politics

Well, that didn’t take long.

A day after California’s primary election, President Trump took to social media with baseless claims of election fraud — predictable, but also dangerous.

“Look what’s happening in California, the Dumocrats, right before our very eyes, are stealing the Vote,” Trump wrote in one post.

“There’s BIG cheating by the Dumocrats in California,” he wrote in another, apparently enamored of his latest juvenile slur.

Never mind that his candidate, Steve Hilton, is in the lead — for now anyway.

California has once again become the main dish on Trump’s buffet of bull-hockey as he continues to undermine democracy and consolidate authoritarian power, using this disingenuous and patently untrue narrative that American elections are rigged by shadowy Democratic forces working in collusion with illegal immigrants.

That last part is called the Great Replacement Theory, the idea that “elites” are replacing white people — and white voters — with Black and brown immigrants in a bid to destroy white culture. It’s at the heart of Trump’s voter fraud allegations.

The twist this time is that Hilton, the man who wants to represent all Californians, seems to be jumping on the election fraud conspiracy train with the president. I get it, there’s the MAGA base to feed, and it’s a base that feasts on outrage and fakery. Serving up resentment glazed with lies and propaganda has been the MAGA playbook for years under Trump, a strategy that no one can deny has been heartbreakingly effective.

But Hilton is a smart man and must certainly know that voter fraud is rare, to the point of being inconsequential to election outcomes. Hilton by his own admission understands voting patterns, and that in this cycle, Republicans have voted early and often by mail, despite Trump’s claims that all vote-by-mail should be suspect. So Hilton understands that early votes have skewed his way, and that later vote tallies will likely favor Democrats.

And Hilton is definitely intelligent enough to expect that in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly three to one, he will not keep the top spot in this primary, and a slim chance remains that he will not make it into the top two. That’s just simple math.

So if Hilton truly seeks to represent this state as its top elected executive, now is the time to renounce election fraud myths and stand up to Trump’s lies. If Hilton can’t say that he believes our recent election was free and fair, then he has no business being our governor.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the path he’s taking, even as it seems increasingly likely that he will advance to the general election.

This week, speaking with far-right podcaster and former Turning Point USA creative director Benny Johnson (who was allegedly duped into working for a Russian influence operation), Hilton said that while “so far we’re not seeing any signs” of cheating, “we’re going to be all over it. We’re not going to let them do that.”

Hilton was responding to a question from Johnson on whether Hilton will sue over “cheating.”

On a post-election appearance with Laura Ingraham, the conservative Fox News host who has repeatedly promoted the Great Replacement Theory, Hilton delved into more conspiracy.

“Just to really underline the point that you made about the corruption,” he told Ingraham an anecdote about supposed fraud in a previous election cycle when a “whistleblower” at the post office told him that they were instructed that a handwritten postmark was acceptable when sorting ballots to deliver to the county registrar.

“It’s just unbelievable, and of course, that’s why so many people don’t believe the results, but it just undermines confidence,” he told Ingraham, certainly knowing that the post office forwarding a ballot on to a county registrar in no way means it will be certified or counted. Would we really want the USPS deciding which ballots to deliver? Disingenuous on Hilton’s part at best.

“The whole thing is a joke,” Hilton went on to say of California elections, which of course, is absurd.

Thursday, when I asked Hilton’s team to speak with him about his views on voter fraud, they sent back a response that focused on the slowness of the California vote count; voter rolls Hilton has described as “wildly inaccurate,” which is a wildly inaccurate claim; and two instances of actual fraud with voter registration — not examples of votes that were counted.

To be sure, all those items are important. Any malfeasance should be punished, and the system should always strive to improve.

But how hard is it to simply be against fraud, while accurately acknowledging that it is rare and our current system provides accurate results?

I am against voter registration fraud. I am against vote fraud. I am absolutely pro-democracy, including policies such as mail-in voting that increase participation.

I do not believe that there is widespread fraud in the California primary, or in American elections in general, because the evidence does not support that conspiracy. I do not believe that Democrats are running a decades-long, nationwide conspiracy to replace white voters with votes from Black and brown undocumented immigrants, because that is both false and racist.

Pretty basic stuff, and statements in line with the values and common sense of the majority of Californians Hilton says he will represent.

If Hilton can’t come out and clearly say that Trump is wrong — about fraud and about the Great Replacement Theory — can he really be trusted to represent the values of the Golden State?

June 4 (UPI) — The Kennedy Center ordered its staff Thursday to remove President Donald Trump‘s name from the center by June 12.

A memo was sent out from the center’s general counsel that said they must remove all references from signs, brochures, websites, furniture and more, and that they must update email signatures and letterhead immediately.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that the center’s board had overstepped its authority when it voted to add Trump’s name to the center. The memo was the first sign that the center plans to comply with the order.

“Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it,” Cooper said.

Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, filed a lawsuit on Dec. 23 against Trump and others alleging that the move was illegal.

Trump claimed that naming the center after him was a surprise, but the name was added to the sign the next day.

Justice Department lawyers representing Trump later said the speed of the move showed it had been “prepared and/or purchased prior to the Board’s vote the day before,” The Washington Post reported.

Thursday’s memo also said officials were “considering their options and will provide further guidance shortly” on whether the center will close after July 5. The center was scheduled for two years of closure for a $257 million renovation.

In his decision, Cooper said the renovations are “sorely needed,” and his ruling doesn’t bar the board from closing “should it come to this decision anew after independently balancing its multiple obligations to the Center in a prudent fashion,” CBS News reported.

“By way of this opinion, the Court does not purport to dictate how the Center should be run, nor does it prescribe any particular plan for the institution — construction, closure or otherwise — moving forward,” he wrote. “It simply holds the Kennedy Center Board to certain minimum requirements imposed by law. Beyond that, the Court will let the parties play on.”

WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.

Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.

It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.

The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.

The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.

The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.

The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.

Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.

On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.

“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.

The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.

In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.

The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.

But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”

After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.

The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.

“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.

The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.

Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.

Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.

“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”

Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”

Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.

On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”

“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.

Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.

More than a day after polls closed, voters still hadn’t learned which two candidates would run off in the November general election for dozens of races.

Many significant races are still too close to call. In the race for governor, Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra held leads, with Democrat Tom Steyer and Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco trailing. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, San José Mayor Matt Mahan and former Rep. Katie Porter conceded the race Tuesday night.

The Associated Press surveys the numbers posted by local election officials and projects the winner using vote returns and other data. Races can be called within minutes of polls closing on election night. However, if a race has tight margins or an high expected volume of mail-in ballots, it can take longer to call.

In some cases, such as for L.A. mayor and state treasurer, the tight race is between second and third place.

In California’s primary, the top two vote-getters move on to the general election regardless of candidate pool size, party preference, or whether one candidate receives a majority of votes. Locally and in nonpartisan races, however, a candidate can avoid the November election if they win with a majority.

Statewide

State Senate

State Assembly

Congress

Almost half of California’s 52 U.S. House of Representatives seats had known finalists on election night. But in tight races such as the Republican vs. Republican competition in the 40th District and the Democrats’ challenging of Republican Rep. David Valadao in a redrawn 22nd District, the top two vote-getters weren’t yet known.

Local

In Los Angeles County, there were still 27 races with uncertain results. The Times considers uncertain races those where no candidate has a majority or where the vote share for the top two is between 55% and 40%. The Associated Press does not call winners for most local races, such as city councils, city officers and ballot measures. If no candidate wins with a majority, the top two will face off in November. That could be the case for the sheriff and L.A. City Council’s 3rd District.

The L.A. County registrar will continue to count and confirm mailed-in, provisional and conditional ballots until June 26. Updates to the results charts below are expected approximately once a day in the early evening.

Close city races

Voters can track their own cast ballot here.

The secretary of state will certify results in early July.

June 4 (UPI) — The Somalian military and opposition militias opposed to an extension of President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s term by the country’s parliament skirmished Thursday in its capital.

After the opposing sides set up positions within Mogadishu late Wednesday, gunfire and fighting broke out in the city ahead of planned demonstrations today, The Guardian and The New York Times reported.

Mohamud was due to leave office May 15, but the country’s parliament voted to extend his term by one year, prompting opposition leaders — including former President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed and former Prime Minister Hassan Khayre — to announce demonstrations against what they said is a constitutional crisis.

Ahmed said that government forces had targeted his home intending to kill him because he has spoken out against the extended term and is leading resistance to it.

Ahmed and Khayre each have their own security, as do other clans throughout the country, and the alleged targeting of the leaders by government military forces led to ongoing skirmishes that have left Mogadishu residents fleeing for their safety.

Ahmed, in a video statement, said that government forces had “encircled and attacked my house.”

“I am never scared of their aggressive attack — I will fight back,” he said.

Khayre said in a statement that the government had deployed anti-tank weapons and drones in the attack, endangering civilians in the area.

At a press conference Thursday, Col. Mahdi Omar Mumin said that government forces staged “an operation in which security agencies neutralized armed militia members who yesterday attacked police forces in the Hodan District,” Somalia’s Ministry of Defense said in a statement on X.

“The militia had caused harm to Somali civilians and disrupted security in the capital,” the ministry said.

Mohamud and members of the parliament who support him said the effort is to move from indirect elections to individuals voting specifically for their chosen candidates.

Opposition members have said they fear the change could prevent many people in the country from having a voice in the government and potentially enable greater power for Mohamud.

PHOENIX — The Arizona Supreme Court has denied a prosecutor’s appeal of an order that the state’s fake elector case against President Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and others over the 2020 presidential election be sent back to a grand jury.

The decision marks another setback for Democratic Atty. Gen. Kris Mayes as she struggles to push the sprawling case through the courts. Mayes’ office said it will again present the case in its entirety to a grand jury rather than end the prosecution.

The ruling came after similar cases in Michigan and Georgia were dismissed by the courts and a special prosecutor dropped a federal case in late 2024 that charged Trump with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. Cases related to the fake elector scheme remain in Arizona, Nevada and Wisconsin.

A lower-court judge in Phoenix concluded in May that the case’s first grand jury hadn’t been shown the text of the Electoral Count Act, a 19th century law that governs the certification of presidential contests and was invoked by those charged in defending themselves.

Defense lawyers argued the law allowed for multiple slates of electors to be submitted to Congress in case the results were disputed, though it was amended in 2022 to specify that a state could put forward only one slate of electors and that it was the governor who would sign off.

There has been no movement in the Arizona case at the trial court level since mid-May.

Former President Joe Biden won Arizona in 2020 by 10,457 votes.

Billeaud writes for the Associated Press.

To the surprise of few, President Trump has once again claimed without evidence that Democrats are somehow cheating to win California’s primary elections — writing on social media late Wednesday that federal prosecutors in Los Angeles are investigating the matter.

“The Dumocrats are at it again! They are trying to STEAL THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA PRIMARY, AND THE MAYOR OF LOS ANGELES, PRIMARY, AWAY FROM TWO GREAT REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES. Here we go with the very late and massive numbers of MAIL IN BALLOTS,” Trump posted to his social media platform Truth Social.

“There’s BIG cheating by the Dumocrats in California. Votes are all tied up. May not be in for weeks. Under investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles,” he wrote in a second post. “Why the vote counting DELAY???”

A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles — run by Trump loyalist First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli — declined to comment Thursday morning on Trump’s claims of an investigation.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office responded directly to Trump late Wednesday with its own social media post, writing, “Trump is lying about California again — time to take the phone away from grandpa and put him to sleep.”

On Thursday morning, Newsom’s office wrote that there “is a lot of misinformation floating around about California’s election — including from the President,” and recommended people watch a CNN video about California’s election process. It concluded that delays in vote counting in the state are essentially a result of state leaders deciding that providing voters with “last minute options” for casting ballots is more important than a quick count.

“And yes, for the record: we wish the votes were counted faster, too,” Newsom’s office wrote — a nod to the fact that the issue isn’t new.

In an email, Brandon Richards, Newsom’s deputy director for rapid response, said Trump’s claims are part of “a tinfoil hat level conspiracy theory that has been debunked repeatedly.”

The president’s claims of cheating were predicted before the election by both elections experts and Democratic leaders in California, who dismissed them in advance as more baseless bluster from a president beset by low approval ratings.

A worker puts ballots in a counting machine at the Los Angeles County Ballot Processing Center on Wednesdayin City of Industry.

(Kayla Bartkowski/Los Angeles Times)

Those same experts and Democratic leaders acknowledge that California’s system for counting votes takes a long time and should be quickened, but stress that is not because of anything nefarious. Rather, it is because California allows voters to cast ballots by mail up until election day — and then has to count those ballots, which can number in the millions and are subject to manual signature verification.

Trump has long dismissed such explanations. An election denier since he first entered politics more than a decade ago, Trump has pushed skepticism about elections he and his party lose time and again since — most notably when he claimed, again without evidence, that the 2020 election he lost to Joe Biden was stolen.

Trump even challenged Biden’s victory in court, but his claims were rejected completely because neither he nor his attorneys could produce any evidence substantiating them.

He has combined his tactic of targeting undocumented immigrants for political gain with his skepticism of election integrity by claiming, again without evidence, that such immigrants somehow vote in large numbers, particularly in big blue states such as California, despite experts saying there is no evidence of that.

He has alleged that mail ballots — such as those used by the majority of California voters — are a particularly rich source of voter fraud, despite again having no basis for the claim and it being disputed by experts.

A consistent feature of his election fraud claims is that they arise and target races only when Republicans lose or lose ground.

And, he has tried to use the power of his administration to make sweeping changes to election laws to bar mail ballots and require strict voter ID and proof of citizenship measures, despite the control of elections and their rules being constitutionally given to the states.

Those efforts have prompted a wave of litigation between the Trump administration and California and other blue states, with multiple cases pending in the courts over voter ID, proof of citizenship, mail balloting and the role that the U.S. Postal Service may be allowed to play in processing such ballots.

Trump’s latest remarks came as additional vote counting on Wednesday narrowed the advantage of Republican Steve Hilton over his Democratic challengers in the California governor’s race and closed the gap in the L.A. mayoral race between the MAGA-aligned candidate Spencer Pratt, currently running second, and City Councilmember Nithya Raman, who is running third.

The trend was anticipated. Elections experts warned before vote counting began of the potential for a “red mirage,” wherein earlier voting among Republicans and late voting among Democrats — many of whom were unsure of whom to vote for in the two high-profile races — would create an early illusion of Republican victories despite large volumes of liberal votes from major population centers still to be counted.

It is a trend that has played out repeatedly in past elections, and one that does not come as a surprise to careful elections watchers.

Elections officials in California knew such claims were going to be made, as they’ve been made in the past. Some local elections officials made a point of preparing their staffs for baseless claims of election fraud in advance of this year’s primaries. State officials made repeated efforts to explain the reasons why California elections take time, precisely to undercut claims amid counting that the delays were the result of fraud.

But those claims have come regardless, and not just from Trump.

Above an X post Wednesday suggesting Pratt was losing ground to Raman as more counts came in, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wrote, “California keeps dumping votes. Odds are shifting because the vote dumps always seem to go one way. Count until you get the result you want?”

Above another X post Wednesday noting that the California count would take time, Katie Miller, a former Trump administration official and conservative podcaster married to Trump’s top advisor Stephen Miller, wrote, “The Democrats are about to steal the LA mayoral race once again using mail-in voting.”

Both of the posts that DeSantis and Miller were responding to were from Polymarket, a prediction market where people can bet on the outcomes of political races, pop culture events and a slew of other subjects.

Such emerging financial markets, which process billions of dollars in bets, are causing rising concerns about political meddling for profit — including by campaign staffers and other individuals with insider knowledge of polling and other campaign information, or by politicians and their operatives, whose public remarks about politics can swing those markets.

WASHINGTON — The Senate is beginning a long series of votes Thursday on legislation to fund President Trump’s immigration enforcement agencies, moving toward passage of a three-year fix as Democrats have blocked the money for months in protest.

The roughly $70 billion bill to fund U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol would end the blockade by Democrats who demanded policy changes after the fatal shootings of two protesters by federal agents in January. The bill would fund the agencies for three years, through the end of Trump’s term.

First, though, Republicans must beat back a potential gauntlet of amendments that Democrats plan to offer, including to try and permanently ban Trump’s $1.776 billion settlement fund for allies who he believes have been politically persecuted. Democrats have said their first amendment Thursday morning will be to eliminate the fund and send the immigration spending bill back to committee.

Senate Republicans are using a complicated procedural maneuver to get around the filibuster and pass the budget legislation with no Democratic votes. But it has taken weeks to get the bill to the Senate floor as Republicans navigated various obstacles to passage created by Trump and the White House — including a $1 billion proposal for White House security that they eventually scrapped and fierce bipartisan backlash to the settlement fund.

“The thing we’re trying to do here is to keep the focus on funding for ICE and CBP,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Wednesday evening, after the Senate voted to start debating the legislation. “This was narrow and targeted from the very beginning and clean, and we’re trying to maintain it that way.”

But it’s unclear if Republicans will have enough votes to fend off the Democratic amendments. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said this week that the fund would not move forward, and many GOP senators said Wednesday that they were satisfied with his remarks.

Yet Trump, who has been at odds with Senate Republicans in recent weeks, raised new doubts about the settlement’s future on Wednesday afternoon when he told reporters that the settlement is “very important” and said “I don’t know” whether it is dead or on hold.

“I’d have to ask the lawyers,” he said.

Democrats, Republicans plan to force votes on settlement

To pass legislation through the budget process called reconciliation, the Senate must first hold a long series of votes. Democrats are using that process to try and ban the settlement by law — and also kill the immigration spending bill.

After Trump’s comments about the fund, Schumer posted on X that “this is EXACTLY why” Democrats would be forcing votes to ban it.

Some Republicans also planned to try and put Blanche’s promise in writing. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., has said he will offer an amendment to block any attempt at resurrecting the fund.

“We’ve got a sufficient number of Republicans who have been very clear they’ve got concerns there,” said Tillis.

ICE and Border Patrol money has been long fight

Democrats say any funding bill for the Homeland Security Department should place restraints on federal immigration authorities, including better identification for federal officers and more use of judicial warrants, among other asks.

After federal agents shot Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Trump agreed to a Democratic request that the Homeland Security bill be separated from a larger spending measure that became law. But bipartisan negotiations went nowhere, and the DHS funding lapsed in mid-February with no agreement on changes to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics.

Congress eventually funded the rest of the Homeland Security Department at the end of April with Democratic support. But ICE and Border Patrol remained without regular funding, and Republicans launched a new effort to pass three years of funding for those agencies with no Democratic votes.

Security money for Trump’s ballroom dropped

Work on the legislation was also delayed by Republican opposition to $1 billion in security funding for the White House, including for Trump’s new ballroom, that was added to the original bill.

Democrats and some Republicans questioned using taxpayer money for the massive project, and Republicans did not include it in the final bill when it was released on Wednesday.

Thune said he was working with his GOP conference to try and fight off any amendments and ensure he has enough votes for a simple majority to pass the bill in the 53-47 Senate.

“Keep in mind, we’ve got to keep them all together, make sure we’ve got 50 votes for it,” he said.

Republican House leaders said Wednesday they would like to clear the legislation before the end of the week, if the Senate can finish it. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said that House leaders were having internal conversations about the schedule.

“We just need to make sure everybody’s there,” Scalise said.

Jalonick and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press.

Israel and the Lebanese government have agreed to implement a new US-mediated ceasefire, the Trump administration has said, despite Israel’s defence minister insisting the military will continue operations in Lebanon.

Furthermore, while Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said on Thursday that the ceasefire would come into force within 24 hours of approval by all concerned parties, Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem has dismissed the deal, labelling it a “surrender and defeat”.

The Trump administration announcement comes just weeks after a previous agreement to cease hostilities was supposedly reached on April 16. Since then, however, more than 600 people have been killed in Israeli strikes across Lebanon while Israel has expanded its military presence in the south of the country, now occupying about one-fifth of the country.

The renewed diplomatic push also comes as Washington pursues parallel shuttle negotiations with Iran. Tehran, a close ally of Hezbollah, has made a ceasefire in Lebanon a condition for any broader agreement to end the war with the US and has repeatedly called for Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon.

Iran’s position was underlined when Quds Force commander Esmail Qaani said the baseline demand in Lebanon is for Israeli forces to withdraw to the positions they held before the start of the US-Israel war on Iran at the end of February – a demand that is not explicitly reflected in the agreement.

Iran and Hezbollah’s responses to the US announcement, coupled with Israel’s insistence that military operations will continue, have cast serious doubt on its viability. Critics of Israel’s war on Lebanon also point to the April truce, which they say has completely failed to halt Israeli attacks or Israel’s occupation of the south of the country.

What has been announced?

According to the Trump administration, Israel and Lebanon have agreed to implement a ceasefire contingent on a “complete cessation” of Hezbollah fire and the evacuation of its fighters from the area south of the Litani River.

The agreement also calls for the creation of “pilot zones” where Lebanese Armed Forces would take exclusive control “to the exclusion of all non-state actors”. The stated aim is to move towards a wider political and security agreement, including the dismantling of non-state armed groups and preventing their re-emergence.

But Hezbollah was not party to the talks and has already rejected the agreement. Lebanon was represented by government diplomats, even though the Lebanese army is not a party to this conflict.

According to the wording of the agreement, the parties are due to reconvene during the week of June 22 to continue diplomatic and security talks, with the US facilitating communications in the meantime. It remains unclear if that stage of the agreement will ever be reached.

What was agreed in April?

The April agreement used different language, saying Israel and Lebanon would implement a “cessation of hostilities” from April 16, and never actually used the word ceasefire.

It also included a clause allowing Israel to “take all necessary measures in self-defence, at any time, against planned, imminent or ongoing attacks”.

That clause does not appear in the new text, which could be interpreted as a small concession. That was until Israel Katz said Israel would continue its military operations in Lebanon regardless.

The latest agreement also repeats Israel’s longstanding demand that Hezbollah withdraw from south of the Litani River.

Meanwhile, there is one major glaring omission. While the text focuses heavily on Hezbollah’s withdrawal from parts of southern Lebanon, it does not mention Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon.

Lebanese journalist and analyst Souhayb Jawhar told Al Jazeera the agreement is defined as much by what it leaves out as by what it includes.

The text, he said, focuses on Hezbollah’s obligations and those of the Lebanese state: removing armed elements from south of the Litani and creating zones where the Lebanese army holds exclusive control.

“This point alone explains much of the scepticism within Hezbollah and its political environment,” Jawhar told Al Jazeera. “From the party’s perspective, any agreement should include a clear ceasefire, an Israeli withdrawal, and a framework for addressing outstanding issues, rather than becoming a document focused primarily on restructuring Lebanon’s internal security landscape.”

What else is different this time?

Other points of contention regarding the new agreement are the “pilot zones”, which appear to go beyond stopping the fighting and instead test a new security model in southern Lebanon – one that could eventually be expanded elsewhere, analysts say.

“This is why many observers see these zones as the beginning of a gradual transition from a security environment in which Hezbollah played the dominant role to one in which the Lebanese state and its armed forces become the sole security authority,” Jawhar said.

He added that the fate of the agreement may depend less on Lebanon-Israel talks than on the US-Iran track. If Washington and Tehran reach a wider understanding, the ceasefire in Lebanon will have a stronger chance of holding because both sides will have an interest in stabilising the Lebanese front.

“If those negotiations stall or collapse, Lebanon could quickly return to being one of the main arenas of pressure and confrontation between the two sides,” Jawhar added.

What is the situation in Lebanon now?

Southern Lebanon remained under heavy military pressure on Thursday, with Israeli strikes on Kafra and al-Mansouri in the southwest of the country. In the Bekaa Valley, one person was killed and four others wounded in an Israeli strike on Sohmor, according to Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency (NNA).

A separate strike hit Tell al-Aqareb, while further raids targeted Haddatha, Tibnin, Haris, and Harin. The NNA also reported more Israeli strikes across southern Lebanon as drones flew at low altitude over Beirut. In Maaroub, one person was killed and another wounded when Israeli forces targeted a motorcycle.

Israeli warplanes also struck towns and villages across the south, including Zawtar al-Sharqiya, Zawtar al-Gharbiya, Shoukin, Barachit, Srifa, Zibdin, Haris and Deir Zahrani. Jets and drones have also been flying over the south for much of the morning, including a drone seen at extremely low altitude over Tyre.

Lebanon’s Civil Defence authorities have warned people not to return south, citing the continued danger to civilian life in towns and villages across southern Lebanon.

More than 3,000 people have been killed, and more than one million have been forced from their homes since Israel renewed its assault on Lebanon in early March.

CHICAGO — Former President Obama’s influence in his presidential museum runs deep, from the location on Chicago’s South Side to textured stone adorning its dramatic tower to striped reading chairs that resemble ones in his own home.

The Obama Presidential Center opens to the general public on Juneteenth after a celebratory dedication in Chicago with dignitaries. But tens of thousands of people — friends and family of museum staff, students and journalists — have already been offered a sneak peek of the nearly 20-acre campus as crews finish final art installations and landscaping.

The roughly $850 million project covers the political and personal realms of the nation’s first Black president. Campaign memorabilia and presidential artifacts are displayed in the admission-based museum tower while public spaces of the sprawling campus feature other things important to Obama: a new library, basketball court and picnic area with grills.

“This is a safe space for people to come and, yes, reflect on the historic moments of this presidency and the campaigns, but also to come together as a community to think about what change you can bring to your own neighborhood,” Josh Harris, the Obama Foundation’s vice president of public engagement, said during a recent tour with The Associated Press.

Here’s a closer look at the top attractions of the campus that is expected to draw as many as 1 million visitors annually.

President for a day

Obama’s presidential museum will be the first fully digital museum of its kind. There will be no official papers on display. Instead, visitors will experience high-tech and hands-on exhibits spanning the campaigns, key moments of Obama’s presidency and life at the White House.

One of the largest attractions is a life-sized replica of the Oval Office.

On a recent day, a stream of visitors, including schoolchildren, walked through the circular room, stopping to sit behind the desk and pose for pictures. The top drawer holds a copy of a handwritten letter from his predecessor, President George W. Bush, and Obama’s beloved BlackBerry phone.

“We want to make sure that people from all walks of life have the opportunity sit behind the Resolute Desk,” said Harris. “You think about the possibilities that if a young organizer from the South Side of Chicago can be president, you can be president too.”

Other sections of the museum detail the Affordable Care Act, immigration policies, and smaller moments such as when Obama unexpectedly sang during a 2015 eulogy for those killed in a South Carolina church shooting. A large television screen plays a clip of Obama singing “Amazing Grace.”

Peppered throughout are areas for personal reflection, which museum organizers say is key.

“We’re passing that baton and inviting people to bring change home, however change may be defined, both small or large,” said Louise Bernard, the museum’s director.

Touching iconic ballgowns

When Obama touted the museum’s contents at its groundbreaking in 2021, he predicted one of the top draws.

“We want this center to be more than a static museum or a source of archival research,” Obama joked at the site. “It won’t just be a collection of campaign memorabilia or Michelle’s ballgowns, although I know everybody will come see those.”

Roughly a dozen outfits on mannequins are behind glass, including a black and red dress designed by Narciso Rodriguez that the former first lady wore on Election Night in 2008 in Chicago.

Visitors will also get a chance to touch swatches of the fabrics, including the rose gold chain mail Atelier Versace evening gown she wore at her final state dinner in 2016.

Obama’s personal touches

The museum’s location is near where Barack Obama started his political career, taught law at the University of Chicago and where the family lived. Michelle Obama also grew up on the South Side.

A lifelong basketball lover, Obama requested a glass-paneled, professional grade basketball court to be used for community programs.

The former first lady designed a garden, where lettuce and strawberry plants are sprouting. There are also charcoal grills available for public use — an element that Obama envisioned when he pitched the plan in community meetings nearly a decade ago.

“President Obama always talked about his feelings of being in Chicago and one of his memorable moments was grilling in the park,” Harris said.

The Obamas’ design tastes and love of history are also evident.

The museum campus features dozens of commissioned works of art while different parts of the campus are named after prominent figures. The central “John Lewis Plaza,” named for the late congressman and Civil Rights leader, is designed as a public gathering spot.

Inside a new Chicago Public Library branch, a 70-foot mural depicts literary figures, including Walt Whitman and James Baldwin. At the center, Toni Morrison reads to a boy wearing orange shirt, representing a young Obama.

The presidential reading room features thousands of books chosen by the Obamas, ranging from presidential biographies to best-selling fiction. One of Obama’s favorite parts are two high-backed chairs with blue, yellow and black stripes. They were selected by the former president as top-notch reading chairs similar to ones he has at home.

Pricey admission with free options

Tickets are $30, the highest of any U.S. presidential museum or library. Next on the list is the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in California, where tickets are $29.

Obama Foundation leaders say the prices are justified for the state-of-the-art facility.

Tickets at the adjacent Griffin Museum of Science and Industry are $25.95. In downstate Illinois, tickets to the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield cost $15.

Along with free days and discounts for Illinois residents, Obama Foundation officials also argue that most of the campus is free, with only four floors of the museum tower requiring tickets.

Anyone can walk the campus, use the playground, library, sledding hill or grilling area. The tower’s top floor, which feature panoramic views of the nation’s third-largest city, is also free.

“The idea behind this institution, this campus, was to make it accessible to as many people as possible,” Harris said.

Tareen writes for the Associated Press.

June 4 (UPI) — Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra are leading a crowded field in California’s primary for governor on Thursday with millions of ballots left to count.

The two candidates that receive the most votes will advance to the November election, regardless of party. Democrat Tom Steyer has the third most votes so far.

Sixty-one candidates qualified to appear on the primary ballot to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Polls closed on Tuesday night at 8 p.m. PDT. It is common for California to take days if not weeks to tally enough votes to declare a winner.

Despite millions of votes still being counted, President Donald Trump has alleged that Democrats have cheated in California’s primaries.

“There’s BIG cheating by the Dumocrats in California,” Trump posted on social media. “Votes are all tied up. May not be in for weeks. Under investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles. Why the vote counting DELAY?”

Trump also declared Hilton the winner of the primary, even though not enough votes have been counted to make that determination.

“Congratulations to Steve Hilton on coming in first, last night, in the California Vote for Governor,” Trump wrote.

Hilton, a former Fox News host, is the top overall vote-getter as of Thursday morning.

Becerra is the former Biden administration U.S. human services and health secretary. Steyer, a billionaire, is a philanthropist and climate activist.

June 4 (UPI) — Thousands of Albanians marched in the capital Tirana for a third day straight to protest against a $1.6 billion luxury resort backed by Donald Trump‘s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, in a national marine park off the country’s Adriatic Sea coast.

Some demonstrators in Wednesday’s protest held inflatable flamingos aloft to highlight the impact they fear the project will have in and around Sazan Island, where work recently got underway in the midst of one of the Mediterranean’s most environmentally-vulnerable areas.

Scuffles broke out with police who fired water canon at protesters.

An offer to meet with opponents from Prime Minister Edi Rama, who has staked his premiership on what he has billed as a developmental coup for the former communist state, was rejected as calls for the project to be halted grew, with protests also set to spread to the south of the country.

“From start to finish there has been a total lack of transparency. We have seen no public consultation or public documentation regarding permits, and so now what we are saying is, if they remove the bulldozers, remove the fence and restore the habitats to what they were, then we can start talking,” said Aleksandr Trajce, executive director of Protection and Preservation of the Natural Environment in Albania.

Kushner stumbled upon the site by chance while vacationing in Albania with his wife, Ivanka Trump.

“We were on a friend’s boat, and we stopped for a swim. Effectively, that’s how we found it. We swam to the island. We went on a hike, barefoot all the way up to the top, and we were just captivated,” Ivanka Trump said.

Environmentalists are worried about the effect the resort will have on an area that includes the currently uninhabited Sazan Island and the nearby wetlands and coastal habitats of the Karaburun-Sazan Marine Park.

BirdLife International said the park’s waters around Sazan and the Karaburun peninsulta were among the last places where Mediterranean monk seals survive and support populations of flamingos and Dalmatian pelicans as well as 200 other species of birds, many of which are endangered.

Sazan Real Estate Development, which is developing the plans in partnership with Kushner’s Miami-based investment firm, Affinity Partners, insisted it was committed to sustainable development.

“Our focus remains on responsible stewardship, environmental enhancement, job creation, and creating long-term value for local communities. We respect the ongoing public and institutional processes,” said Sazan Real Estate Development chair Asher Abehsera.

In recent months, the iconic ticking stopwatch of the CBS News magazine “60 Minutes” began to sound like a time bomb.

The explosive detonated Tuesday as the prestigious program’s most high-profile correspondent, Scott Pelley, was fired after openly challenging the moves and motives of the news division’s leadership and questioning the credentials of new “60 Minutes” executive producer Nick Bilton.

Pelley accused CBS News Editor in Chief Bari Weiss of “murdering” the program and berated Bilton, a former New York Times journalist, for lacking TV news experience. His forced exit along with the departure of several other veterans is raising fears about the future of the most-watched TV news program that has managed to retain its vitality and importance in the face of major changes across the media landscape.

Weiss praised Pelley’s contribution to the network when she discussed his termination at the network’s morning editorial meeting Wednesday, but cited a loss of “trust and mutual respect” as the reason for moving on.

“We cannot do our work without it,” Weiss said. “That foundation was broken on Monday, and despite our attempts to engage with Scott Pelley and to find a way back, unfortunately we weren’t able to do so, and so we had to part ways.”

But industry veterans familiar with “60 Minutes” said the firings represented a notable shift in how the venerable program has been run by its predecessors.

Rome Hartman, a former longtime “60 Minutes” producer, said Wednesday in an interview that the termination of Pelley for forcefully expressing his views at a staff meeting is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the program has operated and thrived over 58 years. Spirited, and occasionally acrimonious, internal debate has always been a part of working at “60 Minutes.”

“Sharp words in defense of important ideas, whether they be in stories, or whether they be about the future of the broadcast, shouldn’t just be tolerated, they should be encouraged and inculcated, and they always have,” Hartman said.

The insularity of the “60 Minutes” operation — which has its own suite of offices across the street from the main headquarters of CBS News — has rankled the network’s executives in the past. But those dynamics were considered part of the price of having the most prestigious news program on television.

“Every single CBS News president in the history of CBS News has resented the independence of ’60 Minutes,’” Hartman said.”But the smart ones have come to understand that that independence is part of the secret sauce. I don’t know Bari Weiss, but she seems incredibly thin-skinned.”

The turmoil inside “60 Minutes” comes at an inopportune time for CBS. Weiss is now under the gun to replenish the program’s staff with three months to go before original episodes return to the prime-time schedule.

Pelley is the fourth correspondent to depart “60 Minutes” since Weiss took over as editor in chief. Last week, Weiss fired correspondents Sharyn Alfonsi — who accused Weiss of playing politics by holding a story on the government’s use of El Salvador prisons for undocumented migrants — and Cecilia Vega, who was also outspoken in her criticism of the changes at “60 Minutes,” saying she faced censorship. Anderson Cooper, the CNN anchor who spent nearly 20 years as a contributor to the program, chose not to sign a new contract.

Weiss also fired executive producer Tanya Simon, who has been with the program for 25 years, and her second in command. (Pelley said he was unable to get answers on the firings during his final meeting Tuesday with Weiss and CBS News President Tom Cibrowski.)

Bari Weiss hosts Senator Ted Cruz on her “Honesty” podcast on January 18, 2025, in Washington, D.C.

(Leigh Vogel / Getty Images for Uber, X and The Free Press)

And there could be more departures on the way, adding to the upheaval. Bill Whitaker, who joined the program in 2014 and was a Pelley ally, is said to be weighing whether to walk away from the two years left on his current contract. The program’s respected veteran , Lesley Stahl, is pondering her future as well amid the massive changes, according to people familiar with her thinking who were not authorized to speak publicly.

The call is out for new talent, according to one agent who said CBS News is talking to “dozens of people” for the openings.

But the company will also look within its ranks. Matt Guttman, hired away from ABC News by Weiss to become senior national correspondent, is one name being mentioned, along with Major Garrett, the network’s chief Washington correspondent. Both have emerged as favorites of Weiss.

Norah O’Donnell, already a contributor to the program, is also likely to have a larger presence.

While the “60 Minutes” patina has been tarnished by the recent events, there is no shortage of journalists who would be willing to step up and join the program. But whoever does sign on will be intensely scrutinized while the Nielsen numbers are closely watched.

Newcomers on the program are rare and would have an easier time gaining audience acceptance if they were joining a stable operation.

Although every long-running TV program can use an occasional refresh, a massive overhaul is destabilizing for “60 Minutes,” one of the last non-sports appointment programs for the traditional television audience that still provides broadcast networks with the bulk of their advertising revenue.

Notably, the program averaged 9.1 million viewers during the 2025-26 TV season according to Nielsen, up 9% over the previous year.

“Viewers liked the ’60 Minutes’ that they had,” said a former CBS News executive who worked on the program who was not authorized to speak publicly. “And if they don’t like it, they have many other places to go.”

One of Weiss’ mantras — echoed by Bilton — has been the need to pull “60 Minutes” into the digital future as traditional TV viewing declines. Insiders say she has yet to make clear how that will be achieved.

Under Weiss’ watch, clips and full segments of the program gained significant traction on platforms such as YouTube. The success on digital is an encouraging sign for the program’s ability to attract younger viewers who don’t watch traditional talent.

But veteran TV executives say that loyal “60 Minutes” viewers still expect to see seasoned correspondents delivering in-depth investigations and analysis. A diversion from that formula poses substantial risks.

“Its audience has certain expectations,” said Jim Murphy, a former executive producer for CNN and CBS News. “These guys built a literally nearly perfect program for the medium and for the audience. You’re not going to make it better just because somebody cooler does a story that’s, like, a little funkier. It just not going to work.”

Steve Capus, a veteran network producer who worked with Pelley at the “CBS Evening News,” said his former colleague was built for the meticulous work that goes into every “60 Minutes” segment.

“It’s hard to do week in and week out,” Capus said. “You have to be first-rate in your storytelling.”

What’s more, Weiss and Bilton will also have to fight the perception that their moves on the program have been guided by the desire of David Ellison, chief executive of CBS News parent Paramount, to please the Trump administration as he seeks regulatory approval of his deal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery.

Trump sued “60 Minutes” over the editing of an interview with his 2024 presidential opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris. The suit was settled just ahead of the Federal Communications Commission clearing the way for the takeover of Paramount by David Ellison’s Skydance Media.

Ellison acquired Weiss’ digital startup, the Free Press, which established itself as a voice critical of so-called woke politics.

Pelley said in a statement Tuesday that there has been pressure to shape CBS News coverage to please the Trump White House, a claim that both Vega and Alfonsi have made.

“I’ve been told to include assertions that are unverified,” he said. “To date, in every case, I have ignored these instructions or refuse them.”

In a statement, a representative of “60 Minutes” said that the exchanges with Pelley regarding editorial content were not out of the ordinary.

“There is no political interference at CBS News, not from ownership, not from Bari Weiss,” the representative said. “The only ‘interference’ is the normal back and forth between editor and correspondent that happens in every newsroom.”

Bangladeshi Foreign Minister Khalilur Rahman has been elected as the 81st president of the 193-member United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). He will assume office when the UNGA session opens in September.

Rahman, who earlier held several portfolios at the UN, won the presidency after defeating Cyprus’s Ambassador Andreas Kakouris in a closely contested vote, taking the helm of the world’s most representative diplomatic body during a time of global geopolitical turmoil.

Who is Khalilur Rahman?

A career diplomat, Rahman joined Bangladesh’s foreign service in 1979. He also held senior UN positions in New York and Geneva, including as the spokesperson for the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and as special adviser to the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

Between 1986 and 1991, he served as the first secretary at the Permanent Mission of Bangladesh to the UN.

Rahman became foreign minister in February, when the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) won the country’s first election since a student-led uprising ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in 2024.

He previously served as national security adviser and the high representative on the Rohingya issue in the interim government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus.

Rahman’s presidency will coincide with one of the most consequential processes on the UN calendar – the selection of Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’s successor – as his term expires at the end of this year.

“The UN will commence its ninth decade at a time when trust in our organisation is being tested on multiple fronts,” he told diplomats assembled at the UNGA as he accepted the new role. “Taken together, these challenges tend to undermine the public trust and confidence in the ability of our organisation to deliver its promises.”

Guterres congratulated Rahman, saying, “Your remarkable political and diplomatic experience are a guarantee of success not only to the General Assembly but to the United Nations as a whole.”

How is the UNGA president selected?

While the presidency of the UNGA is largely ceremonial, it is also prestigious. It is the UN organ where countries large and small can speak, and it is the scene of the world’s largest annual diplomatic gathering.

The UNGA president is normally chosen by acclamation, meaning member states agree on a candidate by broad consensus. If no consensus can be reached, a secret ballot is held; in that rare case, the candidate who wins a simple majority of votes becomes president.

Before this year, the last contested UNGA presidential election was in 2016, when Fijian diplomat Peter Thomson won the presidency of the 71st session in a secret ballot, defeating Cyprus’s candidate by four votes. In 2012, Serbia’s Vuk Jeremic narrowly beat Lithuania’s candidate in another secret ballot. In 1991, Saudi Arabia’s candidate, Samir Shihabi, won the presidency in a contested vote against candidates from Yemen and Papua New Guinea.

In the secret ballot, Rahman secured 99 votes, eight more than his competitor Kakouris. A total of 190 ballots were cast, with no invalid votes or abstentions.

The presidency rotates among the UN’s five regional groups, and the 81st session falls to the Asia Pacific group. Rahman will serve a one-year term starting on September 8, the UN said.

Outgoing UNGA President Annalena Baerbock, Germany’s foreign minister, highlighted how trust towards multilateralism is under growing strain.

The UN is facing “not only headwinds, but immense pressure”, with consensus increasingly difficult to achieve and defence of the UN Charter becoming “a daily necessity”.

“The role of the president of the General Assembly is no longer simply procedural,” she said.

The US administration under President Donald Trump has tried to undermine the UN system, resorting to unilateral actions to tackle complex global geopolitical issues. Washington has withdrawn from several UN organisations, such as the World Health Organization and the Human Rights Council, and cut funding to the global body.

The US president has called the UN a “talking shop”, questioning its purpose during his speech at the annual UNGA meeting last September. “The UN has such tremendous potential … but it’s not even coming close to living up to that potential,” he said.

What is the UNGA?

The General Assembly is the UN’s most representative body, bringing together all 193 member states, each with one vote. Its annual gathering in September in New York is the only UN forum where world leaders from all countries can speak.

The UNGA controls the UN budget, adopts treaties, addresses global issues from poverty to corruption and passes numerous resolutions that, while not legally binding, almost always reflect global opinion.

The UNGA also makes key decisions for the UN, including appointing the secretary-general on the recommendation of the UN Security Council (UNSC) and electing the nonpermanent members of the council.

The coming UNGA session will open on September 8.

On Wednesday, the UNGA elected Austria, Kyrgyzstan, Portugal, Trinidad and Tobago and Zimbabwe to the 15-member UNSC for two-year terms starting on January 1, 2027.

Germany, which had lobbied hard for a seat, failed to win the UNSC seat in a major setback for Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

The council is the only UN body that can make legally binding decisions, such as imposing sanctions and authorising the use of force. It has five permanent veto-wielding members: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

A huge, waning moon glimmered over Los Angeles on election night, a metaphor for a trend that emerged in early returns.

The city’s political establishment seemed to be on the retreat in favor of populist insurgents from both the left and the right.

Mayor Karen Bass held a cushy lead in her bid for a second term, and the Associated Press declared that she had made it into the November runoff election. But the underwhelming amount of support she got thus far showed that many voters in a super-blue city didn’t have enough confidence in a Democratic stalwart to return her to office. Instead, many chose self-proclaimed upstarts from opposite ends of the political spectrum: Republican reality TV star Spencer Pratt and democratic socialist City Councilmember Nithya Raman.

Raman launched her campaign at the last moment, just weeks after endorsing her longtime ally Bass, figuring that enough Angelenos were tired of the incumbent and would join her message of change from inside City Hall.

Raman’s instincts were half right. Voters did want change. But they didn’t view her as a challenge to the status quo — to many, she is the status quo.

The mayoral hopeful didn’t articulate a platform that radically departed from Bass’, and voter antipathy to her muddled messaging showed: she ended the night in third place. If the current results hold, Bass would face Pratt in the runoff.

At Raman’s election-night party at Boomtown Brewery on the outskirts of Little Tokyo, I saw why her chances of becoming L.A.’s next mayor were slim from the start. The gathering felt like happy hour at a Silver Lake bar: far whiter than the city overall, with few Latinos. Her address to a packed house was a grab bag of platitudes mixed with a broadside against MAGA, which is a political nothing in L.A. politics. It was an uninspiring cri de coeur and reflective of a campaign that wasn’t apocalyptic enough for those, such as Pratt’s people, who want radical change, while offering nothing new for Bass supporters.

Yet Raman still insisted she had unlocked something transformative.

“Together, we built something extraordinary,” she said to cheers. “And it gives me so much inspiration to be a part of it, a movement powered not by cynicism or political insiders, but by ordinary people who still believe Los Angeles is worth fighting for.”

Raman then went on the dance floor to greet well-wishers, pumping her fist while a DJ blasted Daft Punk’s “Lose Yourself to Dance.”

A billboard for L.A. mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt near MacArthur Park on June 2, 2026.

(Ronaldo Bolanos / Los Angeles Times)

Across town in West Los Angeles, Pratt reveled in his second-place position, enjoying a Mexican dinner with friends and family. It was a peaceful conclusion to a spring of fulminations against Bass (“Karen Basura”), nonprofits, homeless people (“zombies”) and anything that reeked of Democratic pieties, even as the Republican swore he was campaigning for all ideologies in a nonpartisan race.

Long dismissed as a has-been joke, Pratt correctly judged that Angelenos are angry and don’t want to be polite about it anymore. He and his supporters will take his unlikely rise as a mandate to double down against liberal L.A.

But if Pratt, who lost his house in the Palisades fire, does move on to the general election and is serious about winning, he needs to learn from the political revolution successfully pursued by his polar opposites, the local chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Six years ago this spring, L.A.’s political establishment wrote off DSA-LA as wokoso upstarts in their long-shot quest to get a political novice named Nithya Raman elected to the city council. Even as Raman and three other DSA members joined the council, skeptics dismissed them and their progressive policies as anomalies that didn’t reflect how Angelenos actually wanted the city to work.

Tuesday night, four of the six DSA-endorsed candidates in L.A. city elections were in first place by large margins and another was comfortably in second, reflecting DSA’s multicultural, citywide reach. In a telling sign of its newfound king-making status, the local chapter declined to endorse Raman or any other mayoral candidate. Without that powerful backing, their trailblazer, along with DSA member Rae Huang, withered on their L.A. revolutionary vine.

Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez and L.A. Unified school board member Rocío Rivas looked to be coasting to outright victories. Marissa Roy was on her way to a runoff that would exclude the incumbent city attorney, Hydee Feldstein Soto, who was a distant third in the early returns. In District 9, where Curren Price is terming out, Estuardo Mazariegos stood comfortably in second place and looked to headed to a runoff against a fellow Latino candidate in a race that will see South Los Angeles elect its first non-Black council member in 63 years.

The most surprising outcome involved Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, who became a punching bag, along with Bass, for people who thought L.A. had transformed into a hellhole. So-called dark money groups, which don’t have to reveal where their funding comes from, poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into negative mailers. Opponents vying for her seat cast federal raids against drug dealers and gangs in the MacArthur Park area as an indictment of her leadership, berating her during debates and on social media.

Even Hernandez’s supporters were fretting about what might happen on election night. But by the time I arrived at her raucous soirée in Highland Park, early returns showed her way ahead of the field and perhaps avoiding a runoff.

“It’s reassuring to see [DSA’s success],” she said as jubilant supporters lined up beside her to get tattoos — real ink, not temporary — of hummingbirds, her campaign’s logo. “That means people see us. That means people want more.”

Hernandez pointed to her fellow DSA member, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

“What happened with DSA over there didn’t happen overnight,” she said. “In L.A., we’re getting there.”

A table filled with campaign buttons for Council Memer Hugo Soto-Martinez, who ran for reelection this year and is expected to win outright.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

L.A. hasn’t suddenly become a land of Trumpers and closet commies, of course. Two incumbent council members who are centrist Democrats are also on their way to easy victories, while Councilmember Monica Rodriguez walked into a third term because no one ran against her. Centrists Timothy Gaspar and Barri Worth Girvan have a huge lead over their rivals for the San Fernando Valley council seat that Bob Blumenfield is leaving due to term limits.

But anyone who wants to win in Los Angeles needs to realize that antiestablishment sentiment is in the air.

At the same time, I would remind the victorious populists to look up in the sky and remember their Shakespeare.

“O, swear not by the moon, th’ inconstant moon / That monthly changes in her circle orb / Lest that thy love prove likewise variable,” Juliet warned Romeo.

Politics, like la luna, waxes and wanes whether we like it or not, and anyone who bets on a permanent transformation at City Hall will probably lose.

Angelenos have declared that they want dramatic change. But how will they feel in November?

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass made what sounded like a victory speech Tuesday night.

Councilmember Nithya Raman made what sounded almost like a concession speech.

And former reality TV star Spencer Pratt relayed a message from the heavens.

“Well, obviously God wanted five more months of me exposing all the failures of our mayor, so it’s gonna be a fun ride,” Pratt said. “I hope she’s ready.”

Assuming Pratt holds on to one of the two spots in the Nov. 3 general election as the final votes are tallied in the next few days, the smart money will be on Bass, for reasons I’ll get into in a moment.

But the supreme being and patron of all pontiffs has to be considered a wild card. This is the first time, to my knowledge, that an incumbent mayor in the City of Angels would be running against a challenger whose campaign manager is God Almighty.

So here we go. We could be in for one of the more remarkable electoral adventures in city history, with a complete novice and MAGA conservative going up against a liberal career politician in a deep-blue city and state full of people who are tired of hearing excuses from Democrats. (If Raman ends up ousting Pratt, my apologies for jumping to conclusions. But it’s not my fault. The devil made me do it.)

If you intend to follow closely, as of course you should, maybe you can help me count the number of times Pratt plays the faith card. I went to St. Peter Martyr School and attended the church by the same name, and I don’t recall ever hearing a nun or a priest drop God’s name as often as Pratt does.

In fact, I just watched a clip of Pratt talking to Fox News TV host and Donald Trump disciple Kayleigh McEnany, and over the course of 1 minute and 52 seconds, he mentioned God or Jesus 10 times.

“Thankfully, I married an angel who was very connected with Jesus and has brought me to the light,” Pratt said of his wife and former reality TV co-star Heidi Montag. “It’s been very empowering to just pray and just be on his path and just say, ‘God, if you want me to save these animals, save these humans and protect my city, just keep putting me in the place where I can do that.’”

Is he running for mayor or cardinal?

Look, I totally respect your average true believer. But I’m not entirely comfortable with a mayor who might be sitting around City Hall waiting for signs and smoke signals rather than knowing what to do on his own.

God has a lot on his plate. He might be busy multiplying fishes and loaves so people don’t go hungry thanks to the president’s tariffs and warmongering. Is he going to rush to answer a prayer for guidance about underfunded parks or broken sidewalks in Los Angeles?

How did we get here, you ask?

Well, Pratt is an AI creation, in a way. A composite of sorts. You combine the forces of social media, political rebellion, second-rate celebrity obsession and the Peter Principle, and here’s a little Trump puppet walking around L.A. like he’s the chosen one.

Add to that the very real essence of his appeal to some voters:

Los Angeles has problems. Big problems that don’t get fixed quickly enough or at all, and Pratt represents the angry voter who wants to know why City Hall can’t do better and where all the money went. He’s absolutely right when he says we shouldn’t have people living on the streets, using drugs on the streets and dying on the streets.

But if Pratt is in the general election rather than Raman, we’re in for a national media circus rather than a summit on solutions. Raman is well-versed on matters of relevance and could have pushed back against Bass in substantive, detailed ways. On the other hand, as Pratt has fairly argued, Raman headed City Council’s homelessness committee, so isn’t she partly to blame for the failures she tried to pin on Bass?

As for Pratt’s policy chops, he has not responded to my offers of a get-together. Absent that, and given his careful avoidance of local reporters who know their stuff, I read his platform on his campaign website and I can tell you that while he touches on many of the right issues — public safety, fiscal integrity, homelessness — attention to detail and depth of knowledge are not God-given strengths.

Maybe Pratt can actually deliver on his promise of a “treatment-led recovery model that addresses mental illness and addiction as the primary drivers of chronic homelessness.” But that would require an act of God (which I suppose is possible given their relationship), because those matters are primarily under the direction of the county, not the city.

This is the main problem here. Bass was beatable, and could have been pushed by a serious challenger to do better.

In the last election, Rick Caruso gave her a scare. That was partly because he had some depth on the issues, he was a successful businessman and philanthropist, he had served on the police commission and the water and power board, he had built relationships across the city and, along with his family, he had poured time and millions of dollars into underserved communities.

In this election, it looks as though Bass could get lucky and face off against a guy who lost his house in the Palisades fire, saw a few homeless encampments through his car window, and decided he wanted to be mayor. Some might have questioned his hubris, but only before learning that he was on a mission from God.

If you’re keeping count, that’s nine mentions of God so far in this column.

One more for the tie, with an eye toward five more months of campaign fodder.

Thank you, God.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

WASHINGTON — As Californians cast their ballots in the state’s closely watched gubernatorial primary Tuesday, a very different race was playing out in Iowa — one that holds clues about the mood of Republican voters heading into November.

President Trump’s endorsed candidate in Iowa’s high-stakes governor’s race, Republican U.S. Rep. Randy Feenstra, lost his bid for the party’s nomination, a rare defeat for a Trump-backed candidate.

The outcome exposed fractures among Republican voters, though their choice of Zach Lahn, who ran on an “Iowa First” and Make America Healthy Again platform, didn’t amount to a rebuke of Trump’s politics, said Jimmy Centers, a Republican strategist in Iowa.

The primary race was “emblematic of the seismic plates that make up the Republican Party in Iowa,” Centers said — the successful MAGA-style message, from Lahn; a more traditional conservative platform, from Feenstra; and a conservative Christian approach, from candidate Adam Steen.

“It’s a bit of a look-ahead in terms of how the Republican Party is going to be shaped in what will be a post-Trump era,” Centers said. “Those plates are moving, and last night in Iowa, we had an earthquake.”

Results from Iowa, California and other late-stage primaries portend contentious fall campaigns, with control of the House and Senate hanging in the balance.

“You’re seeing Republican primary voters rebel against politicians, whether it’s Dusty Johnson in South Dakota or Chip Roy in Texas,” said Matt Gorman, a longtime Republican strategist and chief communications officer at Targeted Victory. “There’s clearly a backlash against sitting politicians, and Republican primary voters are looking for outsiders.”

That pro-outsider outlook has been promoted by Trump himself in some races, as he has used his endorsement to boost primary challengers to victory over Republican incumbents — notably in Texas, Louisiana and Kentucky. In Tuesday’s primaries, however — held in six states — none of the races involved Republican veterans whom Trump wanted to see ousted.

Outside of such races, Trump — who last week said, “I don’t care about the midterms” — has taken a more laissez-faire approach. In Iowa, he did not endorse Feenstra until Friday, a last-minute boost that didn’t help the congressman over the finish line.

Lahn, in a victory speech Tuesday night, acknowledged the upset he had pulled off.

“Nobody thought this could be done,” Lahn said. “We were outspent, opposed by the establishment, told to wait our turn.”

Lahn will face Iowa state auditor Rob Sand, who ran uncontested for the Democratic nomination. The seat is being vacated by Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican who is not seeking reelection.

Iowa Republicans will now ramp up efforts to retain both the governor’s office and the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Joni Ernst, as Democrats target both offices for flipping.

The race to replace Ernst is now on between Republican Rep. Ashley Hinson, who has been in Congress since 2021 and has Trump’s support, and Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek, a former Paralympian who was backed by a leadership PAC aligned with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Economic issues, particularly in the agricultural sector, where farmers have been squeezed by Trump’s tariffs and war in Iran, could dominate the races. Centers said both parties are acutely aware of the economic factors — and aware that Democrats’ chances in Iowa could be slightly better than “a hope and a prayer,” though the state’s voter-registration edge remains solidly red.

“I don’t think many Republicans in Iowa are bashful about acknowledging the environment we’ll face in November,” Centers said. “It’s going to be a hard-fought race.”

Other Tuesday takeaways

Elsewhere on Tuesday, voters chose candidates in races for U.S. Senate, House and governor’s seats, setting up some lively November match-ups.

In New Jersey, the state’s 7th Congressional District will be a closely watched contest — largely because of the recent absence of Republican Rep. Tom Kean, who has not been publicly seen for months as he deals with an undisclosed medical issue.

His absence has provided an opening to Democrats, who have ramped up attention on the seat as they attempt to flip as many House seats as possible. Rebecca Bennett, a former Navy helicopter pilot, won the Democratic nomination Tuesday.

Kean, who has support from Trump, ran unopposed. In a statement Tuesday evening, he laid out plans to reveal his medical condition when he returns to in-person work, which he said would be “within a matter of weeks.”

The race could become key to Democrats’ attempt to win control of the House in November.

“We’re ready for this fight. Bring it on,” Bennett wrote Wednesday on X.

In Montana, the race for the state’s open U.S. Senate seat, being vacated by Republican Sen. Steve Daines, was also set to get interesting.

Trump-backed Republican Kurt Alme, a former U.S. attorney, and Democrat Alani Bankhead, an Air Force veteran, won primaries Tuesday — but former University of Montana president Seth Bodnar has launched an independent bid for the seat. Bodnar said Tuesday that he had delivered enough petition signatures to the secretary of state to get on the November ballot.

And in New Mexico, former Interior Secretary Deb Haaland secured the Democratic nomination for governor, advancing in her bid to make history as the first Native American governor in the United States. She will face Republican Gregg Hull, a former local mayor, in November.

What’s next

Next week brings Maine’s Senate primaries, following a Democratic race that has taken several twists and turns. Democrats have held hopes of unseating Sen. Susan Collins, the veteran Republican lawmaker, as part of their long-shot attempt to flip the Senate along with the House.

But leading Democratic candidate Graham Platner has been dogged by controversies. The primary vote will be held just more than a week after a New York Times report that he had sent sexual messages to several women outside his marriage. This week, Gov. Janet Mills, who had opposed Platner but suspended her campaign at the end of April, said, “I am still on the ballot.”

Also to watch: Next week’s outcomes in South Carolina’s crowded gubernatorial field; the June 16 Georgia Senate runoff to determine which Republican will face Democratic Sen. Jon Osoff; and the June 16 Democratic primary for Senate in Oklahoma.

Times staff writer Michael Wilner,in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: The U.S. is investigating two more Mexican governors for connections to cartels
The deep dive:Can we speed up California’s vote count already?
The L.A. Times Special:More middle-class Californians cancel health coverage after losing federal aid

More to come,
Justine McDaniel and Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

As election officials continued tallying ballots Wednesday, Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra continued to lead in the unsettled race to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, with billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer hoping for a surge in late-arriving votes to push him into one of the top-two spots to advance to the November general election.

Hilton, a British immigrant and former Fox News commentator, told reporters outside the state Capitol in Sacramento Wednesday morning that he was “very encouraged” by the latest results, though he stopped short of declaring victory.

“It does look as if change is coming to California, and that is good news for everyone, every small business, every working family, everyone who wants to see our state set back on track,” he said.

Becerra and Steyer did not hold public events as of Wednesday afternoon.

Election data analyst Paul Mitchell said it would be nearly mathematically impossible for Steyer to close the gap.

“As we start to get more data, the runway is going to get shorter and shorter,” he said.

He said Steyer, to finish in the top two in the primary, would have to get about 30% of the remaining uncounted votes while Becerra would need to be limited to 15%. The self-funded billionaire has “a very high hill to overcome, and the challenge gets steeper and steeper as we get more data from the counties,” Mitchell said.

Once mired near the bottom of a crowded pack of Democrats in opinion polls, Becerra, a former Biden administration cabinet member, rocketed ahead of his rival candidates after former Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out of the race in April amid allegations of sexual assault and misconduct. The scandal triggered an upswing of voter interest in California’s once sluggish governor’s race and in Becerra, who seized the moment.

“Here in Hollywood’s hometown, we love a good underdog story,” Becerra told cheering supporters at his election night party at La Plaza de Cultura y Artes in downtown Los Angeles.

Becerra spoke about his Mexican immigrant parents and becoming the first in his family to attend college. Though a longtime California politician, Becerra said that his campaign for governor was outspent and that he faced calls to drop out of the race.

“The underdog stayed in the fight,” he said. “Like my parents, I never gave up. … Never stopped believing in the beacon-light goodness of California and thankfully, neither did you.”

Steyer, who spent more than $216 million of his wealth on the race, has not conceded defeat.

His campaign manager, Heather Hargreaves, wrote in a letter to supporters Wednesday that “we’re going to give democracy time to work. County election officials are still counting ballots and don’t expect to know how many people voted in total until” Thursday, when officials are required to report the estimated number ballots left to process.

The billionaire former hedge fund owner campaigned against the corporate and special interests that have a powerful presence in Sacramento and often spend heavily in elections, including this year against Steyer.

Billionaires “do everything they can to hoard their wealth and avoid paying taxes, and we see corporations continue to rig the system for themselves — raising your prices to juice their profits. Screw that,” Steyer said at his election watch party at the Regency Ballroom in San Francisco.

Other candidates in the race included Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and Democrats including former Rep. Katie Porter, San José Mayor Matt Mahan, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond.

Villaraigosa, Mahan and Porter conceded the race Tuesday night.

California’s 2026 race for governor started slow but ended with a flourish, including the demise of a scandal-ridden Democratic favorite, the anointing of a Republican by Trump and Becerra’s unexpected rise from the depths of the candidate field.

Unlike gubernatorial elections in the last quarter of a century, this year’s race lacked a clear crowd-pleasing front-runner able to win over voters, such as movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger or Jerry Brown, a sage of the California electorate and scion of a storied political family. But it unfolded at a time when the state’s residents are overwhelmed by high housing costs, steep gas prices and overall unaffordability that threatens the “California dream” that once drew millions of people to the state.

“Normal people are not living and breathing politics on a daily basis,” said Tim Rosales, a strategist who ran Republican John Cox’s unsuccessful 2018 gubernatorial campaign. In today’s information-saturated environment, Rosales said, the race and its roster of “extremely milquetoast candidates” didn’t break through until the Swalwell scandal grabbed voters’ attention.

The 2026 gubernatorial primary has been one of the most unpredictable and expensive in decades and a race that was shaped early on by a number of heavyweight Democrats staying on the sidelines.

Though supporters urged them to run, former Vice President Kamala Harris, Sen. Alex Padilla and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta passed on the race. It was in a state of limbo for months last year as Harris, one of the state’s most high-profile politicians, weighed whether to jump in.

“I don’t ever recall a playing field that looks like this one. Usually there’s a clear front-runner,” said veteran Democratic strategist Darry Sragow. “It’s easy to say that it reflects a lack of talent [but] that’s absolutely not true. Almost any of the candidates running could make a good governor.”

Still, candidates struggled for months to break through to voters.

In February, polls showed the crowded field of Democrats splitting liberal voters and opening a statistical possibility that the party would be boxed out of November under California’s open, top-two primary, which places all candidates on the same ballot. Only the first- and second-place finishers in the primary advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation.

Just when Swalwell appeared on the cusp of becoming the Democratic front-runner the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN published allegations that he sexually assaulted a former staffer and acted inappropriately with other women. Swalwell suspended his campaign.

It was Becerra who benefited the most. In less than two months, he vaulted from polling in the low single digits to the top of the field of candidates, according to surveys conducted by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that were co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times.

“Becerra caught lightning in a bottle,” Rosales said. “It could have easily gone to any of the other candidates,” but many had baggage. Videos of Porter losing her temper hurt her image, the source of Steyer’s wealth and his unbridled campaign spending weighed on voters’ minds, and Villaraigosa and Mahan were “more centrist than what most Democrats wanted, and so Xavier Becerra was really the safe choice,” Rosales said.

Before Democratic voters began to narrow down their choices, Trump endorsed Hilton in early April. It helped the former Fox News host break away from Bianco, his main GOP rival.

In the days before the primary election, the race solidified into a three-way contest involving Becerra, Steyer and Hilton.

Steyer stepped up his fight in the remaining days, seeking to squeeze into one of the top two spots by battering Becerra in ads and at campaign rallies as a politician propped up by corporate special interests.

“We cannot afford to have a governor who’s been bought off by Big Oil. Period,” he said at a Sunday rally in Los Angeles.

Corporations, along with labor unions and interest groups including the California Assn. of Realtors, had spent more than $18.7 million to boost Becerra, according to the election spending tracker California Target Book. Many of the same groups also gave money to a committee intended to attack Steyer.

As the election neared, Becerra sharpened his attacks against Steyer, calling the billionaire a “liar” and accusing him of trying to buy the election.

“We are not going to let a billionaire or Trump’s handpicked candidate take over this state,” he said during a Sunday rally in Long Beach.

If Becerra faces off with Hilton in November he’ll have a distinct advantage. Democratic voters outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1 in left-leaning California.

Winning the general election would make the 68-year-old Becerra the first elected Latino governor of California. At roughly 40% of the state’s population, Latinos are California’s largest ethnic group but have not been represented in the governor’s mansion since 1875, when then-Lt. Gov. Romualdo Pacheco was elevated to fill a 10-month vacancy.

Times staff writers Iris Kwok, Susanne Rust, Andrew Khouri and Christopher Goffard contributed to this report.

June 3 (UPI) — Markwayne Mullin, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said Wednesday that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers will have to undergo more than 500 hours of training again, a return to the amount the department originally required.

“We had to rewrite the curriculum,” Mullin told members ofthe House Homeland Security Committee. “All training starting July 1 will be back up to the regular standards.”

News agencies first reported in early May that this change might be on the way. In fall 2025, ICE cut training for its officers from 584 hours to 336 hours, a move that came as part of a hiring push that brought in hundreds of new ICE agents. Senate Democrats released documents showing the cuts earlier this year, The New York Times reported.

The cuts were criticized by Democrats and some others, as critics said recruits did not receive enough training on how to handle firearms, First Amendment rights or other issues. Many people have called for ICE to be reformed or abolished, especially after ICE agents killed two U.S. citizens in January in Minneapolis. Then, in February, the Times reported, a former ICE attorney publicly criticized the changes in training at a forum in Washington, D.C.

“For the last five minutes, I watched ICE dismantle the training program,” Ryan Schwank said. “Cutting 240 hours of vital classes from a 584-hour program — classes that teach the Constitution, our legal system, firearms training, the use of force, lawful arrests, proper detention and the limits of officers’ authority.”

The agency responded at the time by saying hours had not been cut.

Mullin also said Wednesday that he’s reviewing contracts signed by Kristi Noem, the previous secretary of the department, that may have ties to her allies, The Hill reported. Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the top Democrat on the committee, noted that Noem had signed contracts giving business to companies connected with her.

Mullin said he’d give the committee a list of any canceled contracts that hadn’t yet been signed. The department cannot nullify contacts that have been signed, but some are under review, he said.

WASHINGTON — The House approved a war powers resolution Wednesday that would halt the U.S. military action against Iran, defying President Trump as a handful of Republicans joined with Democrats to end the three-month-long war that has reordered politics at home and abroad.

House Speaker Mike Johnson had tried to prevent an outcome that would show the mounting opposition to the war, abruptly shutting down floor action two weeks ago when the war powers resolution was on the verge of approval. But displeasure has only grown as the conflict drags on and as Trump struggles to negotiate a quick resolution.

The roll call Wednesday was 215-208, and cheers erupted in the House chamber.

“This reckless and costly war of choice needs to end today,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said earlier in the week.

“All we need are a handful of Republicans to join us and we can end this reckless and costly war of choice — a war that has cost the American taxpayer over $100 billion — that’s extraordinary — and left our country in a weaker position relative to Iran.”

Opposition to war grows

It’s the fourth time the House has tried to curb the U.S. war against Iran, and the first time the House was able to pass the measure. The Senate advanced its own war powers resolution last month when a handful of GOP senators broke ranks with the Republican president in a rare show of political pushback from his party.

Each time Democrats have pushed forward the war powers resolution, the vote tallies have inched higher as political unease with the U.S. war swells. Trump had campaigned for the White House on a promise to end U.S. entanglements abroad and focus more on domestic issues, but the war has shifted attention back to the Middle East.

Johnson insisted Trump is “laser focused” on the domestic front, particularly ahead of the midterm elections that will determine control of Congress.

The speaker said he spent three hours at the White House with the president this week as Trump is calling on allies to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz for commerce, especially the flow of oil.

Since the U.S. joined Israel in launching the Feb. 28 strikes on Iran, Americans have seen gas prices spike at the pumps, adding to inflationary pressure on consumer spending.

Iran has been able to interrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital channel for a large segment of the world’s oil, natural gas and related products such as fertilizer.

“We’re working on that final piece,” said Johnson, R-La. “The entire world has an interest in the Strait of Hormuz being reopen for commerce. That what he’s working on.”

While a ceasefire in the conflict was declared in April, it remains uneasy and uncertain. Talks for a more durable end to the fighting have dragged, increasingly complicated by Israel’s broadening war with Iran-backed Hezbollah militants in Lebanon. Meanwhile, military strikes between the U.S and Iran continue to flare.

Congress exerts its war powers authority

The war powers resolution from the House would not immediately stop the war, but it would provide a symbolic if not legal step against further military action.

If approved, it would then go to the Senate, where four Republican senators last month joined Democrats in advancing a similar measure to curtail the U.S. campaign against Iran. The Senate has yet to take a final vote to approve or reject its own war powers resolution.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned Wednesday testifying at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing that the Iranians would think that the administration’s “hands are going to be tied” if Congress approved a war powers resolution. He said they would think ”we won’t be able to do anything to them, so why make a deal?”

It’s not the only action Congress is taking in the national security arena as Democrats, in the minority, work to peel off Republican support for measures beyond the war against Iran.

The House is also voting Wednesday on another Democratic-led effort that would authorize U.S. support for Ukraine’s military operations as it battles Russia and to help reconstruct the war-torn country. The House this week is also expected to consider a war powers resolution to block U.S. action in Lebanon.

While Congress has the authority under the Constitution to declare war, the president also has power as the commander in chief to engage in military action, creating a legal dispute over which branch of government has ultimate say in matters of war and peace.

Under the war powers act, the White House has a 60-day window to seek approval from Congress for military action. The administration, however, has indicated that because a ceasefire has been declared in the current conflict in Iran, the hostilities have ceased.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON, June 3 (UPI) — As the Justice Department increases efforts to strip some naturalized Americans of their U.S. citizenship, U.S. senators on Wednesday debated whether such efforts violate the Constitution.

Republicans argued during a Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution that it has been too hard to take away citizenship of naturalized citizens. But Democrats oppose increasing denaturalization and said it reflects President Donald Trump‘s broader anti-immigrant agenda.

“When someone lies during that [naturalization] process, conceals material facts, hides criminal conduct, masks allegiance to a foreign enemy or swears loyalty with mental reservation, he commits fraud against the United States,” said Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., chairman of the subcommittee.

Countered Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, a naturalized citizen. “It’s more than astounding, it should be unconstitutional. Let’s be clear. This has never been about law and order for the Republicans. This is all about getting immigrants. It’s about terrorizing immigrant communities.”

The Trump administration has significantly increased denaturalization efforts since the beginning of the president’s second term. Between 1990 and 2017, the government opened 11 denaturalization cases, on average, every year, according to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.

Since January, the government has opened 34 denaturalization cases and revoked citizenship of 11 people. This is part of a larger, unprecedented push led by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to review 100 to 200 denaturalization cases per month.

“The Trump administration is right to revive denaturalization,” Schmitt said. Democrats, however, raised alarms that the push will have far-reaching consequences for naturalized Americans who are accused of crimes after becoming citizens.

Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., the top Democrat on the subcommittee, said he has no issue denaturalizing citizens who have committed fraud or misled officials during their naturalization process.

“I support that, but I don’t agree that naturalized citizens should be punished for something that happens after they become a citizen,” he said. “It’s the view of the Supreme Court. So, we do not have to reach too far back in our nation’s history to see that a familiar cycle is unfolding.”

The denaturalization campaign has marked a significant shift from previous administrations, which mainly targeted those with links to terrorist organizations or found guilty of war crimes.

But a June 2025 memo from the Department of Justice told government attorneys to expand the campaign to those involved in fraud or sex crimes. The memo later added a broad instruction that attorneys should pursue “any other cases … that the division deems to be sufficiently important.”

A law professor and an attorney pushed back against that tactic.

“The idea is to try to normalize the idea of denaturalization so that they can focus efforts against people who are kind of universally condemned,” said Cassandra Robertson, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University. “Then it’ll be a smaller step to start using denaturalization against other people.”

Robertson said that she had spoken to many naturalized citizens who now fear their citizenship may be revoked over actions like criticizing the government. She cited growing attacks from lawmakers to denaturalize public figures like New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

“If they’re threatening these high level people, what protection does an ordinary person have?” Robertson asked rhetorically.

David Leopold, an immigration attorney in Cleveland and former president of the American Immigration Attorney’s Association, said he sees similar fears among many of his naturalized clients. He said some have been stopped at airports and asked about their immigration history, despite having U.S. citizenship.

“This administration has succeeded in doing what a lot of authoritarian governments do, and that is spreading fear,” Leopold said.

Democrat Welch said the Trump administration’s denaturalization push seeks to advance the president’s deportation goals.

“The administration has — it is absolutely clear — a very radical goal. And that is mass deportation of immigrants from our country,” Welch said. “It’s doing real damage to our country, and as part of that effort, we’ve seen the abusive lengths that this administration is willing to go to.”

In January, Schmitt, supported by Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., introduced the SCAM Act, which would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify the denaturalization process.

One notable expansion of the Act would lengthen the statute of limitations from five to 10 years for being able to revoke the citizenship status of naturalized Americans. The bill has yet to face votes.

“I’m proud to co-sponsor the Scam Act because I believe citizenship must be grounded in conduct that confirms rather than contradicts the promises made in connection with the naturalization process,” said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.

Kuwait’s defence ministry has labelled an attack on the country’s international airport as ‘heinous Iranian aggression’. One person was killed and dozens were injured after Iranian drones struck a terminal on Wednesday, causing ‘significant material damage’.