politics

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio is to visit India in the coming week, but he will not set foot in the capital, New Delhi.

Instead, on Monday, Rubio will hold talks with Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar in Mumbai, India’s financial hub, and then visit an oil refinery in Jamnagar in the western state of Gujarat, according to a statement from the US Department of State.

His itinerary sparked a political storm after the US ambassador to India said Washington expected Jaishankar to travel to meet Rubio, prompting opposition leaders to accuse the government of allowing India’s top diplomat to be “summoned” on home soil.

The spat comes as relations between the two countries are strained over trade, tariffs and India’s purchases of Russian oil.

So why is Rubio avoiding New Delhi, and why has it caused such upset? Here’s what you need to know:

What is Rubio doing in India?

He plans to discuss trade, energy and investment.

Rubio is arriving on Sunday from Samarkand, Uzbekistan, where he has been meeting with five Central Asian states at the C5+1 summit.

In India, he is due to meet senior officials to discuss the US-India strategic partnership and energy cooperation and hold talks with business leaders, the State Department said.

Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal appeared to confirm the agenda, stating on Friday that the Mumbai talks would cover energy, trade and investment, defence, and critical and emerging technologies.

In Jamnagar, Rubio is to visit the world’s largest single-site refinery, operated by billionaire Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Industries, and attend a reception hosted by the Ambani family, according to The Hindu newspaper.

Why isn’t Rubio going to New Delhi?

No official reason has been given.

Rubio was in the Indian capital in May for a meeting of foreign ministers of countries in the Quad, a group consisting of the US, India, Japan and Australia.

The State Department has framed his upcoming trip around energy and investment, and the second stop on Rubio’s India visit, Jamnagar, is one of the world’s most important energy hubs.

The visit also comes as fuel prices bite in the US before next month’s midterm elections.

Reliance, an energy, retail and telecommunications conglomerate, also sits at the centre of Washington’s wider oil diplomacy.

Business Standard, an Indian financial daily, said the Jamnagar stop was significant because Reliance is the biggest buyer of Venezuelan crude oil besides the US at a time when Washington has been urging India to buy more.

Since US forces seized Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in January and took essential control of the country’s oil industry, the US government has marketed Venezuelan oil to buyers abroad.

Reliance is also investing in a new refinery in Texas, the first to be built in the US in 50 years, which Trump hailed as a $300bn deal when he announced it in March, Business Standard reported.

What did the US ambassador say, and why has it caused upset?

Speaking at the Bloomberg New Economy Forum in New Delhi on Thursday, US Ambassador to India Sergio Gor said Rubio would meet Indian government officials in Mumbai, and Washington “expected” Jaishankar and others from New Delhi to travel there to see him.

Earlier in the week, however, Jaiswal had not confirmed the trip or explained why Rubio was skipping New Delhi, telling reporters the Indian government would announce it “at the appropriate time”, The Hindu newspaper reported.

Jairam Ramesh, a general secretary of the opposition Indian National Congress party, wrote on X that the ambassador’s statement was “quite extraordinary”.

Rahul Gandhi, leader of the opposition in parliament’s lower house, also took to X to comment, writing on Friday that Rubio had “summoned his employee to Mumbai”.

Congress MP Pawan Khera went further.

“A foreign government summoning India’s External Affairs Minister on Indian soil is a new low, even by the Modi Government’s standards,” he wrote on X, referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Why are US-India relations strained?

Mainly because of Trump’s tariffs and Russian oil.

In August last year after a round of trade talks broke down, the US hit most Indian goods with a 50 percent tariff. Under a framework the two sides agreed in February, that rate fell to 18 percent, however.

Since then, negotiations have stalled.

This month, Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said the talks had “plateaued”, according to The Hindu.

On Thursday, Trade Minister Piyush Goyal said the “first tranche” of a deal was in its final stages but India would not sign until its exporters had an edge over rivals such as Bangladesh, Vietnam and Indonesia, according to the Reuters news agency.

Other points of friction have emerged.

Last week, US Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling announced that his department was suspending eight companies – including the Indian IT giants Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services, Wipro and HCL – from a labour certification scheme that is a key step for employers seeking green cards for their foreign staff.

Sameer Lalwani, a senior fellow in the South Asia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote this week that Indian public opinion of the US has hit a record low, citing US engagement with Pakistan and the US-Israel war on Iran, which he said had pushed India back towards Russian oil.

Despite that, he argued, defence and technology cooperation has quietly deepened, and bilateral trade grew by almost 12 percent in 2025 to nearly $240bn.

In his view, “perceptions of the political relationship have deteriorated faster than its strategic foundations.”

A sanctions law had threatened to make matters worse.

Last month, Trump signed the Lindsey O Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act, which could impose tariffs of up to 100 percent on goods from the five largest importers of Russian oil or gas.

India, one of the world’s biggest buyers of Russian oil, had warned Washington that new tariffs could hurt bilateral ties. Trump signed an executive order seeking to waive the sanctions on Friday as he tries to ease high oil prices before the November 3 US elections.

Guatemalan police say they arrested two men in connection with the killing of Juan Francisco Solorzano Foppa.

Lawyer Juan Francisco Solorzano Foppa, known for his high-profile cases against powerful businessmen in Guatemala, has died after being shot by two men during a visit to a sports centre.

The attack on Saturday at the Campo Marte sports complex in Guatemala City resulted in the deaths of Foppa and another man, Gustavo Adolfo Aguilar Gamarro, according to the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

Shortly after, the Guatemalan police said they arrested two men and seized a carbine-style firearm and a motorcycle in connection with the case.

Foppa was a 43-year-old former prosecutor and anticorruption lawyer who denounced wrongdoing by some of Guatemala’s most powerful politicians, business leaders and companies, and in 2023 briefly joined the defence team of a prominent journalist.

President Bernardo Arevalo condemned the attack. “I strongly condemn the cowardly murder of former prosecutor Juan Francisco Solorzano Foppa,” he wrote on his official X account. “Both the direct perpetrators and those who ordered the crime must face the full weight of the law.”

Arevalo said he has instructed his government to coordinate with the relevant authorities to solve the crime.

“Those who believe that terror can intimidate the people of Guatemala and the government I lead are mistaken. In honour of Foppa, in honour of our homeland, in honour of justice.”

Foppa headed the Criminal Investigations Directorate within the Public Prosecutor’s Office before he took charge of Guatemala’s tax authority (SAT) from 2016 to 2018, when he helped prosecute dozens of powerful Guatemalan business figures and recover unpaid taxes.

In 2025, Foppa alleged a connection between the Barrio 18 gang and the National Unity of Hope party, as well as links between criminal gangs and the judicial system. In 2023, he briefly joined the defence team of Guatemalan journalist Jose Ruben Zamora, who has become an international symbol of resistance to the criminalisation of journalism and the erosion of judicial independence in Central America.

Foppa had to leave the Zamora case after being accused by the Public Prosecutor’s Office of obstructing the proceedings and destroying or concealing information, a charge he denied but ultimately accepted as part of a plea agreement, saying he did not believe he would receive a fair trial.

Hundreds of thousands of Europeans took to the streets for separate demonstrations putting pressure on governments across the EU.

Hundreds of thousands of Europeans have taken to the streets in separate, uncoordinated demonstrations to protest against the rising cost of living in their countries.

Saturday’s protests were in Belgium, France, Italy and Portugal in a wave of unrest that has put pressure on national governments across the European Union.

France experienced one of its most turbulent days of protests in decades, with over 550,000 people joining demonstrations and police facing off with protesters across the country – but it was not the only country to see significant demonstrations.

In Belgium’s capital Brussels – which has already seen weeks of protests by students against university registration fees – police fired tear gas and water cannon to disperse protesters, who they accused of launching missiles at them and setting fires.

In Liege, a smaller city east of Brussels, police also deployed water cannon to break up demonstrations. Police did not say how many people attended.

An estimated tens of thousands of protesters marched in Lisbon, the Portuguese capital, against the cost of living crisis, low wages and an inability to access housing in major cities. House prices in Portugal have more than doubled ⁠⁠since 2017, while rents for new leases have increased nearly as much.

Portuguese Parliamentary Affairs Minister Carlos ‌‌Abreu ‌‌Amorim said on Friday that the “government will not yield to shouts from the street”.Protesters said their leaders are “out of touch” with the problem.

In Milan and Bologna, Italian police reported that, alongside peaceful cost of living rallies, protesters threw stones and clashed with officers.

Italian media reported several injuries and arrests.

French protests spill over

None of the protests reached the same scale as the nationwide rallies in France but they may be a sign of spilling over into other European nations, according to Alberto Alemanno, Professor of EU Law & Policy at HEC Paris business school.

“France is the epicentre of this movement … and there are signs now that this is spreading beyond France,” Alemanno told Al Jazeera.

He said Saturday’s protests may not be the last in many of these countries and new hotspots could emerge.

In Greece, Germany, and Austria, the “early stages” of a movement is emerging, with mobilisation expected “in the coming week”, he said.

They are not a single movement, he explained, but several protests happening at the same time, with some “shared grievances”: underfunded education, rising costs and, for students, uncertain prospects after graduation.

The unrest comes at a crucial time for Europe, as the continent prepares for what Alemanno called an “unprecedented super-cycle of national elections” in the coming 12 months, with votes scheduled in Spain, France, Italy and Poland.

“Inevitably, all these protests, all these mobilisations, are going to be at the centre of the political conversation,” Alemanno said.

Rallies organised by the No Kings network opposed to United States President Donald Trump were held Saturday in cities and communities across the US, with an aim of getting people out to vote early in the midterm elections.

No Kings has more than 3,000 events planned across the US. The planned events, this time dubbed “No Kings: Vote Early”, were billed as nonpartisan, though they sought to build on nearly two years’ worth of No Kings marches and demonstrations by people upset with Trump’s presidency.

“It’s a day of nonpartisan voter participation: we are bringing our community together to make a plan to vote early and ensuring every eligible voter understands their options for how to vote and has the opportunity to make their voice heard,” organisers said in a statement.

By advocating for voting early, the “No Kings” organisers hope to cut off the potential for any malfeasance once election day rolls around.

A band entertained what appeared to be a few hundred people in caps and coats at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC. Despite the chilly weather, many in the crowd danced to the tunes. “VOTE EARLY” and “HANDS OFF MY VOTE!” were among the many signs held aloft.

At an Atlanta rally, City Councilman Michael Julian Bond told the crowd to urge others to vote ahead of the November 3 general election.

“The Constitution gives you one power, right? That is the power to vote. Are you gonna use that power?” he said.

“You don’t see Superman giving up his power,” Bond continued. “You don’t see Black Panther giving up his power. You don’t see Wonder Woman giving up her magic lasso. So why would you give up your right, your power, your obligation to vote? Be a superhero, use your power. Go to the polls and vote.”

Trump has long been suspicious of mail voting and has claimed without evidence that voting fraud cost him the 2020 presidential election.

His administration sued California election officials Thursday, asking a judge to bar the state from counting mail-in ballots for the midterm elections from people whom the federal government has identified as “likely” noncitizens until their immigration status can be confirmed.

On Friday, the Department of Justice warned that local officials who process and tabulate ballots submitted by suspected noncitizen voters are putting themselves at risk of criminal investigation and potential prosecution.

Earlier that day, Democratic Senators Alex Padilla of California, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Dick Durbin of Illinois wrote to Attorney General Todd Blanche, demanding that the Justice Department commit to not seizing ballots or other election materials before the midterm elections are certified.

After the L.A. mayoral debate on NBC4 ended Tuesday, reporters rushed downstairs to a courtyard hoping to speak with the candidates or their surrogates.

Speaking for Mayor Karen Bass were Councilmember Monica Rodriguez and State Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles). On the other side, speaking for Councilmember Nithya Raman, the sole spin doctor was Controller Kenneth Mejia.

“What Councilmember Nithya Raman did up there was show a better path, a better vision for what this city could be,” Mejia told reporters outside the NBC4 and Telemundo52 studios in Universal City.

Mejia isn’t just listed as Raman’s top endorser on her campaign website. He’s also her biggest cheerleader, and the only elected official at City Hall publicly supporting her mayoral bid. (Raman’s camp has contended throughout the campaign that endorsements are not necessarily a sign of how the electorate is feeling.)

Of all the elected officials out there, Mejia is an obvious ally for a politician like Raman who has been somewhat ostracized at L.A. City Hall since she announced her candidacy in February. Not a single council member — even her three fellow comrades in the Democratic Socialists of America — has endorsed Raman’s candidacy.

“When you’re in office, once you learn how status quo works and how to game it, you don’t want to change it,” Mejia told The Times, referring to the three DSA council members supporting Bass.

As for Mejia, he doesn’t mind being on the outside.

“It’s been lonely since I’ve been here [at City Hall],” he said.

“People have told me, ‘Kenneth you ruined your political career by endorsing Nithya,’” he said. “I’m honored to be the only one endorsing her … Karen Bass said the political establishment doesn’t like Nithya and I said, ‘So? I won by bucking political establishment.’”

Mejia has turned into an attack dog for Raman over the past few weeks. After endorsing her in July, he has showed up at news conferences with her and posts sometimes multiple times per day on social media supporting her or attacking the mayor.

One reason for his endorsement is that Bass declined to consent to Mejia performing an audit into her signature homelessness program Inside Safe.

Raman, meanwhile, has said she’ll open the books to Mejia.

If Raman wins, she will have a formidable City Hall ally in Mejia, who has not been shy about using social media to attack an assortment of political targets in and outside city government. On Friday, he announced that he had issued subpoenas to LA28, the private Olympic organizing committee, demanding financial records on the planning for the 2028 Games.

A vote, but no endorsement

Fourteen members of the Los Angeles City Council have endorsed Bass (yes, that includes Raman, who subsequently decided to challenge the incumbent).

The sole holdout on the council, Traci Park, made her allegiances — soft as they may be — abundantly clear Wednesday at a town hall in Pacific Palisades when she said she would be voting for Bass but not endorsing her.

“I want some change too,” Park said, addressing her constituents about the mayor’s race. “But the alternative does not actually get us where we want to be. I think it actually impedes our progress.”

“I have deep concerns about the leadership and effectiveness of both candidates. I have personally been deeply frustrated and angry with our current mayor. We have tangled on some major policy issues. But always respectfully.”

Park said that as difficult as things may be now, they could get worse if Raman were elected.

The council member, who represents a large swath of L.A.’s Westside, said she is “very, very concerned” about a Raman mayoralty.

Park represents the Palisades, where the Palisades fire burned last year, destroying thousands of homes and killing 12 people.

Park told The Times in an interview that an endorsement of Bass would have represented “an affirmative statement of support earned based on agreement with someone’s records or positions or accomplishments.”

But Bass is someone Park can work with, the council member told The Times.

“I cannot say the same thing about Nithya Raman. That’s the problem. She doesn’t work with others. I think that deep frustration with her unwillingness to collaborate with others is reflected in the fact that no other council members at all are endorsing her,” Park said.

Bass goes to Ramanland

Bass went hard after Raman at this week’s NBC4/Telemundo 52 debate, accusing her of neglecting constituents in her district, which stretches from Silver Lake to the San Fernando Valley. She pushed even harder the following morning, appearing with some of those dissatisfied residents and business owners in Sherman Oaks.

Standing outside the Valley Inn Restaurant and Martini Bar, Bass said she reached out to Raman early on as mayor to warn her that some of her Valley constituents had contacted the mayor’s office to voice unhappiness with Raman. Bass said she told Raman she was going to meet with them.

“She essentially said to me that … she knew that they didn’t like her, that it was a feeling that was mutual, and to have at it if I want,” Bass said. “To me, I thought that was a strange way to respond.”

Raman spokesperson Liz Garcia denounced Bass’ comments as “bizarre and simply not true,” saying her boss has maintained positive relationships with her constituents. In a statement, she pointed to recent polling that showed Raman with an 8-point lead in the Valley.

“Nithya’s results in her district help explain why: She has reduced encampments, tents and RVs by 70% in her district over the past three years, helped businesses succeed, protected tenants, installed traffic safety upgrades and improved quality of life for residents,” Garcia said.

Raman has been pushing back against the mayor’s claims in other ways, noting that two-thirds of voters in the June 2 primary chose someone other than the incumbent.

During this week’s debate, Raman criticized Bass for boasting that she had given Sherman Oaks residents her personal cell number, saying it showed that regular government operations are dysfunctional.

Standing outside the martini bar, Bass acknowledged that her own staffers aren’t always happy about her generosity with her cell number. But things were worse when she was a member of Congress, she said.

“My cellphone was on my business card,” Bass said.

State of play

— BLOW FOR BLOW: The gloves came off in the final debate between Bass and Raman this week, with the two candidates trading verbal jabs over public safety, the Palisades fire and the fate of Police Chief Jim McDonnell. Meanwhile, here’s who three L.A. Times columnists believe won the debate.

— A MOVING TARGET: Raman has shifted her position on police hiring, public safety spending, the so-called mansion tax and other issues, causing some to question what she stands for. Raman has defended her various policy shifts, saying she made them after receiving new information or recognizing changed circumstances.

— CHIEF AMONG THEM: Raman and Bass have diverged over whether to keep Chief McDonnell. Raman said she would replace the chief if she becomes mayor, although she offered mixed messages on the timing. Bass said that McDonnell’s replacement before the 2028 Olympics could throw the LAPD into turmoil.

— GATES-GATE: Bass denounced Raman for saying the “gold standard” for the LAPD’s noncooperation with immigration enforcement took place during the tenure of former police chief Daryl Gates. Bass suggested Raman is not in touch with the city’s Black community, while Raman said the mayor had deliberately twisted her words.

— HOPE FOR HOUSING: Both Bass and Raman have been talking up their work on housing affordability. Bass said her administration has fast-tracked tens of thousands of units of affordable housing, while Raman has boasted of her success in enacting the strongest tenant protections in L.A. in 40 years.

— FIGHTING FRAUD: Los Angeles County voters are concerned about a host of voter fraud issues that could disrupt the Nov. 3 general election, even though they have a high degree of confidence in local elections officials, according to a new poll funded by the nonprofit California Community Foundation.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program did not have an operation this week.
• On the docket next week: The final, pre-election campaign finance statements are due in Los Angeles runoff contests on Thursday.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

Oct. 17, 2026 8:31 AM PT

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s abrupt decision to waive sanctions on Russia days before they were to take effect drew outrage Saturday from members of Congress, which had overwhelmingly passed the legislation in a bipartisan display of American support for Ukraine in the war with Russia.

Lawmakers from both parties blasted the executive order late Friday, the latest in a series of steps that the Republican president has taken drawing the United States closer to Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Trump recently announced a diesel deal with Putin to import Russian energy in a long-shot effort to curb high gas prices in the U.S. that are roiling the midterm elections on Nov. 3.

“Beyond irresponsible,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), on social media, hours after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed hope that the sanctions that were supposed to take effect Sunday targeting Russian’s economy could be revived.

“What part of enforcing a law passed 86-11 by the Senate does the President and his advisors not understand?” Tillis said. “It’s unconscionable that this administration is capitulating to a Russian dictator who illegally invaded Ukraine.”

Tillis said that if Trump wants to actually bring down energy prices, he should resolve the Iran war, which is largely blamed for the spike at the pump, and “not by doing a solid for Vladimir Putin.”

Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said, “Lindsey would be appalled,” referring to the late Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who worked endlessly on the bill before he died this summer. The bill is known as the Lindsey Graham Russian Sanctions Act.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Trump is “thumbing his nose” at Congress and “enabling Vladimir Putin to continue his war of aggression.” She urged her colleagues to take action to reverse course.

Trump’s actions come as Ukraine is bracing for a stark winter confronting Russia’s ongoing attacks on its energy infrastructure to heat homes and keep the lights on. Zelensky, who has endured a rocky relationship with Trump but stayed close to the U.S. lawmakers, urged supporters to speak out on behalf of the sanctions.

The next steps are highly uncertain with the House and Senate on recess until after election day. Trump said he was waiving the sanctions indefinitely, citing national security concerns. It is unlikely Congress would be in a position to take any action to challenge Trump’s moves until lawmakers return to Washington.

It took almost a year for Graham to persuade Trump to agree to the Russian sanctions package. It was designed to impose steep tariffs on countries that import large amounts of Russian oil and energy products and was promoted as way to halt the flow of funds fueling Putin’s four-year war against Ukraine.

But even as Zelensky had watched from the visitor gallery as the Senate advanced the package after Graham’s death, skeptics in Congress warned Trump would be unlikely to follow the bill once he had signed it into law a month ago.

Last week, a bipartisan group of senators urged the Trump administration to more quickly clamp down on Russia, particularly the “shadow fleet” of tankers that Moscow is using to transport oil and bypass America’s sanctions. The senators noted that the bulk of the new law’s provisions were to be effective Sunday.

Instead, Trump soon announced the diesel deal with Putin, saying that Russia had agreed to supply tons of fuel to the U.S., where gas prices have skyrocketed in some areas and voters saying affordability issues are a top concern.

Outraged lawmakers have pledged to stop the Trump-Putin deal.

New York Rep. Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee who had led opposition to the Graham bill — warning that Trump would flout the law — introduced legislation Friday that would block Trump’s diesel deal with Putin.

“At a time when the United States should be increasing pressure on the Kremlin, Donald Trump is cozying up to Putin and striking self-enriching deals instead of standing with Ukraine,” Meeks said in a statement.

He called the deal “corrupt” and said it “goes against everything the United States stands for.”

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press. Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

The California Democratic Party is backing Ma, whose quarter-century in electoral politics includes stints on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, in the State Assembly and on the State Board of Equalization. She was elected treasurer in 2019 and is termed out.

The California Republican Party has endorsed Romero, who has been campaigning with Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton on what the two term a “golden ticket” (though voters elect each office separately).

The Republican designation is relatively new for Romero. She was a Democrat when she served in the Legislature from 1998 to 2010. She became a Republican in 2024, asserting that Democratic party standards no longer aligned with her beliefs.

“I consider myself to be common sense, a new Republican with the values of American exceptionalism that once upon a time the Democratic party stood for, but it’s been overrun by the socialists and the communists that have taken over the party,” she told the Times.

Ma’s parents emigrated from China and eventually settled in New York. Her father started a design and manufacturing firm, and her mother was a high school art teacher. Fiona Ma played sports, was a Girl Scout — “a top cookie seller,” she boasts on her campaign website — and graduated from Rochester Institute of Technology. She moved to San Francisco, started an accounting practice and became a part-time field representative to Assemblymember John Burton. She won her San Francisco supervisor’s seat in 2002 and, four years later, was elected to the Assembly.

Romero grew up in a Catholic household in Barstow, with pictures of the Pope and President Kennedy on the walls. She described her parents, a railroad worker and a mother who once cleaned houses, as “Depression-era Democrats.”

She started in community college and eventually earned a PhD. She was a college professor, an L.A. Community College trustee and a city of L.A. charter reform commissioner before being elected to the state Assembly in 1998. She moved to the Senate in 2001 and became the first female majority leader. Today she lives in El Sereno.

If you’d like to live near the water along the spectacular California coast at some point in your life, you have a number of options.

You can settle in, say, Culver City, which is several miles inland, and wait for rising tides to arrive.

Or, if you just can’t wait that long, I saw a listing you might be interested in. It’s in Capitola, near Santa Cruz, right next to the wharf. The three bedroom, two bath, 1,850-square-foot condo, one of a string of Venetian, pastel beachfront homes, is listed for $3,995,000.

“The beach is your backyard, the cool ocean is your pool,” says the promo.

Given what’s happening right now along the California coast, you might not have to leave that condo to go for a swim. But UC Santa Cruz oceanographer and geologist Gary Griggs, who has seen the thrashing of that row of homes in previous years, is not going to make an offer.

“I’ve got a number of photos,” he said, “that show waves breaking over the top.”

Someone will buy the place, eventually, despite the chance of it becoming a fish tank. California is flush with dumb money and bad judgment, and an insatiable romance with an epic 1,200-mile shoreline.

But it’s time to rethink the relationship.

Last weekend in Long Beach I said a few words at the 50th anniversary of the California Coastal Act, which has kept our shoreline from looking like Atlantic City or Miami Beach by balancing sensible development with conservation and public access.

“The coast is never saved, it’s always being saved,” I said at the 50th, borrowing as I often do from the late Peter Douglas, hammering home the need for constant stewardship, from one generation to the next.

But in an ironic twist, part of the parking lot was underwater, a tractor had raised a berm to hold back the ocean, and just to the south, homes were being thrashed by waves. The coast wasn’t being saved, it was being reclaimed by the sea.

From there I headed south for a friend’s planned birthday party on the sand in Newport Beach, but city streets had been flooded and beaches were closed. The party was moved indoors.

We have not seen the worst of it, with a fall forecast that includes the possibility of an epic Super El Niño that could coincide with king tides, Kelvin waves and a peak lunar nodal cycle, all of which my colleague Rosanna Xia laid out a couple of days ago.

It’s not going to rain hammerheads and sea horses, I don’t think, but coastal destruction could be dramatic.

“We’re likely going to break a number of water level records,” said Timu Gallien of the UCLA Coastal Flood Lab. “It’s not implausible to see some of the piers wiped out, or breakwaters or jetties.”

“This is a glimpse of our future,” said former California Coastal Commission Director Jack Ainsworth. “This is it. It’s here.”

Some low-lying communities have been warned for years to prepare for rising sea levels, Ainsworth said, but have put off the inevitable.

In some areas, the only sane maneuver is what’s called “managed retreat,” meaning relocation of structures farther inland. But that is fraught with legal and political challenges and resistance.

Look, if you want to live on the sand and can afford to do so, good for you. But the general public should not be on the hook for your losses. Along the entire coast, public infrastructure that we all benefit from is under threat, including roadways, parks and railroad tracks, and that’s where any public investment ought to go.

Among the tools available are sand berms, cobble berms (sand on top of small stones), jetties, dredging and relocating sand, and below-surface breakwaters. Living shorelines, such as those along the Orange and San Diego county coasts, involve piling sand atop boulders or smaller stones and covering the berms with vegetation.

But these projects don’t happen overnight, Gallien said. “Right now we’re seeing reactive responses. OK, let’s throw up some sandbags and plywood.”

Kelsey Ducklow, coastal resilience director for the Coastal Commission, said the agency has awarded millions in grants for local planners to study the threat to their communities and come up with plans. Some locales are further along than others, Ducklow said, but there’s no single strategy that will work everywhere, and one typical response is, “Yeah, we know we need to do something. But where’s the money to do it?”

The three choices we have are mitigation, adaptation and suffering, Griggs said. We’re likely to do some of each, but on the mitigation end of things, sea walls, rock revetments and armored cliffs are temporary fixes.

“In the long run, there’s nothing we can do to hold back the Pacific Ocean,” said Griggs, 83, who has been teaching for 59 years. “Everything we do is a Band-Aid, and comes with different price tags and lifespans.”

Griggs was featured in Xia’s award-winning book “California Against the Sea: Visions for Our Vanishing Coastline,” which explores the impact of sea level rise and community responses that range from denial to respectful intervention.

Precious ecosystems are under threat, Xia wrote, “trapped between rising water on one side, pavement on the other.” And multiple Southern California beaches that are “so deeply tied to the state’s heart and soul” could be lost.

I asked Xia what she thought about the rising threat this year.

“So many people think about the coast as a place — a place that doesn’t move,” she said. “But the coast in reality is a living dynamic process that changes every time a wave crashes ashore. That’s the heart of the issue — we’re fundamentally trying to impose permanence onto a space that is meant to be constantly changing.”

We haven’t been the best stewards of the planet, and maybe what’s happening now is a bit of a reckoning. From the first time I saw the California coast as a young lad on vacation from the hot interior, I think I understood that the truest way to love the sea was to fear and respect it.

I now have more fear and more respect.

And maybe, too, a deeper love.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

ANCHORAGE — He wielded extraordinary power in Washington for more than three decades, eventually holding sway over nearly $800 billion a year in federal spending.

But outside the halls of the U.S. Senate, which is a world of personal wealth so rarified some call it “the Millionaires’ Club,” Sen. Ted Stevens (R- Alaska) had struggled financially.

Then, in 1997, he got serious about making money. And in almost no time, he too was a millionaire — thanks to investments with businessmen who received government contracts or other benefits with his help.

Added together, Stevens’ new partnerships and investments provide a step-by-step guide to building a personal fortune — if you happen to be one of the country’s most influential senators.

They also illustrate how lax ethics rules allow members of Congress and their families to profit from personal business dealings with special interests.

Among the ways that Stevens became wealthy:

– Armed with the power his committee posts give him over the Pentagon, Stevens helped save a $450-million military housing contract for an Anchorage businessman. The same businessman made Stevens a partner in a series of real estate investments that turned the senator’s $50,000 stake into at least $750,000 in six years.

– An Alaska Native company that Stevens helped create got millions of dollars in defense contracts through preferences he wrote into law. Now the company pays $6 million a year to lease an office building owned by the senator and his business partners. Stevens continues to push legislation that benefits the company.

– An Alaskan communications company benefited from the senator’s activities on the Commerce Committee. His wife, Catherine, earned tens of thousands of dollars from an inside deal involving the company’s stock.

Stevens, in a written response to questions submitted by The Times, said that in all these cases his official actions were motivated by a desire to help Alaska, and that he played no role in the day-to-day management of the ventures into which he put money.

“I am a passive investor,” Stevens said of his real estate dealings. “I am not now nor have I been involved in buying or selling properties, negotiating leases or making other management decisions.”

All in the Family

In these deals and others, Stevens’ brother-in-law, William H. Bittner, played a pivotal role. An Anchorage lawyer and lobbyist, Bittner represents major business interests for whom the senator has repeatedly gone to bat. In one instance, Stevens engineered a $9.6-million federal appropriation that chiefly benefited a Bittner client, part of South Korea’s Hyundai conglomerate.

Stevens tucked a single line into a must-pass appropriations bill that used federal tax dollars to buy the company out of a coal-loading facility in Seward.

Stevens said he did it to lower the company’s costs and keep it from canceling an agreement to buy Alaskan coal. Bittner did not respond to questions from The Times.

Stevens’ relationship with Bittner fits an increasingly widespread pattern in Washington: Senior senators do favors for special interests that pay hundreds of thousand of dollars in lobbying and consulting fees to the senators’ children, spouses and other relatives.

As The Times documented in a series of articles in the summer, Sens. John B. Breaux (D-La.), Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Orrin G. Hatch (R- Utah) did favors for companies and groups that paid their sons as lobbyists and consultants. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has pushed through federal land trades and other provisions benefiting Nevada interests that employ his sons and son-in-law.

The Times also reported that Stevens had continually supported interests that paid his youngest son, Ben, hundreds of thousands of dollars as a consultant.

The senators all said their decisions on policy issues and legislation had not been influenced by their relatives.

But Stevens’ dealings have carried him a step further. His official actions have helped individuals and companies from which he himself draws financial benefits, a six-month Times examination found.

His required financial statements have fallen short of complete disclosure — especially on the activities of a small investment corporation owned by his wife and her family, a company that is covered by the reporting rules.

The Senate has few ethics rules governing such arrangements. Although accepting expensive gifts and speaking fees is banned, the conflict-of-interest rules are much less explicit. For example, nothing clearly bars a senator from sponsoring legislation that benefits the clients of family members who lobby. Nor are lawmakers prohibited from going into business with people receiving legislative favors.

Mainly, the Senate relies on an ill-defined injunction not to bring shame upon the body.

Senate Ethics Committee Chairman George Voinovich (R- Ohio) declined to discuss the issues raised by The Times articles.

House Ethics Committee Chairman Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) said he hoped to convene an advisory panel of current and former House Ethics Committee members next year to examine a range of ethics questions, including how to address the issue of lobbying by relatives.

“I do think we ought to revisit this,” he said. He declined to comment on the issue of lawmakers’ financial partners.

Lawmakers should be careful about their business relationships, John D. Saxon, a former Senate Ethics Committee counsel, said, speaking generally and not about Stevens in particular.

“It’s a very slippery slope for a member of Congress to be entangled with someone in a business dealing and then use their official position to help them, even if it’s on something completely different,” he said.

‘Stevens Money’

Today, Stevens is the longest-serving Republican in the Senate, and as president pro tempore stands just behind the vice president and the speaker of the House in the constitutional line of succession to the Oval Office.

For more than 20 years, he has been chairman or ranking member of the Senate’s Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Since 1997, he has been chairman or ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee, which must approve every dollar of federal discretionary spending each year.

Stevens’ position as a senior member of the Commerce Committee adds to his clout — especially in telecommunications policy, which is under the committee’s jurisdiction.

In Alaska, Stevens exerts unparalleled influence. No state is so dependent on federal dollars and decisions. The federal government still owns 60% of all its land, generates one-third of all jobs, and holds the keys to economic growth through regulation of its major industries — oil and gas, fishing, timber and tourism.

Federal spending in Alaska, known locally as “Stevens money,” runs as much as 70% above the national average on a per capita basis.

Since his first day in the Senate in 1968, Stevens has delivered for Alaska.

He has won tax breaks for Native businesses, bailouts for fishermen, a pipeline for an oil consortium and restoration of an abandoned Army post as a tourist attraction for a Yukon village.

He got $28 million for a rail terminal open only during the summer and $40 million for a commercial space satellite facility.

Almost every institution, region and segment of the population in the state has benefited from Stevens’ efforts, from its schools and social programs to its transportation system, its urban areas and the far-flung villages of Alaska’s Native peoples.

But during the period Stevens has grown wealthy, some longtime supporters say, the senator has become less willing to hear their views.

“I’ve been here a long time, and always had a great deal of respect for Sen. Stevens’ enormous power and the good he’s done for Alaska,” Terry Haines, a veteran commercial fisherman from Kodiak Island, said recently. “But lately he’s become extremely rigid and doesn’t seem to be listening to his constituents much.”

Hard Times

Theodore Fulton Stevens was born Nov. 18, 1923, in Indianapolis. At the outset of the Great Depression, when Stevens was 6 years old, his parents divorced, according to his campaign biography.

Stevens went to live with his grandparents after the divorce, helping out by selling newspapers and working evenings and weekends in a drugstore. He later moved in with an aunt and uncle in Manhattan Beach, Calif., where he graduated from high school. Both his father and grandfather died of cancer, Stevens has said.

Stevens joined the Army Air Corps during World War II, flying cargo planes “over the Hump” in the Himalayas — some of the most dangerous missions of the war. He won two Distinguished Flying Crosses and two Air Medals, his biography says.

The biography describes how he graduated from UCLA and Harvard Law School. After working in the 1952 Eisenhower campaign, he was hired by a Washington lawyer, but soon took a new job as a lawyer in Alaska, which was still a territory.

He played a leading role in the successful campaign for statehood, but Alaska’s voters rejected Stevens the first two times he ran for the Senate.

Winning a seat in the state Legislature, he became House majority leader and go-to man for Gov. Walter J. Hickel. In 1968, when Sen. E.L. “Bob” Bartlett died unexpectedly, Hickel picked his ally to fill the vacancy.

In the Senate at last, Stevens worked hard to master legislative details and committee politics.

But increasing political success was accompanied by personal tragedy.

In 1978, his first wife, Ann, died along with four others when the executive jet carrying them home crashed at the Anchorage airport. Stevens was one of two survivors.

At that point, the Stevens’ five children were adults. Two years later, he remarried, and soon had a daughter, Lily, who recently graduated from college.

In the 1980s, Stevens and his new wife, the former Catherine Bittner, suffered a serious financial reversal.

Along with her younger brother, William Bittner, and other partners, Stevens invested in the construction of a $2-million crab boat, records show. Before it was finished, costs soared and the crab market crashed, plunging Stevens into debt.

The unexpected inheritance of a 54-foot yacht helped Stevens to regain his financial footing. Records show the boat was a bequest from the late Charles Willis “Bill” Snedden, publisher of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, a longtime friend of Stevens’. Stevens sold the boat for about $400,000, according to a source involved in the transaction who did not want to be named.

Stevens’ financial problems underscored the disparity between his personal situation and that of his wealthy Senate colleagues.

In a news interview in the late 1980s, he lashed out at Alaska voters for failing to appreciate the personal and financial sacrifices he had made for them.

A $50,000 Investment

In 1997, Stevens began making up for lost time.

“Money was never what Ted Stevens was about,” one close associate said of Stevens’ sudden focus on accumulating wealth. The associate attributed it to Stevens’ age — he turned 80 last month — and to concern about his family.

Whatever the reasons for the change, sometime in 1997 — acting at the senator’s request — brother-in-law Bittner contacted a friend, Anchorage real estate developer Jonathan B. Rubini, about investment opportunities for the senator, Rubini said.

At the time, Stevens was making about $130,000 a year as a senator, and his wife reported annual earnings of about $100,000.

Rubini said he would be honored to help, the developer recalled recently during extensive interviews in his Anchorage office.

A lawyer and a Democrat known for representing liberal clients, Rubini had a gift for engineering complex deals.

Rubini and his partner, Leonard B. Hyde, made it a practice to form a separate syndicate of investors for each project. Bittner had often been among those participants. Rubini arranged for Stevens to put up $50,000, giving him a 7.7% interest in a new syndicate called JLS Properties.

Rubini, Hyde and another partner who came in on the deal were required to personally guarantee, if necessary, debts the partnership took on. They also agreed to contribute more capital if needed.

Stevens was not asked to guarantee notes or promise more money because he was brought in as a passive investor, Rubini said. The senator said he asked for that status because it shielded him from the kind of open-ended financial obligation that had caused his “bad experience” in the crab boat venture.

The deal began in characteristic Rubini fashion, with the purchase of an $11-million collection of what he called “ragtag” properties, whose out-of-state owners wanted to unload. Rubini quickly resold several of the properties to pay down debt.

Among the properties retained were a small office park near the Anchorage airport and a modest two-story office building downtown. Within three years, Rubini said, Stevens’ equity climbed to about $250,000.

Stevens also invested $50,000 in a separate Rubini syndicate to acquire an apartment complex in Fairbanks in 1999, records show. Stevens’ equity in that property has grown too, Rubini said.

A Federal Contract

Stevens was soon in a position to do a favor for Rubini.

When Elmendorf Air Force Base, immediately north of Anchorage, was selected to participate in a new Pentagon program to privatize base housing, Rubini and another set of partners bid on the $450-million contract in 2000.

The chosen developer would take title to the existing housing, upgrade and expand it, then rent the houses back to service families. At 828 units, the Elmendorf contract was far larger than anything Rubini had built before — “a big reach for us,” as he put it.

Yet with low-interest government construction loans and the Air Force pledging to pay tenants’ housing allowances directly to the contractor for the next 50 years, it looked like a moneymaker.

Bittner became an investor in the Elmendorf group that Rubini put together, records show. Stevens did not, and he said Monday that he had been unaware of Bittner’s involvement.

The senator said he “strongly supported” privatization because it improved housing for military families and “it would greatly enhance the likelihood that Elmendorf would not be closed in the next round of base closures.”

When Rubini sought more time to prepare his bid, Air Force officials noted in their records, he sent the senator a copy of the request.

“I purposely CC’d Sen. Stevens to send a signal to the Air Force that we would raise the issue with the Alaska delegation if the Air Force acted unreasonably,” Rubini said.

Although it was less than he wanted, Rubini was given a two-week extension.

With only the final paperwork to wrap up, Rubini was told he’d won.

Then, in September 2000, days before the deal was to become final, the Air Force reneged. One government memo said the Air Force thought Rubini’s group “lacked capacity and adequate financing” — claims Rubini strenuously rejects.

Rubini, whose group had already spent $1 million on preparation work, fought back. He filed a formal protest and also wrote to Stevens, explaining the problem and requesting help. Then he flew to Washington. First, he tried to talk to Air Force officials, who refused to see him. Next, he visited Stevens on Capitol Hill.

The meeting went so well that Stevens invited Rubini home, where they watched one of the presidential candidate debates between Al Gore and George W. Bush, Rubini said.

Military Offensive

Stevens said he decided to get involved with the Elmendorf project.

“My involvement with the Elmendorf project was motivated to ensure that the Air Force moved forward,” he said in his written response.

In addition, he said, he was “looking out for an Alaskan company that was getting short shrift from the Department of Defense.”

Stevens did not answer questions about the specific actions he took. He was quoted in an August Anchorage Daily News article as saying he called Air Force generals. The article reported on his relationship with Rubini.

Whatever he did, the Air Force began to feel some heat.

As chairman of Appropriations, Stevens is an ex officio member of its Military Construction Subcommittee. The chairman of that subcommittee, Conrad R. Burns (R-Mont.), is one of Stevens’ fishing buddies.

In October 2000, Burns wrote to the secretary of the Air Force, F. Whitten Peters, threatening to take away the Elmendorf privatization money because of the glitch in awarding the contract.

Burns arranged for a similar letter to go to the Air Force from the chairman of the corresponding House committee, and House aides said they knew Stevens was interested in the matter.

Burns did not respond to calls or written questions about his actions.

Meanwhile, Rubini tried one more move: joining forces with the only other Elmendorf bidder — Hunt Building Corp. of El Paso. Hunt was an established builder of military housing, though the government had forced the company to pay $8 million in compensation for construction problems on an earlier project.

In early December 2000, the Air Force put aside its reservations and decided Rubini and his new partner were acceptable.

Rubini said he did not know specifically what Stevens did on the Elmendorf project. Whatever it was, “Sen. Stevens would have stepped up to assist any Alaska business,” he said.

Air Force officials say they are happy with the work Rubini’s firm has done at Elmendorf, and recently announced the Rubini group would get to do a second round of housing upgrades without further competition — this phase 50% larger than the first.

Inside Track

Stevens’ efforts to help Rubini with Elmendorf came just as Rubini was making a decision that transformed Stevens from a modestly successful investor into a millionaire.

In October 2000, while Rubini was enlisting the senator’s help with the Air Force, the developer acquired 30 acres in midtown Anchorage that he planned to cover with gleaming office towers.

Like Elmendorf, this deal was a big step up for Rubini — larger both in size and potential profits than his earlier ventures.

And Rubini chose to make Stevens and JLS Properties part of it. He said JLS had accrued equity in the properties it already owned and thus could help with the new financing.

Rubini could have financed the new development in many ways. He could have used the financial resources of almost any of his numerous successful holdings. Or, as he frequently did in such cases, he could have attracted an entirely new set of investors.

Why did he choose to use JLS to help with financing instead of one of the other options? It was just a decision he made, Rubini said.

Once again, the senator did not have to agree to guarantee the new venture’s debts, as the other JLS partners were required to do.

The first new building to be constructed, called Centerpoint I, is a striking $35-million edifice with commanding views of snow-capped mountains. The remainder of the 30-acre parcel is being developed as Centerpoint II. Stevens is part of that project too.

Stevens has reported that his investments in JLS, Centerpoint I and Centerpoint II, all stemming from his initial $50,000 investment, are now worth between $750,000 and $1.5 million.

Rubini said there was no connection between Stevens’ intervention on Elmendorf and Rubini’s decision to move the senator into the Centerpoint deals.

“Clearly, a phone call from Sen. Stevens does not hurt,” Rubini said, referring to the senator’s contacts with the Air Force on his behalf.

“But there was no quid pro quo, plain and simple,” he said.

Lifetime Annuity

Today, Centerpoint I is fully occupied as the new headquarters of the Arctic Slope Regional Corp., which is paying $6 million a year on a 20-year lease.

Arctic Slope is no ordinary tenant. A $1-billion-a-year business, it is the largest Alaskan-owned company in the state. More important, the company — along with 12 other regional Native corporations — was created through legislation the senator took the lead in drafting. And it has prospered through his continuing efforts in the Senate.

Arctic Slope and the other Native regional corporations were born in 1971 as part of a landmark bill called the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, hailed as a humanitarian alternative to the failures of traditional reservations.

Under the act, about 40 million acres and almost $1 billion in working capital went to Native corporations and to some 200 much smaller village bodies to settle their claims to land. They were to help their shareholders, the Native people living in their regions, by making investments, starting businesses and in other ways generating economic activity.

Many of the Native corporations have found it hard to fulfill their mission, but Arctic Slope, which represents Inupiat Eskimos on the oil-rich North Slope, gradually built a strong base providing support services to the giant oil companies at Prudhoe Bay.

And Stevens is now fighting to authorize oil extraction from the nearby Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where Arctic Slope owns petroleum rights to 92,000 acres.

Thanks to Stevens, Arctic Slope and the other Native corporations also enjoy preferences when seeking federal contracts that go well beyond anything available to blacks or Latinos, even though Arctic Slope ranks among the nation’s 500 largest privately owned companies.

One set of preferences that Stevens inserted into his annual defense appropriations bills recently enabled Arctic Slope and another Native corporation to land a $2-billion Pentagon deal without competitive bidding.

Now money is flowing the other way — to Stevens.

A company executive, Conrad Bagne, said Arctic Slope did not find out about Stevens’ ownership in Centerpoint until the company had finalized the deal. He said Stevens’ involvement had no effect on the company’s decision to sign the lease and that there was no impropriety.

“No one is more committed to public service than Sen. Stevens,” Bagne said.

Stevens now has a personal stake in his tenant’s future. At the same time, he continues to aid the company’s bottom line through his position as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. This year, for example, he pushed through legislation renewing the federal defense contract preferences.

In addition, Stevens has inserted a provision in this year’s pending appropriations bill that directs federal agencies to consult with Arctic Slope and the other Native corporations on equal footing with tribal governments. This gives Arctic Slope, for one, new legal standing when pushing to open the Arctic wildlife refuge to oil and gas drilling — a position opposed by at least some tribal leaders.

“I have and will continue to work with all Alaska Native corporations — both individually and collectively — in my official capacity,” said Stevens, noting that he does not deal directly with Arctic Slope on its lease.

An Arctic Slope subsidiary has paid Bittner $120,000 since 2002 to lobby on appropriations and government contracts.

Hidden Interest

Business interests that look to her husband for support have also enriched Catherine Stevens in a series of transactions that went through Chamer Co., the private family investment firm run by Bittner.

Sen. Stevens did not report some of these deals on his financial disclosure reports; others were reported only sketchily — without the details required by law.

One of the transactions was a quick stock deal involving the Alaska Communications Systems Group that earned Catherine Stevens at least $47,000, records show.

The company has benefited from the senator’s influence over communications policy as a senior member of the Commerce Committee.

For example, Stevens pushed through legislation in 1996 that created a subsidy for remote telephone service, and he has fought efforts to dilute Alaska’s sizable share of the subsidy. Alaska Communications considers the subsidy, called the universal service fund, an important revenue source.

Alaska Communications Chairman Charles Robinson said, “The universal service fund is important to every telephone company in Alaska.” He said Stevens had “done a great job in preserving it.”

The senator said his actions had “benefited all Alaskans and all Alaska communications companies.”

Stevens stands to be an even more valuable ally in 2005, when he’s scheduled to take over as Commerce Committee chairman.

Robinson combined the Fairbanks and Anchorage phone companies to create Alaska Communications in 1999, and took it public in the fall of that year.

As is common before companies go public, a select group of insiders was allowed to buy stock at a bargain price, in this instance $6.15 a share, the documents show. In this group were several financiers and others involved in creating the company, including Bittner, who was and is the company’s Washington lobbyist.

Though she was not on record as an officer or financier for the company, Catherine Stevens ended up with some of the bargain shares. Robinson said he knew she had shares but did not remember how she obtained them.

Alaska Communications issued 42,248 shares to Chamer Co., which Catherine Stevens owns with Bittner, their sister and their mother. She purchased 16,250 of those shares and sold them a year later, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Ted Stevens did not report the shares on his ethics report for 1999, the year Chamer acquired them.

Ethics rules require disclosure of activity by a family-owned business, in detail and in the same year a transaction occurs.

The deal was not reported until 2000, after Catherine Stevens had sold her shares, most of them at $9.25, for a profit of at least $47,000.

Rubini, the developer of Centerpoint I, said Chamer also had an interest in that project. He said Chamer put up $250,000 for a 3% short-term stake in Centerpoint I that earned a 15% return on investment.

Records show Chamer also invested $125,000 in an earlier Rubini syndicate.

Stevens did not disclose either of these investments on his Senate financial forms.

Although Senate ethics rules encompass his wife’s financial activities as well as his own, Stevens sought to distance himself from Chamer.

“I have no interest in that company, do not participate in its meetings, nor do I participate in any decisions related to its business activities,” he said Monday. His wife did not respond to telephone messages on Tuesday.

Back in Washington

Stevens continues to push for money and other benefits for Alaskan interests — including nearly $400 million in pending legislation to help tourism, education, the environment, scientific research, roads, fisheries and the war against fetal alcohol syndrome.

There’s also $2.5 million to survey the seabed for a fiber-optic cable connecting Kodiak Island, Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula; Alaska Communications Systems serves both Anchorage and Kodiak.

Researcher Mark Madden in Washington assisted in this report. Staff writer Judy Pasternak in Washington also contributed.

First came the letter from acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter — just three weeks before the Nov. 3 election — demanding that Los Angeles County’s top elections official launch a sweeping investigation into thousands of voters the Trump administration alleges are “likely noncitizens” and withhold their ballots in the meantime.

The letter arrived with a thumb drive purporting to contain the list of voters in question, and a handwritten note providing the password. Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office, said accessing the device broke security protocols, and he wouldn’t open it.

Then came an Excel spreadsheet, listing some 20,000 voters by name, date of birth and address. It appeared to contain voters from across the state of California, not just L.A. County, and provided no information on the Trump administration’s methodology for questioning those voters. Logan’s office again pushed back.

“We cannot withhold or refuse to count ballots based solely on unverified allegations, nor can we disregard the legal requirements governing our election — and we certainly have no authority to act on records that are outside of our jurisdiction,” Logan said.

On Friday, the back and forth escalated yet again, when the Justice Department warned in a letter to L.A. County attorneys that county elections officials who tabulate ballots from the flagged voters could face criminal prosecution for being “aiders and abettors to a federal crime.”

For the last week, Trump administration officials and California election leaders have been locked in a fiercely contentious standoff over alleged election fraud that independent elections experts say is like nothing they have ever seen before.

The battle — which escalated into a federal lawsuit filed Thursday by the Justice Department against the state, Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Logan — features striking assertions of official misconduct. They include willful indifference to systemic election fraud among California officials, as alleged by Trump officials, and a nefarious effort by the administration to “lay the groundwork” for questioning any unfavorable election results next month, as alleged by California leaders and independent elections experts.

With little public clarity around the voters whose registration is being contested and how the administration came to question their eligibility, the debate has centered instead on the efficacy of vetting voter rolls right before an election and the increasingly bitter claims of political meddling from the many federal, state and local officials involved.

“More dangerous nonsense from a President losing his grip on reality,” Gov. Gavin Newsom posted on X.

Acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter sent a letter demanding that L.A. County’s top elections official investigate thousands of voters the Trump administration alleges are “likely noncitizens.”

(Finn Gomez / Getty Images)

“No, Governor. You are violating federal law by facilitating voting by noncitizens,” responded First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, whose office is leading the lawsuit.

“Mail ballots are already in most voters’ hands, and Election Day is less than three weeks away. Every count, recount, hand count, lawsuit, and audit has found that there’s no widespread voter fraud in the U.S. The Trump Admin’s last-minute demands are meritless, and we look forward to making our case in court,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta wrote on the same platform.

“We produced a list of 20,000 noncitizens on your voter rolls, and your response is ‘it’s too late’ because you already mailed the ballots. Not good enough,” Essayli shot back. “It’s a violation of the U.S. Constitution and federal law for California to dilute the votes of American citizens.”

Both sides have accused the other of being unreasonable and of ignoring practical concerns about voting and election security, though in very different ways.

Trump administration officials have said their effort “should not be controversial,” and reflects a common-sense approach to election oversight. “The law is clear, aliens in the United States cannot vote in federal elections,” McCotter said.

In its lawsuit, the Justice Department argued it is “not practicable or feasible” for the federal government to investigate “thousands, let alone tens of thousands, of individuals” before the November election alone, so California and local officials should be required to help them do it.

California officials — joined by independent elections experts — have accused the Trump administration of breaking the law to bolster a grand election conspiracy the president has propped up for years without evidence, including by trying to purge voters from rolls right before an election.

David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, said the National Voter Registration Act prohibits states from conducting systemic maintenance of voter lists within 90 days of an election, and that the U.S. Supreme Court recently affirmed that limit.

Bonta said the timing of the Justice Department’s demands “reeks of desperation and bad faith.”

Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office, attends the opening of a new ballot processing center in City of Industry in 2024.

(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

State officials and election experts also have questioned why Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin suggested California had some 190,000 noncitizen voters on its rolls as recently as July if the number now stands at 20,000.

“What happened to the 170,000? You just got those wrong?” Bonta said. He also noted with derision that the administration’s lawsuit repeatedly hedges its assertions by saying that federal officials “believe” that noncitizens “may be” registered in California.

“You believe, or you know?” Bonta said. “They may be or they are?”

Kiersten Pels, a Justice Department spokesperson, said the 20,000 flagged voters “are the ones that have been manually verified” as ineligible, but that number “can and will go up” as federal authorities continue their work. She referred additional questions about the figures to Homeland Security, which did not respond to questions.

Becker said the administration’s figures “should be treated with serious skepticism,” given similar claims falling apart elsewhere. He cited a Homeland Security claim of about 16,000 noncitizens on Nevada voter rolls dropping to 185 voters before Nevada officials investigated and found every single one of those voters was a citizen.

California officials have not shown a similar interest in launching their own investigation.

In a letter to McCotter, Weber wrote that treating the 20,000 voters on the Justice Department’s list as “ineligible until proven otherwise” would not only violate the 90-day quiet period before an election, but amount to “an unprecedented suspension — and even denial — of voting rights.”

She said if the Trump administration has any proof for its claims, California would “review that evidence and any supporting data or methodology” and “take the appropriate steps in compliance with federal and state law” to address any problems. “However, I will not disenfranchise thousands of Californians — or order any county elections official to do so — based solely upon an unsupported and likely inaccurate ‘belie[f]’ that certain voters are ‘likely’ noncitizens.”

A spokesperson for Logan’s office said Friday that it was reviewing the Justice Department’s spreadsheet — in part to determine how many of the voters are actually in L.A. County — but had yet to receive requested information on the methodology used for flagging those voters.

Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, chair of the Democratic Assn. of Secretaries of State, said the Trump administration’s efforts in California are “another attempt by the federal government to harass and intimidate elections officials,” and that their timing is “obviously a political attempt” to prevent voters — particularly Latino voters —from holding the Trump administration accountable for its failed leadership.

But he also said that California officials — to the extent they can under the law, and working closely with Bonta — should work to refute the Trump administration’s claims through their own review of the data, just as Nevada officials did.

“We are not afraid to defend our elections,” he said. “And California should take that same approach. You cannot be reactive to these situations. You have to be strategic.”

As the nation hurtles toward a pivotal and divisive midterm election, it’s fair to wonder if people on opposite sides of the political spectrum will ever be able to again live peacefully as neighbors, to talk, and especially listen, to each other.

It’s a question co-directors Robert May and Barry Levinson and producer Jason Sosnoff set out to answer in the aftermath of the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. It led to their five-part docuseries, “Bucks County, USA,” now on streaming on PBS.org and the PBS app, that unfolds across four years in a suburban Pennsylvania county being ripped apart by vicious school board battles poisoned by partisan personal conflicts. (The finale streams Sunday, and the full docuseries will air Oct. 29 on SoCal PBS.)

“We don’t pay enough attention to one another,” Levinson says. “We just say, ‘I’ve formed my position and I’m locked into it’ and we don’t share enough interaction where we can discuss things. Democracy requires interactions, and if we cannot find a way to find common ground, that’s my big worry.”

The series shows how Paul Martino spent a fortune supporting Republican candidates who supported reopening schools quickly after the height of the pandemic but then, more contentiously, turned their attention to the culture wars. They focused on what was being taught in the classrooms and stocked on the shelves in the school libraries, leaving teachers feeling attacked and Black families and LGBTQ+ students alienated and ostracized.

“It’s unexpected how something like that can accelerate into such a contentious situation,” Levinson says, “where well-educated people in a wonderful community can’t figure things out.”

May says national polarization is poisoning the atmosphere locally. “It became a life-or-death battle in the name of their kids, but they both felt their children would be mercilessly mistreated if they didn’t do something to save them from the other side.”

An aerial view of Bucks County, Pa., the community at the center of Robert May and Barry Levinson’s docuseries.

(SenArt Films & Baltimore Pictures)

The filmmakers followed the heated battles as people in the divided community resorted to screaming and name-calling. It frequently plays like a fun house nightmare version of “Our Town.” That’s true even of their version of the play’s Stage Manager. Two teenagers, Evi Casey and Vanessa Martino, Paul’s daughter, guide us through each episode. While the girls are best friends, Evi’s liberal mother and Vanessa’s conservative father view each other as hostile opposition.

“I think the series does a good job of showing the political division and how it affects the kids,” says Casey.

The series opens with a school choir singing “What a Wonderful World” underneath a collection of residents telling us how they’ve been berated: “I’ve been called a pedophile.” “I’ve been called a Nazi.” “I’ve been called anti-American.” “I’ve been called a dyke and a groomer.”

But the series then gets to know people in depth, allowing for far more nuance than the contentious school board meetings.

“My hope was that people can take the time to at least have a deeper conversation with somebody who they think is doing harm to their community and try and understand it better, “ Sosnoff adds. “It starts with microchanges where somebody reconsiders the way they might harm somebody else.”

Katherine “Kitty” Good Semisch, a retired Bucks County teacher and a key figure in the documentary, says the series is perfectly timed for the midterms because of its efforts to humanize everyone. “Dehumanization and demonization lead to the worst outcomes, and this kicks out from under anybody the lazy position that the people on the other side aren’t human,” she says. “Everyone is just trying to find something that works for their community.”

Sosnoff originally approached Levinson with the idea of a project that would humanize both sides, but his original idea was to bring people together at a summer camp with a facilitator so they could get to know each other better. “Barry wisely said, ‘That’s more of a sociological experiment where you’re playing God,’” Sosnoff recalls. “He said, ‘Let’s focus on a seemingly idyllic small town, like in “Our Town,” and examine what happened and why.’”

They chose Bucks County, a purple county in a purple state. “It’s not a place of extremists but people were really inflamed,” Sosnoff says, noting that some people were reluctant to speak on camera. “The climate of fear was very much alive. It was a community in trauma.”

There are brawls over policy that lead to lawsuits, but the main drama is the 2023 school board election, where the Democrats hoped to reverse the Republicans’ 6-3 majority.

While May says he is offended by “people that don’t care about other people or their right to exist,” especially when it comes to LGBTQ+ rights, he emphasized that he resisted taking sides in the documentary. “When we don’t see people as human, that’s when you lose a society.”

Indeed, Sosnoff says that while it’s bad when people are marginalized and victimized by discrimination from those in power, they’d still edit episodes to keep everything balanced, occasionally saying, “We need to give conservative characters more screen time and understand their positions.” (He also says they grew to like everyone involved.)

At the center of the drama depicted in “Bucks County, USA” is a school board election and a community grappling with political division.

(SenArt Films & Baltimore Pictures)

May says he knows some viewers will be furious with this approach, but he hopes that if they watch all five episodes, they’ll get a full picture. “You can’t just see parts of it. You need to see in order,” May says. “People reveal who they are over the five episodes. There’s an extraordinary amount of nuance, but if somebody’s saying something stupid, we have that too.”

(And don’t mistake May’s efforts at evenhandedness for a lack of passion — the day after a 30-minute joint interview with Levinson, he called me back and talked, largely uninterrupted, mostly about bias and perceptions.)

Amazingly, most people interviewed from both sides in the community support the final version.

At the center of the action are Vanessa’s mother, Aarati Martino, who ran for school board as a Republican, and Paul, who poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into school board elections.

“Overall, I am pleased,” Paul Martino says now. “There’s some things I think don’t portray the facts exactly quite right, but they recorded 500 hours and you’re not going to love everything that’s on the screen. Everybody is represented in this film.”

Martino, who never really owns the impact of him using his fortune to try to elect cultural conservatives, says he’s been “unfairly attacked” and has become “a convenient boogeyman in some of the scenes. But I’m actually not even upset about that piece of the puzzle.” (What he feels is lacking is that in 2021 he says 30% of the 300 candidates he funded around the state were Democrats.)

And Donte King, whose family endures racism both subtle and blatant, praises the filmmakers’ attempts to humanize people with contrasting viewpoints, saying he was pleased with getting to tell his story. “It allows people to connect with you,” he says. “We might have different ideologies, but we’re more alike than we are unalike, so maybe somebody who votes blue will identify with someone who votes red and vice versa.”

The closest thing to a hero in the series may be Semisch, a liberal, who shows civic courage in her efforts to build bridges, meeting one-on-one with Vonna DeArmond, a conservative elementary school teacher, and organizing events like an ice cream social and a candle-making evening. (Martino also posted an online peace offering, saying he’d buy anyone from the other side drinks; Semisch was the only one to take him up on it, but several people interviewed, including May, say Martino’s unbending personality may explain the lack of response.)

Semisch wishes that May had fact-checked some of the misleading claims by the right, but she praises the series’ subtlety. “I understand people’s frustration, but they’re leaving it to the audience to sort out who’s making sense,” she says. “My side was advocating for more books in the library and for better training for teachers to navigate difficult topics. As you watch, it seems to me that the people on the other side aren’t making as much sense.”

Near the end of the series, there’s one sweet moment of coming together between Evi’s and Vanessa’s mothers and another moment of seemingly genuine outreach by one of the town’s conservatives to King. But there’s also plenty of acrimony and recrimination in the aftermath of the school board election and one final confrontation between King and Paul Martino at a roundtable that leaves little doubt that tensions are still simmering.

Still, May says, “I remain hopeful and optimistic because I’ve seen the humanity in all of them. I think things are better there now than when we started.”

Semisch, with DeArmond, will lead discussions about the series in Bucks County and May hopes others will follow suit around the country. He and Levinson hope that by strengthening local communities, it can eventually lead to stronger national bonds. “Maybe people can learn from them. Maybe this series is literally the beginning of a change.”

Sosnoff is a bit more measured in his final assessment, quoting a participant as saying, “We haven’t buried the hatchet yet, but it’s been put away in the closet,” he says. “I’ll take that as progress.”

US president’s executive order comes two days before sanctions deadline and a week after diesel deal with Putin.

US President Donald Trump has put on hold a sweeping package of sanctions on Russia that he signed into law last month, telling Congress the pause is in the national interest.

Trump signed an executive order on Friday, two days before a deadline in the law that would put the sanctions into effect.

The law – named after Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator who died unexpectedly in July after returning from Ukraine – had passed in the House of Representatives and the Senate by large margins. The bipartisan legislation was drafted by Graham and Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal.

It sought to starve Moscow of money for the war by sanctioning Russian officials, banks and a shadow fleet of tankers carrying its energy.

It also directed Trump to impose tariffs of up to 100 percent on the five biggest importers of Russian oil or gas, with an exception for countries that import less than 15 percent of Russia’s natural gas exports and are taking steps to cut them.

Diesel deal and criticism

The decision to suspend the sanctions comes a week after Trump said the US had signed a deal to buy diesel from Russia to try to lower global fuel prices.

Both Republicans and Democrats, criticising the deal, said it would help Russia’s war effort without affecting fuel prices.

Democratic Representative Don Beyer said he and others had “warned” that Trump might do this, in reference to Trump’s deal with Moscow.

Beyer called on Congress to “fix this flawed law to stop Trump from capitulating to Putin and ensure that it truly supports Ukraine”.

Trump has also increasingly criticised Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy lately for failing to reach a deal with Russia.

As Republicans try to keep control of Congress in the November 3 midterm elections, an AP-NORC poll released on October 1 found Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the Iran war and blame him for higher prices among several other domestic policy issues.

Data show a 42 percent drop in forest clearance from a year earlier, giving Lula a boost before the election run-off.

Deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon rainforest has fallen to its lowest level since records began in 1988, according to official figures that give a boost to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva days before a presidential run-off.

Brazil’s space research agency, Inpe, said on Friday that 3,335 square kilometres (1,288 square miles) of forest were cleared in the 12 months through July, about 42 percent less than the year before.

The previous record low was 4,571 sq km (1,765 sq miles) in 2011-12, while annual losses peaked at nearly 30,000 sq km (nearly 11,600 sq miles) in the mid-1990s, according to Inpe’s Prodes satellite programme, which measures from August to July because cloud cover is lower in mid-year.

“It’s an absolutely stratospheric drop…it’s like a dream,” Environment Minister Joao Paulo Capobianco said at a news conference in Brasilia.

Marcio Astrini of the climate advocacy group Observatorio do Clima called the figures “a historic achievement” and said they show that “with political will, it is possible to curb deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions”.

President Lula wrote on X: “Our goal is to achieve zero illegal deforestation by 2030.”

Lula took office in 2023 pledging to end illegal deforestation by 2030, after clearing soared to a 15-year high under his far-right predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro. The Amazon lost about 11,600 sq km (about 4,480 sq miles) a year on average during Bolsonaro’s 2019-2022 term, almost 60 percent more than in the previous four years.

Deforestation has fallen every year since 2022 and is down 71.2 percent over four years. The AFP news agency attributes the drop to greater monitoring and stiffer penalties for illegal logging.

Lula faces Bolsonaro’s eldest son, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, in the election run-off on October 25, with polls showing them neck and neck.

Flavio pledged in his manifesto to strengthen environmental oversight in the Amazon, focus enforcement on organised crime rather than extractive workers and small farmers, and end “illegal deforestation” by 2029.

He has also praised his father, who is serving a 27-year sentence under house arrest for coup plotting, for opposing what he calls a “radical environmental agenda”.

Deforestation in the Cerrado savanna, south of the Amazon, also fell by about 24 percent, to 5,517 sq km (2,130 sq miles), the lowest since records began in 2001.

Riot police clash with protesters for fourth day, as young Albanians protest corruption and poor university conditions

Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama has blamed “foreign hands” for the increasingly violent student-led protests that are calling on him to resign.

Riot police clashed with protesters outside the education ministry for the fourth day in a row, as thousands of young Albanians marched through the capital, Tirana, on Friday to protest government corruption and poor university conditions.

“This is not a student phenomenon,” Rama said in a video address on Friday. He said there were “foreign hands that do not wish for Albania to be at peace”.

Rama insisted that the protest had “absolutely nothing to do with the hardships, problems or legitimate aspirations of anyone who desires a better life”.

Police officers used water cannon and tear gas as demonstrators hurled rocks.

The protests have spread beyond the capital to Elbasan, Shkodra and Korca, where demonstrators broke windows and set fire to rubbish bins, local media reported.

The ongoing escalation follows months of mostly peaceful demonstrations, originally sparked by the sale of part of Albania’s coastline to a luxury resort development linked to Jared Kushner, US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law.

Days of unrest have increasingly targeted banks and government buildings. Protesters hurled bricks and concrete blocks at the education ministry on Tuesday. They also set fire to several buildings across the city, including the prime minister’s office, the finance and justice ministry buildings and branches of several banks.

According to a police statement, 160 people were detained over alleged acts of violence on Thursday evening.

The EU question

Demonstrators are demanding Rama’s resignation, as well as electoral and education reforms.

The prime minister, whose government denies corruption, said he would be ready to discuss rising education costs but rejected the calls to resign.

He said on Thursday, “My responsibility is to listen, address legitimate concerns and keep Albania moving forward.”

His dismissal “would be a betrayal of the Albanians who gave me a strong mandate to complete negotiations on European Union membership”, he added.

Corruption scandals have complicated Albania’s efforts to join the EU. Analysts say the country is a hub for gangs seeking to launder money from drugs and weapons trafficking.

Rama won a fourth term last year on promises to take Albania into the EU, aiming for membership as early as 2028.

WASHINGTON — President Trump bypassed his White House chief of staff last week in selecting Katie Zacharia as his press secretary and chief messenger, triggering days of scathing headlines about her credentials and abilities before her ignominious resignation on Friday.

Susie Wiles, that senior-most aide ostensibly in charge of the president’s team, is facing his scrutiny over a different set of problems: widespread public anxiety over corruption in government under the Trump administration. The issue has surpassed the economy as the top concern of voters entering next month’s election, according a Fox News poll released this week.

Marco Rubio, the president’s secretary of State and national security advisor, has been silent on Trump’s decision to cut a deal with Moscow on diesel sales that could fuel Russia’s war against Ukraine. The president’s poll numbers have been below water across the board, but especially so on foreign policy, where over two-thirds of Americans disapprove of his job performance and support Kyiv’s fight for freedom.

Trump aides walk to board Air Force One on Tuesday: Natalie Harp, Trump’s executive assistant, left; Walt Nauta, director of Oval Office operations (in sunglasses); Chief of Staff Susie Wiles; and then-Press Secretary Katie Zacharia.

(Alex Wong / Getty Images)

And on Thursday, the president was forced to reverse a course set out by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon to live-stream the execution of a convicted mass shooter by firing squad.

In the final stretch of the 2026 midterms, nearly two weeks out from election day, a White House that has enjoyed relative stability over the past two years has returned to the state of disarray that characterized much of Trump’s early political career, anticipating sweeping losses to Democrats in the House and Senate.

Staff upheaval is expected as officials brace for a blame game over Republican performance, with some distancing themselves from what they see as a fading political movement.

Polls suggest that Republicans are likely to lose control of the House, setting up two years of relentless congressional probes through the twilight of the Trump era, and that Democrats could even flip the Senate, winning in ruby red states from Ohio to Alaska.

It is historically a time for closing arguments, when politicians deliver their final pitches to voters in neat, disciplined packages.

Yet Trump’s campaign blitz across the country in recent weeks has generated a muddled message, dismissing the importance of the election itself at the risk of depressing Republican votes, overshadowing local candidates seeking distance from his record and touting an economy unrecognizable to most Americans.

President Trump walks ahead of Katie Zacharia at the White House.

(Win McNamee / Getty Images)

The president’s selection of Zacharia, who lasted just five days on the job, raised fresh questions about his message discipline in the final stretch.

And infighting within the White House has reinforced a narrative among political pundits that Democratic gains are a fait accompli, despite Zacharia, in her first and only press briefing, foretelling of Republican energy and excitement “never seen before in the history of midterms thanks to President Trump.”

Election officials across the country fear that, anticipating inevitable losses, Trump may be laying the ground to challenge the authenticity of the election results themselves.

“You know, this is the only guy that — it’s ‘promises made, promises kept,’ but he did more things than he promised,” Trump said Thursday, referring to himself in the third person. “I think we did. We did much more than we promised.”

The extent of the coming West Wing shakeup could be extensive, reaching into a Cabinet that has had far less turnover than Trump experienced in his first term.

Zacharia is the second senior official forced out by Trump in just three days, after Kimberly Guilfoyle, the former fiancée of one of Trump’s sons who served as U.S. ambassador to Greece, was revealed by the Wall Street Journal to have asked a Trump donor to pay off her $100,000 credit card bill.

Now, the president has begun asking political allies and donors about Wiles’ job performance, according to a recent Politico report, and several top administration officials are vying for her role, anticipating her resignation after the elections next month.

The conclusion of the midterms will also kick off the start of the 2028 presidential election season, when Republican hopefuls — including many from Trump’s Cabinet — are expected to launch exploratory committees.

British Defense Secretary Wes Streeting and U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stand for anthems at the Pentagon on Thursday.

(Finn Gomez / Getty Images)

“We have to get through the midterms first,” Trump said at the end of August, asked about Hegseth reportedly considering a run. “I bet there’s a lot of people considering it that you don’t know about. You have a lot of people.”

The party of incumbent presidents regularly loses seats in midterm elections, and it is common for presidents to shake up their staffs halfway through a term.

But the last time a term-limited Republican president faced voters in midterm elections, in 2006, Democrats swept into power in both houses of Congress — and President George W. Bush’s political capital never recovered.

That year, 37% of voters said they approved of Bush’s job performance. Polls published this month by AP and Reuters have found Trump already below that threshold.

In the GOP presidential primaries that followed, candidates jockeying to replace Bush distanced themselves from his legacy. He ultimately left office with an approval rating of 25%.

WASHINGTON — Investments in pharmaceutical companies made on behalf of President Trump increased significantly after he returned to the White House last year, with his portfolio adding millions of dollars in stock in firms that benefited from a Republican-backed law that shields certain medications from Medicare price negotiations, according to a report from congressional Democrats.

The report, released Friday by the Joint Economic Committee’s minority arm, found that Trump’s pharmaceutical stock holdings grew from a maximum reported value of $1.7 million in 2024 to as much as $56.2 million at the end of 2025. The report said that included up to $39.1 million worth of stock held in companies that benefited from exemptions to Medicare’s drug price negotiation program, which came through a provision in the Republicans’ 2025 tax and spending law.

Additional analysis of Trump’s financial disclosures provided by committee Democrats showed that his investment portfolio bought as much as $2.55 million in shares of pharmaceutical companies benefiting from the exemptions on three dates before he signed the legislation in July 2025. That included up to $950,000 in purchases on July 1, 2025, the day the Senate passed the bill. His portfolio also bought as much as $1 million in AbbVie stock in August 2025, after the bill became law.

The Republican president’s wealth has grown since he took office last year through a web of business interests, many of which have benefited from the policy moves of his administration. The White House has repeatedly denied any ethics issues and accused Democrats of “attempts to fabricate conflicts of interest.”

The report also noted that the exemptions policy could leave some Medicare beneficiaries paying thousands of dollars more for certain cancer treatments and other medications than they would have if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate lower prices.

The findings come as Trump has made lowering prescription drug costs a central part of his healthcare policy, striking deals with pharmaceutical companies that his administration says will make medications more affordable for Americans, although drug pricing is based on a complicated set of factors.

Recent polling from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows that most Americans think Trump is profiting off the presidency in unethical or illegal ways and is focused more on his wealth than on helping people like them.

Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan, who leads the Joint Economic Committee’s minority arm, called the report’s findings “outrageous and yet typical from this president, who makes the American people foot the bill again and again for his own gains.”

Davis Ingle, a White House spokesperson, said Trump’s stock and bond portfolio is independently managed by third-party financial institutions. He denied any conflict of interest.

“Neither President Trump nor any member of his family has any ability to direct, influence, or provide input regarding how the portfolio is invested or when investments are bought or sold,” Ingle said in a statement.

A law from President Biden’s Democratic administration allowed Medicare for the first time to negotiate prices for some of the costliest prescription drugs. Republicans’ 2025 tax and spending bill expanded an existing exemption for medications developed to treat rare diseases or conditions, delaying when certain costly drugs could become eligible for negotiations or excluding them entirely, according to healthcare research nonprofit KFF.

Also known as the orphan drug exclusion, the carve out allows drug companies to continue charging lucrative prices that might otherwise have been reduced through Medicare negotiations.

Supporters of the change argued that a broader exemption would encourage drug companies to develop treatments for rare diseases. Critics say it allows makers of blockbuster medications to avoid negotiations that could lower costs for Medicare and its recipients.

The report estimated that Medicare beneficiaries receiving the cancer drugs Keytruda, manufactured by Merck, and Opdivo, by Bristol Myers Squibb, could pay roughly $5,000 more annually than they would if Medicare negotiated prices for the medications. Trump’s portfolio includes stock in both firms.

The report also said that Trump’s portfolio continued to buy and sell pharma company stocks throughout the first eight months of 2026, adding as much as $3.5 million in stock wealth in the sector.

All recent U.S. presidents have dumped their stocks before assuming office, put their money in broadly diversified funds or set up a “blind” trust so they couldn’t even know what they owned.

Trump has put his broader business interests in a trust managed by his sons. But the arrangement rejects the conflict of interest protections that his recent predecessors in office had instituted.

Hussein writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Bernard Condon in New York contributed to this report.

East African neighbours Ethiopia and Eritrea are once again perilously close to all-out war.

Territorial disputes have dogged their relations since Eritrea gained independence in 1993.

They fought a bitter war between 1998 and 2000. And despite a truce, they remained in a state of war for nearly 20 years.

The Jeddah accord in 2018 brought peace. But tensions have lingered.

Ethiopia accuses Eritrea of supporting rebels in its Tigray region, while Eritrea accuses landlocked Ethiopia of planning to capture one of its key Red Sea ports.

Can diplomacy end this deep-rooted conflict?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Faisal Roble – Political analyst specialising in the Horn of Africa

Jervin Naidoo – Senior political analyst at Oxford Economics Africa

Matt Bryden – Strategic adviser at Sahan, a think tank focused on governance, politics and security in the Horn of Africa

NEW YORK — Mayor Zohran Mamdani and top New York Democrats are calling on the owners of private parking lots to block federal immigration officers from using their properties as staging areas, days after immigration officers shot a man in the city.

In a Friday letter, Mamdani, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries and dozens of state and local lawmakers told lot and garage owners that the city needs their “help at a critical juncture.”

“In solidarity with immigrant New Yorkers and in our shared commitment to the City we love, we ask that you do not rent, lend, or otherwise make your property available to ICE as a staging area for its enforcement operations,” the letter reads. “Make it known to ICE that it is not authorized to use your garages and lots.”

The plea came after immigration officers shot 28-year-old Dominican national Oscar Belgal during an arrest last week as he rode in a car with his young son. The shooting sparked protests and drew renewed attention to the federal government’s immigration crackdown.

The federal officers had been using a nearby private parking lot as a staging area before the shooting, according to Friday’s letter.

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security slammed the letter in a statement that read: “Mayor Mamdani should be grateful to our brave law enforcement officers for cleaning up the streets of NYC since he won’t. Luckily, no terminated parking will stop ICE from deporting criminal illegal aliens to make New York safe again.”

Federal officials maintain the immigration officers believed their lives were in danger and opened fire only after Belgal smashed his car into two government vehicles and accelerated toward them.

New York City has previously barred outside law enforcement agencies such as DHS from setting up staging areas on city property unless they have a judicial warrant or qualify for certain “limited legal exceptions,” according to the letter. “But these laws govern City property, not the private lots and garages that you operate,” it adds.

Private businesses have at times found themselves in the middle of tense political fights over President) Trump’s administration’s immigration enforcement push.

In one instance, a Minnesota hotel that refused to let immigration officers stay there in January apologized after public criticism from DHS, saying the decision violated its internal policies. In another, protesters occupied the lobby of a Manhattan hotel they said was housing some immigration officers.

Izaguirre writes for the Associated Press.

Oct. 16, 2026 10:51 AM PT

WASHINGTON — President Trump signaled Friday that his embattled new press secretary, Katie Zacharia, may be on her way out — a mere week after he picked her for the post.

Speaking to reporters on the White House lawn as he left for a rally in Georgia, Trump said he’d spoken to Zacharia and that he felt she didn’t deserve what he called negative media coverage.

Recounting what was said in that conversation, the president suggested that Zacharia might not stay on the job for long: “I told her, ‘I think you’re better off being happy.’”

He added: “I said, ‘Katie, do you need this? I don’t think you need this,’” and that he wanted “her to have a good life” and not be subjected to criticism, which he likened to being “brutalized by the media.”

The president said he’d make a final determination later, perhaps after his campaign travel on Friday and this weekend, adding, “When I get back, we’re gonna talk.”

Zacharia’s short tenure has been defined by questions about her professional background and lack of polish in fielding questions from journalists.

She was a surprise choice when Trump announced her appointment on Oct. 9, as the successor to Karoline Leavitt, the youngest-ever White House press secretary who had been part of Trump’s inner circle for years.

Zacharia came under immediate scrutiny when she appeared uncomfortable during her inaugural briefing, delivering halting remarks touting the president and his accomplishments.

She took questions from just three reporters, all from conservative-leaning or Trump-friendly outlets, and left after only about 14 minutes.

Zacharia has said she wanted to keep her briefing short to ensure Trump had enough time later that morning for his own question-and-answer session with reporters, and that she had not been fully briefed by White House staff beforehand.

She later traveled with Trump when he held rallies on Wednesday and Thursday in Alaska, Arizona and Montana — but did not hold more press briefings.

In an appearance on Fox News Channel earlier Friday, Zacharia was asked if she had the president’s confidence and responded: “I hope to be able to build the trust and confidence of everyone around me.”

But she also wouldn’t say when her next press briefing might be.

Zacharia, a Pepperdine University law graduate, also faced criticism for calling herself a “lawyer” when she had not passed a bar exam or was otherwise credentialed to practice.

She had described herself as such when appearing as a commentator on conservative television outlets. Zacharia said the term was a proper one to use when she was offering legal analysis, and said she had worked as a lawyer in China.

Zacharia said Friday on Fox News that she wasn’t asked about passing the bar before becoming press secretary, and Trump noted in his subsequent comments that she was hired as a spokesperson for the White House, not as an attorney.

Before joining the White House, Zacharia had been working in communications for Trump Media, the company that oversees the president’s social media site, Truth Social. She also briefly worked at the Department of Homeland Security during the second Trump administration.

Weissert and Kim write for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — President Trump says he wants voters to pretend that he’s on the ballot in this year’s midterm elections.

His rivals are doing their best to help his case.

Democratic candidates and their allies have spent more than $163 million since Sept. 1 on television advertising that mentions the Republican president, according to an Associated Press analysis of data from AdImpact, which charts media spending.

That includes airing ads that reference Trump on broadcast, cable and streaming nearly 180,000 times, the data shows. Republicans, meanwhile, have run ads that talk about the president just 16,000 times, at an estimated cost of $11 million, over the same period.

It’s a noticeable silence about the party’s dominant yet unpopular leader.

Many of the Democrats’ ads accuse Republican opponents of siding with the president over voters, particularly on issues like tariffs and the Iran war, which they blame for jacking up costs.

The ads include one from the campaign of Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff, who is running for reelection and has spent nearly $3 million on a Trump-focused ad attacking his rival, Rep. Mike Collins, for his close relationship with the president.

“Mike Collins voted for Trump’s war in Iran, sending gas prices through the roof. He voted for Trump’s tariffs, sending grocery prices soaring. And Mike Collins voted with Trump to double health insurance premiums for more than a million Georgians,” it says. “Mike Collins sides with Donald Trump and makes you pay more.”

Republican National Committee spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre said Democratic messaging reflected the party’s hollowness instead of its strength.

“Democrats are lighting money on fire talking about President Trump because they have no agenda other than investigation, obstruction and impeachment,” she said. “Trump Derangement Syndrome isn’t a policy platform, it’s a $160 million way of saying you have nothing to offer to the American people.”

Democrats link Trump and his allies to economic woes

Another ad from the House Majority PAC, a super PAC dedicated to electing Democrats to the House, opens with a middle-aged woman standing over her kitchen stove and talking about how her family is “barely getting by” before she expresses her disappointment in Pennsylvania Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, who is one of Republicans’ vulnerable incumbents.

“He used to be independent. But now it seems like he’s in lockstep with Donald Trump. It really bothers me,” she says, adding, “Congressman Fitzpatrick is not for us anymore.”

Indeed, all the Democratic ads that have aired in Pennsylvania’s tightly contested 1st Congressional District since Sept. 1 have mentioned Trump, even though Fitzpatrick voted against Trump’s tariffs and his power to wage war against Iran without congressional approval.

All four of the ads talking about Trump have aired a combined 2,000 times in that period, the AdImpact data shows. Fitzpatrick is being challenged by Democrat Bob Harvie, a county commissioner who is a former social studies teacher.

Democratic strategists say the messaging reflects the sentiment of voters.

“Every single poll and every single focus group shows affordability to be voters’ number one issue, and they specifically point to corrupt politicians as being responsible for driving up prices,” said House Majority PAC spokesperson Katarina Flicker.

Republican ads back away from the president

Out of dozens of issue categories tracked by AdImpact, the analysis found that Trump was the fourth most common issue mentioned by Democrats in House and Senate races’ final stretch. It was topped only by healthcare, taxes and accusations about opponents being beholden to special interests.

For Republicans in the same races, Trump-themed ads clocked in at number 33, by comparison. The top issues in their ads were taxes and crime.

Idaho Republican Senator Jim Risch tells viewers he “fought alongside President Trump to pass the biggest tax cuts for working families in American history.”

Overall in the race’s final stretch since Sept. 1, Democrats have spent or plan to spend $1.8 billion in ads across all federal, state and local elections. Republicans have spent or reserved $2.2 billion nationwide.

Republican strategist Alex Conant said Democrats are banking on Trump motivating their base to vote, an approach they’ve routinely used over the last decade.

“Democrats want this election to be a referendum on Trump. They want to equate a vote for a Republican candidate to a vote for Trump,” he said.

For Conant’s party, it’s a different calculus.

“We have a ton of money and we’re throwing every kind of message on the wall to see what sticks,” he said. “There’s not a cookie-cutter Republican ad this year. Whereas the Democratic ads are pretty obvious.”

Colvin and Kessler write for the Associated Press.

In the race to become L.A.’s next mayor, the city’s top cop — LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell — has become a lightning rod for debate.

The two candidates — incumbent Karen Bass and City Councilmember Nithya Raman — have staked out differing positions about how the Los Angeles Police Department has performed under McDonnell.

Raman has vowed to replace McDonnell, saying he has not “met the moment” given the department’s response to federal immigration raids. Bass has publicly backed the chief she hired two years ago, saying the LAPD could be thrown into disarray if McDonnell is removed before the 2028 Olympic Games.

Raman’s potential ouster of McDonnell and desire to push reforms on the LAPD has pitted her against the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the powerful union for rank-and-file officers that campaigned against Bass during her first election but is now backing her. The union has poured millions of dollars into attack ads against Raman, who has said she declined contributions from the organization in the past.

In an op-ed published in the Protective League’s monthly magazine earlier this year, union president Richard Mendoza called the Democratic Socialists of America, which has endorsed Raman, an “imminent threat to our members.”

Last week, Raman faced criticism for an Instagram video in which she appeared to slam McDonnell and the mayor, saying at one point “only you can stop fascist liars.” She later denied that she was referring to Bass or McDonnell, saying her remarks were improperly edited — and that she had the video pulled.

The Raman campaign did not respond to numerous requests for an interview about her vision for the LAPD.

Raman, a Harvard-educated urban planner, has sought to burnish her credentials as a political outsider by publicly calling for a change in LAPD leadership — but she hasn’t given a clear timeline on when she would replace McDonnell.

LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell greets Mayor Karen Bass during a ceremony at police headquarters in downtown Los Angeles on May 27.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Last week, Raman told ABC7 she expected to replace McDonnell in 2030, after he has finished his first five-year term. Hours later, she pulled back a bit, issuing a statement saying she expects to replace him prior to the end of his term, which concludes in late 2029.

“Chief McDonnell is Mayor Bass’s police chief,” her statement said. “I have made it clear that I would seek a chief who can keep Angelenos safe and restore trust with our immigrant communities.”

Her comments at a mayoral debate this week threw further uncertainty about who will run the LAPD if she gets the top job.

Raman sidestepped a question about whether she would replace McDonnell before the Olympics.

“I believe he’s lost the trust of Angelenos, especially in light of the ICE raids,” she said, adding that she wasn’t sure that she could make a “unilateral decision” to fire McDonnell outright. Bass pounced on the comment, saying that the fact that Raman didn’t know the mayor has that authority to get rid of a police chief shows she is unfit for the office.

The LAPD didn’t immediately respond to a request Thursday for an interview with McDonnell.

Asked about Raman’s remarks during his regular appearance on Fox 11 Los Angeles on Wednesday, McDonnell said he found it “problematic” to hear criticism of the LAPD’s response to civil unrest from someone “who wasn’t there.”

He defended the department’s protest response, saying his officers acted appropriately when confronted by unruly demonstrators hurling bottles, bricks, Molotov cocktails and commercial-grade fireworks. Fifty-two officers suffered injuries, ranging from concussions to hearing loss, he said. Such “riotous situations” necessitated the use of tear gas against crowds, he said, something the department hadn’t done in decades.

“It was getting to a point where it could become a deadly force situation, which we were trying to avoid at all costs,” he said. “I don’t think it could’ve been done differently that could’ve had a better outcome.”

City Councilmember Nithya Raman speaks during a debate with incumbent Mayor Karen Bass on Oct. 13.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Conventional wisdom holds that new mayors will eventually select their own chief, a decision that is considered as important as any in defining a city leader’s legacy. Some have waited longer than others to do it. Bass, for instance, oversaw the reappointment of McDonnell’s predecessor, Michel Moore, shortly after her election and stood by him for a year before Moore’s abrupt resignation in early 2024.

Mayors in other big cities have faced similar dilemmas.

In New York City, Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist whom Raman is sometimes compared to, recently announced that he intends to retain NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch, in a move that was decried by his progressive base. Mamdani told local media that he believed that Tisch was right for the job, based on a proven track record of rooting out corruption and had overseen a crime drop as commissioner, which is the equivalent of a police chief in L.A.

Bass selected McDonnell to lead the LAPD in November 2024 after a lengthy nationwide search.

His appointment was viewed with surprise in local political circles, where some questioned why a progressive mayor like Bass, with a background in community organizing, would hitch her fortunes to a law-and-order chief. Others argued that McDonnell was an appealing choice: An LAPD veteran who offered experience and respect after serving as the chief in Long Beach and later as L.A. County sheriff.

After numerous scandals under Moore, McDonnell was seen as offering stability while the city prepared for the massive security challenges of the World Cup and Olympic Games. In McDonnell, his supporters say, the mayor has an honest and principled leader who has managed to steady a department beset by low morale, dwindling staffing levels and aging facilities. Violent crime has fallen to historic lows under his watch, as it has it many other U.S. cities.

McDonnell, however, has faced withering scrutiny over a dramatic rise in police shootings last year and for the department’s use of hard foam projectiles, tear gas, horse-mounted officers and other tactics against protesters. Within the LAPD, some have also criticized McDonnell for taking a detached approach to running the department and ceding control to underlings, such as Assistant Chief Dominic Choi.

During Tuesday’s debate, Raman suggested that under McDonnell the LAPD has drifted back to being a more opaque, closed-off agency that no longer publishes basic information such as neighborhood-level crime statistics.

In a recent interview with The Times, Bass signaled her frustration with the slow pace of change within the LAPD.

Without singling out McDonnell by name, Bass said she was concerned about the lack of progress on revamping LAPD’s much-maligned disciplinary system, which the chief oversees and which — depending on who you ask — either punishes officers too harshly or fails to hold them accountable.

Bass said that when she toured police station houses after being elected, the number one complaint she heard was about the perception that lower-ranking officers are punished more severely than command staff.

“They feel that command gets away with a lot of things that the rank and file does not,” she said. “So I feel like the reform of the disciplinary system has not gone fast enough, and I am concerned about that.”

Bass has also vowed to make a priority of addressing police shootings of civilians, particularly those involving people experiencing mental health crises. Last month, she signed an executive directive calling for an outside review of the LAPD’s policies and training, which she referred to as “woefully inadequate.”

Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell speaks at a news conference at the Hall of Justice on Aug. 6.

(Arwen Clemans / Los Angeles Times)

If McDonnell has any doubts about his future, he hasn’t hinted at them during recent public appearances, often talking about the department’s role in the Olympics.

Bass told The Times that a push to replace McDonnell right before the 2028 Olympic Games would leave the LAPD with a leadership vacuum just as its leaders are supposed to be focused on security plans for that event. The last time city leaders recruited a new chief, the search process was nationwide, lasting more than 10 months, she said.

“I think that [Raman] is naive on what it means to do that,” Bass said. “I think she’s naive, and not understanding the instability to the department when leadership is in flux. And so if it took her the same amount of time, that means we’d have a new police chief about seven to eight months before one of the most high-profile security events in U.S. history.”

LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell with his wife Kathy, right, is introduced as the 59th chief of the Los Angeles Police Department with Dr. Erroll Southers, then the president of the Los Angeles Police Commission, left, and Mayor Karen Bass on Nov. 14, 2024.

(Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

In some ways, Raman and Bass are not as far apart on public safety as they previously were. Both candidates have been critical of the license plate reader company Flock Safety, advocated for investing in alternatives to policing and have recently indicated that they are committed to keeping the LAPD from shrinking any further. And since launching her mayoral bid, Raman’s campaign has publicly distanced itself from the “defund the police” movement that Bass has consistently rebuffed.

Where the two candidates diverge most sharply was over a package of police raises negotiated by Bass in 2023 that Raman said has deepened the city’s financial problems. Sold as a way to boost recruitment, the pay increases are among the reasons the police union has endorsed Bass’ reelection. The next mayor will be asked to negotiate a new police contract, which is set to expire next year.

Matt Klink, an L.A.-based Republican political consultant, said that law enforcement groups, such as the Protective League, were skeptical of Bass when she first took office but now back her because she has “shown through her first term in office that she has consistently supported the police.” He said that Raman, on the other hand, has played to the far left by villainizing McDonnell and downplaying concerns about safety.

“Mayor Bass has a stronger record of supporting the police,” he said. “She backed our contracts and our budgets — she has generally supported public safety.”

UCLA professor David Turner said despite his wariness of Bass’ centrist drift, he and other progressives are equally skeptical of Raman, who, has repeatedly voted to increase the LAPD budget without any meaningful efforts to rein in police misconduct.

“That money was proposed by Mayor Bass and voted and approved by Councilmember Nithya Raman,” said Turner, who runs Million Dollar Hoods, which seeks to map the impact of mass incarceration. Still, he said, he hopes that Raman’s tough talk about McDonnell will translate into more accountability for the LAPD.

“What I’m looking for and what L.A. progressives are looking for is a certain level of boldness and a willingness not to capitulate to the [Protective League] and their whims,” he said.

Times staff writers David Zahniser and James Queally contributed to this report.