in sight.

Pahlavi has become a central opposition figure in the Iranian diaspora, with a loyal base of supporters who often carry his image, along with Iran’s pre-revolutionary flag, at protests around the world.

During his speech, some in the audience chanted, “Long live the king!”

While some in the Iranian diaspora have expressed reservations about the US-Israeli attacks and their effect on the future of Iran, Pahlavi has emerged as an outspoken supporter of Trump, aligned with the administration’s most hawkish figures.

“This regime in its entirety must go,” he said on Saturday.

Analysts have warned that the Iranian government is not likely to collapse and could emerge from the conflict more hardened than before. Some exiles, meanwhile, have been criticised for lending their voices to support the US-Israeli war despite the heavy toll on Iranian civilians.

Trump has himself previously downplayed the possibility that the son of the former shah, who was expelled from Iran during the country’s 1979 revolution, could play a central role in Iran if the current government were to collapse.

Earlier this month, Trump said that Pahlavi “looks like a very nice person“, but indicated that the shah’s son lacks popularity in Iran.

“It would seem to me that somebody from within, maybe, would be more appropriate,” Trump had said.

Divides within the US right over the war in Iran were also in evidence at CPAC. Polls suggest that, while the war is widely unpopular among US voters, Republicans support it by large margins.

In a Pew Research Center poll, for instance, 71 percent of Republican voters felt the US had made the right decision to attack Iran. Overall, among voters regardless of party, 59 percent opposed the initial strikes.

Still, a handful of influential voices on the US right, such as Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon, have emerged as vocal critics of the war. Younger activists have also expressed frustration with what they see as a betrayal of Trump’s promise to avoid military adventures overseas.

“We did not want to see more wars. We wanted actual America First policies, and Trump was very explicit about that,” Benjamin Williams, a 25-year-old marketing specialist for Young Americans for Liberty, told The Associated Press. “It does feel like a betrayal, for sure.”

GRAPEVINE, Texas — A generational divide over the Iran war surfaced between older attendees and their political heirs at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, as the group’s leaders pleaded for unity in a challenging midterm election year for Republicans.

Younger conservatives at CPAC, which concluded Saturday, spoke of disappointment and even betrayal over President Trump’s war against Iran, saying in interviews with the Associated Press that the president’s actions run counter to his many pledges to oppose foreign entanglements.

Meanwhile, older conservatives were looking past Trump’s campaign criticism of military action to achieve regime change, arguing that the war in Iran is a pragmatic act necessitated by threats to the United States.

The bright dividing line emerged in conversations with a dozen participants on either end of the age spectrum who gathered this week for the annual meeting of conservatives, being held outside Dallas. That split could reflect flagging enthusiasm for Trump among some younger voters, a potentially troubling sign for Republicans heading into midterm elections and for the conservative movement as it looks beyond Trump’s tenure.

“We did not want to see more wars. We wanted actual America-first policies, and Trump was very explicit about that,” said Benjamin Williams, a 25-year-old marketing specialist for Young Americans for Liberty. “It does feel like a betrayal, for sure.”

Worries about sending troops to Iran

Williams, from Austin, Texas, said he worries about his friends in the military, especially his Air Force officer brother. More broadly, he sees the war as an unnecessary disruption to the stability in the Middle East that could have long-term negative effects on the U.S. economy.

“Trump’s rhetoric was very important for people of my generation,” Williams said.

Auburn University sophomore Sean O’Brien’s support for Trump has slipped, especially with his talk of sending U.S. ground troops into Iran. “I’m not happy,” he said.

Sending troops into Iran, he said, “would be full betrayal.”

With at least 1,000 troops from the 82nd Airborne Division deploying in the Middle East, O’Brien said, “That’s what keeps me up at night.”

Older attendees’ views

Older CPAC participants were far more supportive of the war effort, describing Trump as wisely responsive to what they described as the threat Iran posed. Several suggested that Trump did not initiate the war, but that Iran had decades ago.

“I don’t believe he started a new war. He was acting in response to a 40-year-old war by Iran,” said 70-year-old retired defense contractor Joe Ropar of McKinney, Texas. “How long were we supposed to wait? I think he did what he had to do when he had to do it.

“Do nothing? I’m not on board with that,” Ropar said.

Echoing a common theme from older participants, Kelle Phillips said Trump’s decision was a pragmatic reaction to a real threat that overrules the best hopes of campaign rhetoric.

“You campaign on what you want to do and then the world’s dynamics happen,” said Phillips, a 61-year-old author and religious instructor from Frisco, Texas. “I think the difference is if you have someone in the Iranian regime who wants to destroy America, you can’t reason with them.”

Trump’s goals in Iran, James Scharre believes, are short-term and not a concern for those adverse to a long slog overseas.

Scharre, 61, also interprets Trump’s steadfast campaign opposition to regime change as a preference, not an ironclad promise.

“I think he said he was against it,” he said. “Trump is a wise leader. He does what works. And I’m for it.”

High-profile conservatives also split

Cracks in the conservative coalition began appearing early in the war, led by influential opinion leaders like podcaster Tucker Carlson, a staunch opponent of the Iran war.

Joe Kent recently quit his post as Trump’s director of the Center for Counterterrorism at the Department of Homeland Security, saying in his departure statement that “I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran” and that “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation.”

Right-wing podcaster Stephen K. Bannon, a longtime Trump advisor and former White House aide who is expected to speak at CPAC, has worried aloud that a protracted Mideast military engagement would cost Republicans support by pushing some conservatives to sit out the November midterms.

This comes at a time when Republicans’ hold on the U.S. House is in jeopardy and the GOP’s thin Senate majority is not as secure as it appeared just a few months ago.

A recent survey from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research indicates that while Trump’s approval rating is low but holding steady, the conflict could be turning into a major political liability for his administration. About 59% of Americans say U.S. military action in Iran has been excessive, the poll found.

Calls for unity

CPAC Chairman Matt Schlapp acknowledged conservatives were divided over Iran and said the convention’s annual straw poll will include a question about it. The results were to be released later Saturday.

“Any consensus is still to be determined. I think people trust President Trump, so I don’t think there’s been any shaking of his support,” Schlapp told the AP. “But I think underneath there’s concern about where does this lead.”

Tiffany Krieger, a 20-year-old sophomore at the University of Pittsburgh, said her onetime level-10 support for Trump has dipped to 5 over the war.

“It seems like the love for him is plateauing. We see our party splitting apart and we’re supposed to be united,” said Krieger, of Harrisburg, Pa. “I think this issue with the war has put a line through the conservative movement.”

Almost if addressing Krieger directly, Mercedes Schlapp, senior fellow for the CPAC foundation, opened Thursday’s session of the conference in Texas with a direct appeal.

“We cannot divide from within,” she told an audience of hundreds from the stage at the convention center. Referring to political opponents, she added: “Let’s stay united. They want us divided.”

Beaumont writes for the Associated Press.

A rolling wave of “No Kings” protests swelled through America’s small towns and big cities Saturday, with crowds gathering to blast President Trump, Immigration and Customs Enforcement crackdowns, the war in Iran and high gas and food prices.

Saturday’s demonstrations were expected to draw millions of people nationwide, including thousands for a downtown Los Angeles rally. More than 40 protests were planned for L.A., Orange and Ventura counties, part of the national “No Kings Day of Nonviolent Action.”

No Kings Coalition organizers were hoping that turnout for the rallies in all 50 states could combine to form the largest single-day protest in U.S. history. They pointed to growing anger over the country’s direction, including fatal ICE shootings and troops dispatched to the Middle East, since the first “No Kings” demonstration was held last June.

On Saturday morning, hundreds gathered around the reflecting pool at Pasadena City College. A band rolled through with a fascism-themed parody of Johnny Cash’s “Folsom Prison Blues.” Sign-toting protesters lined Colorado Boulevard, drawing a constant stream of honking from the cars driving by. For many, the Iran war was top of mind.

“Every time we protest, there’s something completely new, which speaks to the chaos of the Trump administration,” Cindy Campbell told The Times. “ICE raids last year, Epstein files a few months ago. Now, war.”

“This administration doesn’t serve us. It serves billionaires,” said Kent Miller, of Monrovia, who participated in the Pasadena protest. “War with Iran is only making life harder for working people.”

Miller pointed to a Chevron gas station advertising gas for $6.45 per gallon.

“See?” he said.

National coordinators said there has been increased interest in smaller communities, including Republican bastions, with higher-than-expected attendance during Saturday’s protests.

“I’m out here because I’m disgusted with what I’m seeing,” said Kersty Kinsey, a mother who was protesting near the Beaufort, S.C., City Hall. “People are suffering, and he’s playing golf. People are suffering, and he’s going other places and blowing things up.”

In Beaufort, an antebellum city founded in 1711, an estimated 3,000 people turned out — a marked increase over earlier “No Kings” rallies, said Barb Nash, one of the coordinators. Amid the moss-draped live oaks and blooming pink and white azaleas, a person in a purple Barney dinosaur costume held a sign reading: “Dino’s for Democracy.” A young girl handed out homemade “Resistance Cookies.”

Los Angeles coordinators said they expect more than 100,000 people at the local events, which were being planned for Beverly Hills, Burbank, West Covina, West Hollywood and Thousand Oaks. One group planned a “Road Outrage” car caravan to motor through Mid City with flapping flags calling for “No War,” and “ICE Out of LA.” At a Torrance gathering, cars honked, protesters waved flags, and a person in an inflatable green cow costume hoisted a large American flag.

The White House, in a Saturday statement, dismissed the protests as a “Trump Derangement Therapy Session.”

Organizers said they have been particularly encouraged by the surge of interest from groups in rural communities that wanted to join the loose-knit No Kings Coalition and hold protests.

Jaynie Parrish, founder of the Arizona Native Vote project, started planning a protest for her tiny town of Kayenta, on the Navajo Nation in northern Arizona, only earlier this week.

“My dad, who’s a [military] veteran and an elder, said: ‘We should go,’ and I said, ‘OK,’” Parrish told The Times.

“Our folks don’t always protest for things, but this was very important,” Parrish said. “A lot of our families are feeling the impacts right now of higher prices and things being cut. A lot of our healthcare benefits are being cut … and our tribal sovereignty is being threatened.”

Upbeat Midwestern activists withstood whipping winds to form a line of protesters stretching nearly three blocks of Burlington Avenue in Hastings, Neb. Under the crisp blue skies, one of the protesters, Drew Fausett, told The Times in a phone interview that he is a registered Republican in the decidedly red state.

“My politics haven’t really changed — but the party around me has,” Fausett said. “It used to be the two parties were two sides of the same coin, and they would work together — but not anymore.”

He and his wife, Becky, have attended “No Kings” and other protests because “it’s the only way to show that people have different opinions,” he said. “People are out here speaking for their families and their neighbors. That’s what this is all about.”

Trump’s policies are hurting many in Nebraska — including farmers, said Debby Thompson, one of the Hastings organizers.

“We want to urge our representatives in Congress to not just rubber stamp whatever Trump wants because it’s really hurting rural folks and farmers,” Thompson said. “The tariffs and huge increase in prices on fertilizer are hitting farmers really hard.”

The “No Kings” campaign sprouted in June as an act of defiance on Trump’s 79th birthday. He wanted a military parade in Washington to mark his milestone, and anti-Trump protesters came out in force — an estimated 5 million people around the country — with their own display. At the time, Trump’s second-term policies were coming into focus, including ramping up immigration raids, deploying the National Guard to L.A. in response to protests, and mass firings within the federal government.

A subsequent event in mid-October drew even larger crowds, with an estimated 7 million people protesting around the country.

Saturday’s event coincided with a dip in Trump’s approval ratings. A Reuters/Ipsos poll last week found 36% approve of Trump’s job performance, marking the lowest level since his return to office last year. In a separate Fox News Poll released last week, 59% disapproved of his job performance.

“Since the last ‘No Kings,’ we’re seeing higher gas prices and groceries, all while there’s an illegal war in Iran,” national organizer Sarah Parker of the organization 50501 said during a Thursday press briefing. “We’ve also seen our neighbors executed — American citizens executed.”

Widespread protests and candlelight vigils followed January’s fatal shootings by ICE agents in Minneapolis of Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, and Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care unit nurse.

“The defining story of this Saturday’s mobilization is not just how many people are protesting — but where they are protesting,” Leah Greenberg, co-founder of Indivisible, said during the press briefing. She said two-thirds of the RSVPs to national organizers came from outside of major urban centers.

The Los Angeles event was organized by the local chapter of 50501 (short for “50 protests, 50 states, 1 movement”) and other progressive groups, including the ACLU, Human Rights Campaign, Indivisible and Public Citizen, as well as labor unions such as Unite Here Local 11 and the Service Workers International Union.

“There’s an affordability crisis in this country — people can’t afford groceries or healthcare,” Joseph Bryant, SEIU executive vice president, said in a statement. “But this administration is focused on expanding its power, starting unnecessary wars that benefit billionaires, and targeting immigrants and citizens who dare to stand up for them.”

With spring break in full swing, airline passengers continued to wait it out at major U.S. airports after President Trump signed an executive order to pay Transportation Security Administration officers aimed at alleviating long security lines.

Trump’s executive order Friday instructed the Department of Homeland Security to pay TSA officers immediately, although it’s unclear when the impact of that move will start to be felt at airports.

The signing came at a busy travel time of the year, with spring breaks at school districts and colleges and the upcoming Passover and Easter holidays.

Betty Mitchell arrived at Philadelphia International Airport at 12:30 a.m. Saturday for a 5 a.m. flight to visit family, but she said the airline desk did not open until 3 a.m. Once it did, there was a sudden influx of passengers to squeeze into the TSA screening lines.

“All at once it became a madhouse,” Mitchell said.

She waited nearly three hours to get through TSA screening but missed her flight. She was able to board the next available one.

“It was crazy long lines,” she said. “Never have I seen it that long. If the airlines work with TSA in these [troubled] times, maybe it would help the public.”

What’s the current situation on the ground?

Some passengers with very early flights Saturday were luckier than Mitchell, reporting they had little problem getting through airport security lines. But that may have been an anomaly. Others at some of the busiest airports wrote on social media that security lines were growing exponentially longer by the hour.

“We have not previously experienced checkpoint wait times similar to what we are seeing this morning,” Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport said in a post Saturday on X. Officials at the airport recommended travelers arrive four hours before their scheduled departure time.

When will TSA employees be paid?

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said TSA personnel could get paid as soon as Monday, a relief for workers who have gone without pay since Feb. 14.

While that is welcome news to many, it remains to be seen whether that promise materializes on schedule and if it brings an immediate end to snaking lines at airports.

Caleb Harmon-Marshall, a former TSA officer who runs a travel newsletter called Gate Access, said the staffing crisis won’t improve significantly until officers are confident they won’t be subjected to more skipped paychecks.

“If it’s only for a pay period, that’s not enough to bring them back,” Harmon-Marshall said. “It has to be an extended pay for them to come back or want to stay there.”

He estimates longer lines could linger for another week or two.

How soon will this help with airport delays?

It’s hard to tell. Airports that had passengers standing in screening lines that clogged check-in areas or showing up far too early for their flights will need to decide whether to reopen checkpoints or expedite service lanes they closed or consolidated due to inadequate staffing.

A few airports experienced daily TSA officer callout rates of 40%. Nationwide Thursday, more than 11.8% of the TSA employees on the schedule missed work, the most so far, the Department of Homeland Security said Friday.

Nearly 500 of the agency’s approximately 50,000 officers have quit since the partial shutdown started, the department said.

How do I monitor wait times before my flight?

Check airport conditions early and often, including official websites and social media accounts where airports share timely updates and guidance, according to experts.

Many airports Saturday urged passengers to allow at least four hours for both domestic and international screenings.

“Wait times can change quickly based on passenger volume and TSA staffing,” according to an advisory posted Saturday morning on the website of John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.

Wait times listed on the MyTSA mobile app may not be accurate because TSA hasn’t been actively managing its sites during the shutdown. On third-party websites that track TSA lines, estimated wait times could be outdated during the shutdown if they rely on publicly available data, experts say.

Raby and Sedensky write for the Associated Press.

Joyce Anderson Valdez, major fund-raiser for Republican politicians including three former presidents and two former California governors who was respected professionally and revered personally for her tenacity and charm, has died. She was 70.

Valdez, who served as state GOP finance director for many years, died Wednesday at her Arcadia home after a long illness.

Pete Wilson, who benefited from Valdez’s expertise in his campaigns for both the U.S. Senate and California governor, considered her a longtime close friend.

“With the exception of Ronald Reagan, Joyce Valdez is probably responsible for more of the successes of the Republican Party in California than anyone else in history,” Wilson said in a statement after her death. “She never had an event that wasn’t a huge success because she simply refused to accept failure.”

He ended his accolade warmly: “She lightened our hearts as she lightened our pockets. Advice to St. Peter: Don’t even try to hang onto your wallet. With Joyce’s energy and charm, you don’t have a chance!”

When major donors reversed the tables and threw a salutary black-tie dinner for Valdez at Jimmy’s in 1985, Interior Department Western representative Carol Hallett telegraphed knowingly: “When Joyce gives the last supper, you can be sure she’ll have a cash bar.”

From the early 1960s to mid-1980s, the effervescent Valdez organized dinners and other events that raised more than $100 million for Republican candidates, among them Presidents Reagan, Gerald Ford and George Bush and Govs. Wilson and George Deukmejian. Many considered her the party’s best fund-raiser not only in California but nationwide.

Not all of her candidates were successful, even with the money she funneled to their campaign coffers. Among those were GOP presidential candidate Bob Dole and Senate candidate Ed Zschau.

Occasionally, Valdez lent her talents to favored Democrats for “nonpartisan” offices such as Los Angeles City Council members John Ferraro and Joan Milke Flores. She also raised campaign money at the local level for the late Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block.

Valdez told The Times in 1982 that she often relied on celebrity guests to attract paying supporters to her fund-raising dinners, cocktail parties or coffees.

“There are so many fund-raising events, and people get so tired of going out night after night,” she said. “A star will draw them out to actually attend the event.”

Frank Sinatra was a favorite, she said, and Wayne Newton, and especially her longtime friend Ronald Reagan.

“The prez looks like a Supreme Court justice all of a sudden–very distinguished,” she said proudly in late 1989 when she booked him as centerpiece for a dinner that netted Wilson $700,000.

When he was governor, Reagan appointed Valdez as a commissioner of the state’s Industrial Welfare Board. She had also helped Block set up his Sheriff’s Youth Foundation and served on its board.

Born in Supreme, Ala., Valdez lived much of her adult life in the Los Angeles area, where she became a nationally top-ranked amateur golfer.

Valdez, widowed by the death of her husband of 48 years, Frank Valdez, is survived by four children, Dennis Valdez, Valinda VanderWerff, Vicky Vangeison and Valerie Iida; a brother, Monte Anderson; three sisters, JoAnn Scott, Vivian Whitaker and Gloria Alerich, and 10 grandchildren.

Services are scheduled at 11 a.m. today at Rose Hills Memorial Park in Whittier.

Demonstrators are hitting the streets of cities across the United States for the first “No Kings” protest since the joint US and Israeli war against Iran began one month ago.

Saturday’s marches and rallies mark the third round of nationwide “No Kings” protests since President Donald Trump took office for a second term.

According to the “No Kings” website, more than 3,300 events are planned across all 50 states, with large crowds expected in cities such as New York, Los Angeles and Washington, DC. Parallel events are happening internationally in cities such as Rome, Paris, and Berlin.

Organisers, however, are aiming to rally voters outside of the US’s major metropolises, in areas that tend to skew conservative. They say that roughly two-thirds of participants are expected to take part in events outside of major city centres.

“The defining story of this Saturday’s mobilisation is not just how many people are protesting, but where they are protesting,” said Leah Greenberg, cofounder of the progressive nonprofit Indivisible, which started the “No Kings” movement last year.

The main event, however, is set to take place in the Minneapolis-St Paul area of Minnesota, known as the Twin Cities.

The midwestern state became a focal point for Trump’s hardline immigration crackdown in December, when he launched Operation Metro Surge.

That operation saw more than 3,000 of federal immigration agents descend on the Twin Cities, where they were accused of using excessive force to conduct deportation raids.

In January, agents shot and killed two US citizens, Alex Pretti and Renee Nicole Good, prompting nationwide outrage and calls for reform. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed as a result of the operation, which was wound down in February.

Saturday’s protest will commemorate those deaths in Minnesota, with speeches, concerts and appearances from activists, labour leaders and politicians.

Progressive Senator Bernie Sanders is expected to address attendees, and rock icon Bruce Springsteen will perform at the event, along with folk singer Joan Baez.

Already, early on Saturday, marchers in Washington, DC, gathered around landmarks such as the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument, holding signs and waving papier-mache effigies of the Trump administration.

The previous two “No Kings” marches took place in June and October and drew millions of people. Trump responded to the October protest by posting an AI-generated video depicting himself dumping faeces on the protesters.

The US is currently in the midst of campaigns for its pivotal midterm elections in November, which will see Trump’s Republican Party seek to defend its majorities in both chambers of Congress.

WASHINGTON — For several hours Friday, in the stillness before dawn, the Senate appeared to have finally figured out how to fund most of the Department of Homeland Security before it faced the longest partial shutdown in U.S. history.

Senators handed House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) their deal and headed for the airports, seemingly confident of success.

Then it collapsed. Spectacularly.

An incensed Johnson marched out of his office Friday afternoon. He angrily denounced the plan that the Senate had unanimously agreed to as a “joke.”

“I have to protect the House, and I have to protect the American people,” Johnson told reporters.

It was a dramatic denunciation of a deal that his counterpart, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), had negotiated after weeks of effort, and was the latest abrupt turn in a funding saga that has bedeviled top Republicans for much of the year.

The collapse of the deal leaves Congress, now on a two-week spring break, with no easy way out of the impasse that has put the Homeland Security Department into a shutdown since mid-February. It also has exposed a rare rupture between the two Republican leaders in Congress, testing their alliances as they labor to move another set of President Trump’s priorities into law before the November elections.

Nothing ahead is likely to be easy.

How the deal collapsed

Thune had a deal with Democratic senators after negotiating for weeks on their demands for new restrictions on the department’s immigration enforcement work. Offers were traded several times. The talks moved along at a stop-start pace. Votes failed again and again.

Out of time and patience, senators essentially settled on a draw for the bill: They would not include funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and for U.S. Border Patrol, as Democrats had proposed repeatedly in the last week, but while setting aside all the Democratic demands for new limits on the agencies.

Thune pointed out that Congress had allotted money for immigration enforcement and he told reporters that “we can get at least a lot of the government opened up again and then we’ll go from there.”

Asked if he had cleared the compromise with Johnson, Thune said the two had texted.

“I don’t know what the House will do,” the senator said early Friday as the deal came together.

But as House Republicans woke up to the news, their outrage was swift.

Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) said that on a GOP conference call that morning to discuss their path forward, a few dozen members ranging from moderates to hard-line conservatives spoke in opposition to what the Senate had done.

“The Senate chickened out,” he said. “The cowards there, only a few of them in the middle of the night with I think only three to five senators present on the floor, chickened out because they wanted to go home for two weeks. We need to raise the bar.”

What’s next for Republicans?

The bitter split threatens to make the job for Republican leaders more difficult as they try to advance their priorities while they still have guaranteed control of both chambers. Trump has said that legislation to impose strict new proof of citizenship requirements on voting is his top priority, but there is no real path for that plan in the Senate with its 60-vote threshold for advancing legislation.

Some Republicans have pushed instead for a budget package that could potentially put some parts of the voting law in place. Republicans are also contemplating how to pass an expected request from the White House to fund the war with Iran that could total more than $200 billion, among other priorities.

Meanwhile, the flop of the funding deal has given Democrats another chance to pin the partial shutdown on House Republicans.

“They know this is a continuation of the shutdown because the Senate is gone,” said Massachusetts Rep. Katherine Clark, the No. 2 Democratic leader. “So they know fully well what they’re doing.”

It is not clear what the Senate will do next. A quick resumption of talks is unlikely. Negotiations ended acrimoniously on both sides, with each blaming the other as moving the goalposts along the way.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said he was proud of his caucus for “holding the line.” But Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who leads the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Democrats were “intransigent and unreasonable.”

Thune said he believed that Democrats never wanted a deal and would not vote for ICE funding under any circumstances.

“I felt like from the beginning, they just didn’t want to get to ‘yes,’” Thune said after the vote.

The dynamic left senators convinced that the deal was the only way to move past their disagreements and reopen the Homeland Security Department.

But House Republicans on Friday night seemed to revel in the fact they had defied the wishes of the Senate. GOP members said that they work from a perspective that is closer to the will of their constituents.

To Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), the Senate’s proposal was “nothing more than unconditional surrender masquerading as a solution.” She said the House ”will not bend itself into submission by acquiescing.”

Those searching for a way out of the shutdown seemed discouraged.

“This takes two chambers to get the job done,” said Pennsylvania Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a moderate Republican. “Apparently, there’s not enough communication between those chambers.”

Groves, Jalonick and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press. AP writer Kevin Freking contributed to this report.