politics

The largest single piece of federal housing legislation to come out of Congress in at least a generation is is now law.

It happened in the middle of night early Saturday, without fanfare — or even President Trump’s signature — and it might be a while before many Californians notice its effects.

That’s because the bill, though politically monumental — both chambers approved it overwhelmingly — doesn’t do one big thing. Instead, it does a lot of little things. Individually, none of the bill’s 56 regulatory tweaks, pilot programs and low-cost loans and grants are likely to move the needle on the nation’s housing affordability woes, nor on California’s specifically.

Supporters hope that collectively, they just might.

Even the law’s path to enactment had an under-the-radar quality to it. The White House abruptly canceled a planned signing ceremony late last month, with Trump vowing not to sign the bill until Congress first passed his restrictive national voter ID proposal. That bill has stalled out in the Senate.

Still, Trump did not veto the housing package, so it automatically became law Saturday just after midnight, as per the Constitution.

For all that, supporters say this is still a big deal: a major, bipartisan piece of legislation aimed at boosting housing construction from a hyperpartisan legislative body that doesn’t typically touch the topic.

“We don’t often gather to celebrate federal housing legislation,” Stephen Russell, president of the San Diego Housing Federation, said at a news conference Thursday. “I think the last time Congress passed anything of this magnitude, many of you were not even alive. … It is almost a once-in-a-lifetime event.”

That’s thanks in part to a growing caucus of lawmakers aligned with the “Yes In My Backyard” movement that helped push the bill into law. Many hail from California, a state that has had more experience than most contending with wildly unaffordable housing. But the cause of making housing more affordable, and attributing high housing costs to a lack of sufficient supply, has become a national and bipartisan concern. Case in point: The bill originated as a joint proposal by Sens. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), an ardent conservative, and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), among the most liberal members of the Senate.

While the constituent parts of the bill are relatively narrow and none is specifically focused on California, experts highlight a few provisions that could leave a notable imprint on the state.

Build now (or else)

For high-cost cities that don’t build much housing, as in much of urban California, the federal bill includes a novel carrot and stick.

This portion of the bill would change the Community Development Block Grant, one of the largest sources of federal funding for affordable housing and local economic development. Pricey cities — defined through a variety of data benchmarks like median prices and vacancy rates — with a track record of under-building that continue to see below-average housing construction will have their grant funds cut by 10%. The savings will go to their municipal counterparts that build at a faster clip.

That’s likely to have “real implications for cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco that have traditionally lagged behind” in adding housing supply, said David Garcia, the deputy director of policy at UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation.

The city of Los Angeles received $48.4 million in its last award from the block grant program in 2024, according to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development data. San Francisco received $18.9 million.

Those numbers aren’t enough to make or break the budget of either city.

“I think this will be a small nudge,” said Laura Foote, executive director of YIMBY Action, in an email. “Which taken across the country could still have a good impact! Little nudges add up.”

More dramatic than the number of dollars involved may be the precedent the policy sets. Even in California, where the state government has aggressively incentivized cities to plan for more housing development and penalized those that don’t, lawmakers have never punished municipalities for failing to actually grow — an outcome that may not always be under a city government’s control.

Such an idea would have been “inconceivable in previous congresses,” Garcia said.

Despite that, the provision hasn’t engendered much public opposition from local government groups yet. In an online summary, Michael Wallace, a lobbyist with the National League of Cities, applauded the overall housing bill as an example of the federal government “choosing partnership with local governments over preemptions.” He singled out other provisions of the bill that provide expanded flexibility for Community Development Block Grant spending, new incentive programs for adding supply, and new supports for local urban planning.

Chassis change

Manufactured housing units are often colloquially referred to as mobile homes, but they don’t tend to move around much. Built on assembly lines and shipped to where they’re needed, these naturally affordable houses — the likes of which lawmakers across California and the United States claim we need in droves — are often placed upon permanent foundations where a fewer than 1 in 10 ever move again.

Even so, the federal building code applied to manufactured housing includes a costly, vestigial reference to its mobile origins: a permanent chassis.

A giant steel frame with removable axles and wheels, the chassis ostensibly exists to make it easier to pick up and move a manufactured house by truck. In practice, it serves as a 10- to 12-inch-thick floor beneath the floor. Because it cannot be removed upon delivery, it just serves as “dead space and wasted money,” said Jess Maxcy, president of the California Manufactured Housing Institute, the industry’s trade group. Aside from adding thousands of dollars in added costs per unit, it also makes it harder for manufactured units to be stacked into double story homes or multifamily apartment buildings.

The federal housing bill removes the permanent chassis requirement, something that manufacturers and some housing policy experts have been pushing for since the mid-1980s.

“That relatively minor change will expand access to one of the most affordable forms of home ownership available,” Rep. Scott Peters (D-San Diego) said at the Thursday news conference.
Maxcy said he doesn’t expect the end of the chassis requirement to trigger an overnight building boom in the manufactured home industry. But especially in California, where, due to the high price of land, new single-family homes are more likely to be built stacked on small lots, the regulatory change “provides more opportunities and helps us reduce the price.”

Recovering after disaster

In the months after a natural disaster, long after emergency federal dollars have come and gone, Congress has provided communities with long-term rebuilding grants through the Community Development Block Grant—Disaster Recovery program. Over the last three decades, the program has spent more than $100 billion on the long-term work of recovery, like home construction, infrastructure repair and rental and relocation assistance. That money tends to be reserved for low-income people and communities “who are not going to bounce back without the funds,” said Marion McFadden, who used to run the program under the Biden administration and now works at the disaster preparation and recovery consulting company IEM.

Unfortunately for California, the program only kind of exists. Since the mid-1990s, it’s been stood up and funded on an ad hoc basis, one appropriation bill at a time. That presents a challenge for communities planning in the middle of post-disaster planning. It also means the rules that govern the program — when the money goes out, to whom, under what conditions and for what purposes — are redrafted with each political administration. That’s had the effect of slowing things down considerably. No program funding has gone to Los Angeles in the wake of the 2025 fire storms, according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Congress has yet to appropriate any.

The new housing bill would officially write the program into law for at least three years.

“It creates the ability for HUD to have money on hand before a disaster and then make a decision within 15 days about whether they’re going to provide funding,” McFadden said.

What the housing bill doesn’t do: provide fresh funding. Disaster-prone communities will need to wait for Congress to take that up later.

A ‘bottleneck’ removed

For the last two decades, public housing authorities in Los Angeles and the Bay Area have been turning to the federal Rental Assistance Demonstration program to help repair and upgrade their aging stock of increasingly dilapidated public housing. The program works by switching up funding sources in a way that gives locals more flexibility to borrow money and attract private investment dollars.

Until the new law took effect this weekend, the federal government was only authorized to permit 455,000 of these conversions. The law raises the cap by an additional 100,000.

“This has been a bottleneck in California for years and that bottleneck just got removed,” said Russell with the San Diego Housing Federation.
Not all affordable housing advocates are cheering the development. The National Low Income Housing Coalition has consistently opposed expansion of the program on the grounds that the change in funding source could weaken existing tenant protections. It’s unclear whether and to what extent that might be true. A study from last year found no evidence that conversions under the program lead to more evictions.

Wall Street out of suburbia

If you’ve heard only one thing about this housing bill, it’s that it bans “large institutional investors” from buying up more single family homes.

Caveats apply in the final version of the law. The bill defines “large” as any of a number of business structures with control over more than 350 single-family homes. It doesn’t apply retrospectively, so current investors with portfolios brimming with houses need not divest. Exemptions exist for new construction, renovations and senior housing. In California specifically, where corporations and other major investors do not play a significant role in the housing market, the effect is likely to be muted.

The measure “takes a hyper-salient issue for lots of people across the country and does a pretty modest intervention to address it,” said Chad Maisel, a fellow at the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress and a former housing policy advisor to President Biden.

Even so, the provision has plenty of bipartisan appeal. Earlier this year, Trump called for an even stricter crackdown on so-called corporate landlords. Gov. Gavin Newsom followed suit the same week.

The anti-investor language was considerably watered down from earlier this year, when a related provision threatened to undermine “build-to-rent” projects: well-financed subdevelopments of single-family homes reserved for renters. That prompted a revolt by many developers and YIMBY activists who had otherwise enthusiastically supported the bill, who argued that such communities are one of the fastest growing sources of the U.S. housing stock and provide some of the few opportunities for renters to live in suburban-style, family-sized housing.

After the build-to-rent provision was left on the cutting room floor of Congress, state Sen. Aisha Wahab, a Fremont Democrat who is now running for Congress, introduced a bill that picked it back up again. SB 880 would have banned the bundled sale of multiple single-family homes, striking at the heart of the build-to-rent business model. That bill died in the Assembly Judiciary committee in late June.

Christopher writes for CalMatters.

The architect of modern Qatar, former Emir ⁠Sheikh Hamad bin ⁠Khalifa Al Thani, has died at the age of 74.

Fondly known as Father Emir, ⁠Sheikh Hamad, who ruled Qatar from 1995 to 2013, leaves behind a legacy that includes sweeping economic, social and cultural reforms in Qatar, raising the Gulf country’s profile on the regional and global stage.

During his 18-year rule, Qatar’s gross domestic product (GDP) grew more than 24-fold as the small nation of nearly 2.5 million people became one of the world’s largest exporters of liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Sheikh Hamad’s tenure also saw the adoption of Qatar’s permanent constitution and the launch of the Qatar National Vision 2030, a long-term strategy aimed at transforming the country into a knowledge-based economy and achieving sustainable development.

Here is a look at some key moments in the former Qatari emir’s life:

Path to leadership

Born in January 1952 in Doha, Sheikh Hamad was raised and received his early education in the city.

In 1971, he graduated from the British Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, United Kingdom, and joined the Qatar armed forces, where he reached the rank of major-general. He was credited with playing a pivotal role in developing the armed forces in terms of ordnance, according to a statement by the Amiri Diwan.

On May 31, 1977, Sheikh Hamad was appointed the heir apparent and minister of defence. On May 10, 1989, he was appointed the chairman of the Supreme Council for Planning, where he was tasked with developing Qatar’s social and economic policies.

After a successful career in the military and senior government positions, Sheikh Hamad assumed leadership of Qatar on June 27, 1995. He remained the ruler of Qatar until June 25, 2013, when he transferred power to his son, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani.

Economic transformation

Under Sheikh Hamad’s leadership, Qatar saw rapid economic growth driven by the expansion of its energy sector.

He viewed the country’s untapped North Field, which is the largest nonassociated natural gasfield in the world, as the cornerstone of Qatar’s future economic dominance, and invested heavily in the LNG sector. In 1996, the country began exporting LNG, with the first shipment sent to Japan.

According to the Amiri Diwan, in 2006, Qatar became the largest LNG exporter in the world, and in 2010, its LNG production capacity reached 77 million tonnes per annum. Qatar’s LNG exports currently represent 20 percent of the global market, it said.

Besides the energy sector, Sheikh Hamad also formulated comprehensive reconstruction plans which helped Qatar’s development in the education, healthcare, sports, culture and media sectors.

In October 2001, he established the Supreme Council for Economic Affairs and Investment to oversee the economy, energy and investment affairs and diversify local and foreign investments and sources of income.

Press freedom and launch of Al Jazeera

A few months after taking office as the emir of Qatar, in October 1995, Sheikh Hamad abolished the censorship of the local press, seeking to improve the country’s press freedom status.

In 1996, he launched the Al Jazeera Media Network, which resulted in “a new dawn” in the Arab and international media world, according to the Amiri Diwan.

Since its launch, Al Jazeera has become one of the world’s most prominent media outlets covering global news, geopolitics and underreported topics and giving a voice to minority communities through its stories.

In August 1995, Sheikh Hamad founded Qatar Foundation for Education, Science and Community Development, which helped expand the country’s influence in media, education, and innovation.

Constitution and national vision

Sheikh Hamad played a key role in introducing democratic measures in the country after he assumed power. In March 1999, he introduced municipal elections, in which women were allowed to vote and stand as candidates.

On June 8, 2004, Sheikh Hamad led Qatar to adopt its first permanent constitution.

According to the Amiri Diwan, the permanent constitution sets out the country’s “preamble, the foundations of democratic rule” and lays out the “basic pillar” for society to guarantee the rights and freedoms of Qatar’s citizens.

In 2004, Sheikh Hamad launched “Qatar National Vision 2030” to guide the country’s long-term development and modernisation and help it transform into a knowledge-based economy.

Global profile

Qatar’s political influence today stretches across North Africa, the Middle East and Asia, with the country using its diplomacy to mediate several conflicts.

Sheikh Hamad drove the country’s mediation efforts in conflicts including the Hanish Islands dispute between Eritrea and Yemen in 1995, the Yemen war between 2007 and 2010, the Lebanese political crisis in 2008 and the Darfur peace process between 2010 and 2011, among others.

In October 2012, he became the first Arab leader to visit Gaza, since the imposition of a widespread international boycott of the Palestinian territory, which was spurred after Hamas began its rule in 2006.

Sheikh Hamad arrived with 90 tonnes of aid and pledged $400m to invest in housing and infrastructure, as he embraced the Hamas leadership of Gaza with an official visit, breaking the isolation of the Palestinian movement, much to the dismay of Israel, its allies, as well as the Western-backed Palestinian leaders in the occupied West Bank.

Besides diplomacy, the late former leader also focused on improving Qatar’s international status by projecting the country as a suitable venue for global sports and entertainment events.

In 2022, Qatar hosted the men’s FIFA World Cup, the world’s most-watched football tournament. Sheikh Hamad received rapturous applause from fans when he attended the tournament’s opening match.

As the fight for control of the U.S. Senate grows increasingly competitive, eyes are turning north to Alaska and a contest pitting, among its contestants, Dan Sullivan vs. Dan Sullivan — and, no, it’s not about a candidate living a double life or wrestling demons within himself.

Confused?

That may be the point.

Daniel S. Sullivan is Alaska’s two-term Republican senator. He’s seeking reelection in November.

Daniel J. Sullivan is a retired school teacher and political novice. He calls himself an independent Republican cut from the same polar-fleece lining as the state’s maverick GOP senator, Lisa Murkowski.

Political handicappers give Daniel J. Sullivan little chance of winning the highly competitive race. So is there some other reason he’s running? Is his presence on the ballot intended to draw enough befuddled voters away from the incumbent to elect his Democratic challenger, former Rep. Mary Peltola?

That’s what Republicans think. And you don’t have to be standing on the banks of the Kenai River to smell something fishy.

When Daniel J. Sullivan launched his campaign in May, he did so as plain old “Dan Sullivan,” with a website closely resembling that of the incumbent. The press release announcing his candidacy was written by one “Amber Lee.” There is an Alaska political strategist named Amber Lee who has supported Peltola in the past.

(For such a sparsely populated state, there sure are a lot of doppelgangers in this political saga.)

Election officials say Daniel J. Sullivan asked to appear on the ballot as a Republican, even though he hadn’t previously been affiliated with the party. In fact, over the years he’d contributed money to Democrats, including Peltola. He also asked to be identified on the ballot as “Dan S. Sullivan” before changing his mind, an attorney for the state told Alaska’s Supreme Court, which took up the matter late last month.

“That’s not an innocent mistake, or random mistake,” Chris Murray told the justices. “There’s a lot of other letters in the alphabet that could have been a typo.”

The political consultant Amber Lee declined to comment when reached by the Anchorage Daily News. She did not respond to an email from your friendly political columnist.

For his part, Daniel J. Sullivan denied any malice or mischievous intent.

“This is my choice,” he told the Associated Press. He said he had no contact with Peltola’s campaign — “zero, none, zilch” — and denied anyone from the state Democratic Party or any national Democratic operatives had contacted him to run.

Peltola’s campaign has adamantly denied any involvement. So, too, have the Alaska Democratic Party and the Democrat’s national Senate campaign committee.

After an investigation, Daniel J. Sullivan was removed from the Aug. 18 primary ballot. Carol Beecher, head of Alaska’s Division of Elections, said his candidacy was intended to “confuse or mislead” voters.

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) attends meetings at the U.S. Capitol in 2025.

(Francis Chung / Politico via Associated Press)

But the state’s high court overturned that decision, instructing elections officials to figure out a way to keep Daniel J. Sullivan’s name on the ballot “within the confines of existing Alaska ballot design law.”

It’s been nearly 20 years since the state sent a Democrat to the U.S. Senate, but this election looks to offer the party its best shot in years, thanks to Peltola.

Jessica Taylor, of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, called her “the ideal recruit,” given Peltola’s fundraising prowess and her ability to outperform other Democrats by avoiding the toxic taint of the national party. (Peltola’s slogan —”Fish, family and freedom” — is about as far removed from the Whole Foods-shopping, Prius-driving Democratic image as it gets.)

Democrats need to win four seats in November to take control of the Senate, from a menu that includes Alaska, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas while, at the same time, hanging on to contested Senate seats in Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota and New Hampshire. The Cook Political Report rates Alaska as one of the few toss-up races in the bunch.

The state has a ranked-choice election system in which the top four vote-getters advance to November. Ivan Moore, who does nonpartisan polling in Alaska, said that system virtually ensures Sullivan and Sullivan will face off against each other in a runoff that includes Peltola. At that point, Moore suggested, the choice to most voters will be clear.

Under the solution devised by state election officials, the senator will be listed as “Sullivan, Dan S.” and as “(Registered Republican) Incumbent.” His challenger will be identified as “Sullivan, Daniel J. Jr.” with no party affiliation.

“I imagine there’s some people out there who don’t know what the word ‘incumbent’ means,” Moore said. “But I find it pretty hard to believe that people who are dead set on voting for Dan S. Sullivan, the senator, are going to go in the voting booth and vote for the wrong person when Dan S. has the word ‘incumbent’ next to his name and Dan J. doesn’t have any party affiliation.”

Political hijinks are nothing new. But the level of partisan gamesmanship seems to be growing as the old saying about all being far in love and war is increasingly applied to campaigns and elections.

It was something of a novelty in 2002 when Democrats meddled in the California Republican primary to promote their preferred candidate. Now it’s common practice.

Redistricting, or redrawing the nation’s congressional lines to reflect changes in population, used to occur once a decade following the national census. But spurred by President Trump, the last year has seen an arms race among states, including California, which gerrymandered their political maps to boost a preferred party and, essentially, decide House races before a single ballot is cast.

Politics, another old saying goes, ain’t beanbag.

But it doesn’t have to be this slanted and cynical. There’s no need for fishy-smelling candidates like Daniel J. Sullivan.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court’s conservative justices say they decide cases based on the words and original history of the Constitution — and not on their personal or political views.

Following the lead set by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, they say they see history and “originalism” as a guiding principle to prevent judges from changing the Constitution to adjust to new and changing times.

This text-and-history approach is said to contrast with an evolving or “living Constitution” favored by progressives and liberal activists.

But this year saw a flip of sorts on birthright citizenship.

The foremost conservatives agreed with President Trump that the surge of illegal immigration called for reconsidering the promise of citizenship at birth set out in the 14th Amendment of 1868.

“The number of illegal immigrants in this country exploded” in recent years, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in dissent. The rule of citizenship at birth provides “a powerful incentive to enter or remain in this country illegally,” he added.

“The Constitution is an enduring document,” wrote Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, but its rules and meaning must adjust to “modern situations that were unknown or unanticipated by the Constitution’s Framers.”

In a concurring opinion, he said that “significant illegal immigration into the United States is a new circumstance that was largely unknown as of 1868.”

There were no federal immigration laws in the mid-19th century, but it was an era when a surge of Irish immigrants had settled on the East Coast and large numbers of Chinese immigrants came to California.

Under the law, their children were deemed to be citizens at birth.

Among the conservative originalists, only Justice Amy Coney Barrett signed the majority opinion that was written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and joined by the three liberals.

The opening words of the 14th Amendment of 1868 say: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”

In 1898, the Supreme Court upheld the rule of citizenship at birth in the case of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents.

In an executive order, Trump proposed to end birthright citizenship for the newborns whose parents were in the country illegally or temporarily.

Writing for the court, the chief justice said the words of the 14th Amendment were clear and were clearly understood at the time. He dismissed the “dramatically revisionist view” that has been cited recently.

Kavanaugh voted with the majority to block Trump’s order from taking effect. He did so because Congress had adopted birthright citizenship in a 1952 law.

“Consistent with the 14th Amendment, Congress could … enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship,” he wrote.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Alito wrote long dissents arguing that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not or would not have favored birthright citizenship.

They pointed to recent scholarship by law professors that raised questions about the accepted understanding of the 14th Amendment and the citizenship rule.

Thomas said citizenship of the child should turn on whether the parents were “domiciled” in this country. Black people who were enslaved were undoubtedly domiciled here, but the same is not true of temporary visitors.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch agreed in part with Thomas and questioned whether the newborns of temporary visitors should be deemed as citizens at birth.

Many court commentators were surprised by the close 5-4 divide on the constitutional issue.

“Given how clear the language was, I expected it to be 7 to 2,” said Melissa Murray, a New York University law professor. “I really gasped when I saw it was 5-4. This is not settled. We’re not done with this debate.”

Sarah Isgur, a podcaster and SCOTUSblog analyst, said that “originalism is getting more and more muddled. Either the history matters or it doesn’t.”

However, she agreed with Kavanaugh’s approach of leaving it to Congress to reconsider the issue.

Not all originalists are conservative.

Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar, a constitutional historian, argued that the history of birthright citizenship is clear and not subject to revisionist thinking. He said the Reconstruction Congress adopted this principle of citizenship at birth and stated their intent in clear words in the 14th Amendment.

“When a baby is born on American soil and an American flag flies above, that baby is a birthright citizen, as the Reconstruction Republicans across the land understood,” he wrote in February. This rule “has virtually nothing to do with the baby’s parents.”

Last week, he was mostly cheered by the court’s ruling.

“It’s a triumph, but it should have been 9-0,” Amar said on a review of the court term sponsored by SCOTUSblog. “Shame on the dissenters. They didn’t even the address the statute” and its wording.

But the majority led by Roberts “clearly affirmed the plain meaning of the constitutional text and its history. And that’s a win,” he said.

History has a recurring role at the Supreme Court.

Isgur noted the court will hear arguments in the fall on whether the 2nd Amendment of 1791 gives gun owners a right to have “assault weapons” like AR-15 rifles.

She said the court will decide then between history and changed circumstances.

At issue is whether these modern rapid-fire rifles fit within the history of the gun rights protected by the 2nd Amendment or instead represent a new and dangerous threat to public safety that was unknown in 1791.

Scalia’s opinion upholding gun rights in 2008 is often cited as a model of originalism, but it too emerged from a court divided 5-4.

The 2nd Amendment says, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bears Arms, shall not be infringed.”

For decades, the Supreme Court had all but ignored the 2nd Amendment, viewing it as a somewhat outdated provision involving militias, akin to the 3rd Amendment. It forbids having soldiers “quartered in any house … in time of peace.”

Four liberal dissenters in 2008 said the court should stand by that understanding of history.

Justice John Paul Stevens said the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution to protect state militias from federal interference. Moreover, the reference to “bear arms” suggests it was about militias, he said.

But Scalia’s opinion stands as the landmark precedent, and he said the dissenters had the history all wrong.

The right to have guns for self-defense arose in England and came to the American colonies. “By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects,” he wrote.

The 2nd Amendment did not establish a new right, he said. Rather, it “codified a pre-existing right [of] having and using arms for self-preservation and [defense],” he wrote.

“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history,” Scalia wrote, “that the 2nd Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

July 11 (UPI) — A housing bill passed by Congress became law at midnight Saturday when President Donald Trump refused to sign it, but didn’t veto it.

The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act is a comprehensive law that was designed to make housing more affordable and increase housing supply. Trump refused to sign it because he wanted Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, an election reform bill that would require those registering to vote to provide proof that they are U.S. citizens.

But Congress doesn’t have the votes to pass the SAVE Act.

On Friday, Trump announced that he again would not sign the ROAD to Housing bill.

“I will not sign the Housing Bill, which has been fully approved by Congress and sent to the White House, in PROTEST over the fact that the United States Senate is not capable of passing THE SAVE AMERICA ACT,” he said on Truth Social.

The housing bill includes measures that modernize building standards, encourage renovating older homes, encourage communities to build more housing with funding and grant programs, local governments to reform restrictive zoning policies around building housing and effectively ban private equity from buying up single-family homes. Critics of the bill say it doesn’t go far enough, but they acknowledge it’s a good first step.

“This bill becoming law is a genuine milestone — and I don’t use that word lightly,” Dennis Shea of the Bipartisan Policy Center told the BBC. “Getting Congress to move on housing supply and affordability has been a long time coming, and the American people made clear they were ready for it.”

Earlier this year, a BPC survey found that 89% of voters wanted congressional action to make housing more affordable.

Congressional leaders had planned a bill signing ceremony last month, ready to show voters that they are trying to bring down costs, a key issue to Americans. But hours before it was scheduled to begin, Trump canceled it.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., criticized Trump’s ongoing refusal to sign Friday.

“At the stroke of midnight, a huge bipartisan bill to lower housing costs became law without the President’s signature. Why did President Trump sit on the landmark housing bill for more than 2 weeks? Maybe because there was nothing in it for him personally – no gold-encrusted ballroom, no Qatari jet, no $2 billion crypto deal. Nothing in the 21st Century ROAD to Housing except ways to make housing more affordable,” she said in a statement. “Donald Trump couldn’t pick up the pen because he just isn’t interested in lowering costs for American families.”

At 4 a.m. Saturday, she posted on X: “BREAKING: the clock struck midnight and our bipartisan housing bill is now law. Trump refused to sign it, but he couldn’t stop it.”

“This law is GROUNDBREAKING. It will build more housing, bring down costs, and for the first time, stop private equity from buying up homes,” she said.

Trump had called the housing bill “so unimportant” and “a yawn.”

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., defended the bill without criticizing Trump’s comments.

He said, “the president has a lot going on, and I think it’s safe to say he’s not read through every line of that piece of legislation.

“What he was saying is in comparison to ensuring election integrity, which is now represented by the SAVE America Act, nothing is as important,” Johnson said. “That’s not to say that there are not also incredibly important issues, and the cost of living and affordability is among them. It’s top of mind.”

“So I hope he does sign it. If he doesn’t, it’s still law; we’ll still celebrate it,” Johnson said. “But he’s trying to make a point and I think he’s making it very effectively.”

July 11 (UPI) — President Donald Trump threatened to “decimate and destroy” Iran if they carried out an assasination attempt on him.

“1000 Missiles are Locked and Loaded and aimed at the Islamic Republic of Iran, with thousands of more to immediately follow, should the Iranian Government act on its threat, pronounced in many corners of the Globe, to assassinate, or attempt to assassinate, the sitting President of the United States of America, in this case, ME! Orders have already been given, and the U.S. Military is ready, willing, and able, for a one year period of time, subject to extension, to completely decimate and destroy all areas of Iran – PRAISE BE TO ALLAH!,” the president said on Truth Social Friday night.

The comments are likely in response to new intelligence from Israel that Iran has a plan to kill the president, reported by The Wall Street Journal on Thursday. Also, Iran has been holding funeral rites for its supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and photos have emerged of mourners carrying signs that say, “Kill Trump.” Khameinei was killed by an American and Israeli attack on Iran in February.

In a post on X Saturday, Khamenei’s son and successor Mojtaba Khamenei promised to avenge the deaths of those killed in U.S. strikes.

“This vengeance is what our nation is demanding, and this must definitely be done,” Mojtaba Khamenei said.

On Friday, Trump told The New York Post that he “left instructions” for the military to attack if anything happened to him.

“I’ve been on their list for a long time. That’s what we’re dealing with,” he said. “The only thing is, I’ve left instructions — if anything happens, to just literally bomb them at levels that they’ve never seen before.”

He said there was no new intelligence on a plot.

“No, no. Israel came up with nothing. No, no,” he said. “I’ve been No. 1 [on Iran’s kill list] for a long time, and it’s the way life is, you know.”

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has dismissed the remnants of the government’s landmark case against far-right Proud Boys members who were convicted of seditious conspiracy for plotting to attack the Capitol to keep President Trump in the White House after he lost his reelection bid more than five years ago.

The case’s dismissal late Friday became a foregone conclusion when Trump last year used his pardon powers to erase every case that the government prosecuted after a mob of his supporters stormed the building on Jan. 6, 2021. The judge who presided over the Proud Boys leaders’ trial saw no basis to preserve the convictions after Trump’s sweeping act of clemency last year.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, whom Trump nominated during his first term, said there is “little mystery” about why the second Trump administration decided to abandon this case and every other Jan. 6 riot case.

“President Trump’s views about the prosecution of those who attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6 — whether those views are based on fact or fiction — are well known, as is his intention to extend clemency to them,” Kelly wrote.

The judge stressed that his order should not be mistaken as an endorsement of the Department of Justice’s decision to abandon the case. He referred to the Capitol riot as “a perilous event” and an assault on the constitutional imperative for a peaceful transfer of power between presidents.

“Moving forward, if this Nation’s experiment in self-government is to last another 250 years, the American people — no matter their partisan preferences — will have to act together to preserve, protect and defend that miracle through our constitutional framework,” Kelly wrote.

Juries in the nation’s capital separately convicted leaders of the Proud Boys and another extremist group, the antigovernment Oath Keepers, of orchestrating violent plots to keep Trump in power after he lost the 2020 presidential election to Democrat Joe Biden.

A different judge has not ruled yet on the Justice Department’s related request to throw out Oath Keepers’ seditious conspiracy convictions.

Friday’s ruling applied to four of five Proud Boys members who were convicted after a jury trial: Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl and Dominic Pezzola. Trump commuted their prison sentences, but they were not covered by the president’s mass pardons.

Former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio was convicted at the same trial but received a pardon from Trump. Kelly had sentenced Tarrio to 22 years, the longest prison term in any Capitol riot case.

Kunzelman and Durkin Richer write for the Associated Press.

Nigerian security forces have rescued 39 schoolchildren and five teachers abducted nearly two months ago in Oyo state. Authorities say eight suspected kidnappers have been arrested.

The Trump administration finalized a rollback of the Endangered Species Act on Friday, paving the way for drilling, mining and other human development across protected wildlife habitats.

The move redefines “harm” under the Endangered Species Act, the landmark conservation law that protects threatened and endangered plants and animals. For years, “harm” meant actions that injure or kill wildlife, as well as actions that destroy protected habitats.

Under the new rule, destroying those habitats is no longer illegal.

The decision aligns with the Trump administration’s ongoing effort to slash regulations in the name of economic growth. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, whose department finalized the move, said the prior definition of harm “interfered with private property rights” and “turned routine activity into a regulatory trap.”

Environmental groups called the decision a disaster, saying it puts protected species on a path to extinction.

The move seems especially poised to hit California, the most biodiverse state in the country, where more than 6,700 species are spread across mountains, forests, deserts and oceans. Of the roughly 2,300 species protected by the Endangered Species Act, nearly 300 are found in California.

These species include amphibians such as tiger salamanders and Yosemite toads; birds such as California condors and northern spotted owls; fish such as Little Kern golden trout and Santa Ana suckers; insects such as Franklin’s bumble bees and Mission blue butterflies; mammals such as gray wolves and Santa Catalina Island foxes; and reptiles such as desert tortoises and green sea turtles.

The Endangered Species Act is widely credited with saving the California condor, which almost went extinct in the 1980s due to several factors, including habitat destruction. Thanks to a recovery program under the act, the condor population has since soared to several hundred. But under the new law, the logging and human development that led to their near demise is now allowed.

A handful of California species recoveries have been championed as success stories under the Endangered Species Act, including southern sea otters, peregrine falcons, humpback whales, bald eagles and green sea turtles.

According to a report from the Center for Biological Diversity, the El Segundo blue butterfly lost 90% of its oceanside habitat due to the construction of LAX and beachfront housing developments. The population dwindled to about 1,000 butterflies in the 1970s, when it was named an endangered species. Now, the population has climbed above 120,000.

In California, the rollback could pave the way for more farming, mining, logging and drilling in areas that were once forbidden due to the potential for wildlife habitat destruction. A report from Earthjustice estimates that expanded oil drilling in California could threaten five marine species including humpback whales, sea otters, leatherback sea turtles, marbled murrelets and wild salmon.

Several environmental groups are planning legal challenges to the ruling.

“For the first time ever, a presidential administration now claims that species protected by the Endangered Species Act shouldn’t be safe from habitat modification that destroys where they live, raise their young, or search for food,” Kristen Boyles, attorney for the environmental nonprofit Earthjustice, said in a statement. “Let’s be clear: there is no support for the Trump administration’s rule — no scientific support, no legal support, no public support. We will see the Trump administration in court.”

Ben Greuel, wildlife campaign manager at the Sierra Club, called the decision “an unlawful attempt to open the door for corporate polluters to degrade vitally important habitats.”

“For more than four decades, the definition of ‘harm’ recognized a simple truth: if you destroy the places wildlife need to survive, you are putting species on a path to extinction,” Greuel said in a statement.

It’s not the first time Trump has taken aim at California environmental regulation.

Earlier this year, Gov. Gavin Newsom, along with the governors of Washington and Oregon, submitted a formal opposition to the Trump administration’s plans to expand drilling off the Pacific Coast, with Newsom saying it leads to “dead wildlife.” In June, the Trump administration ordered a review of the California Coastal Commission, claiming the state’s “environmental extremism” obstructs spaceport development and offshore oil production.

A day before the Endangered Species Act decision, the Trump administration signed off on a controversial plan to use an old oil pipeline to pump water from the Mojave Desert into cities. Environmental groups said the plan threatens springs and local wildlife, since six pumps would need to be built in desert tortoise habitats.

A United States federal court has dismissed the seditious conspiracy cases against four members of the Proud Boys, the far-right group involved in the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

On Friday, Judge Timothy J Kelly, an appointee of President Donald Trump, granted the government’s motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be revived in future.

But Kelly made it clear that the defendants — Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl and Dominic Pezzola — had been “convicted of serious offences”.

He wrote in his seven-page ruling that his decision was ultimately rooted in the separation of government powers, not in the merits of the case.

“As the Court has said many times, the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021 was a perilous event. It was an attack on people, including police officers, many of whom were injured,” Kelly wrote.

“It was an attack on the Constitution’s mechanism to facilitate the peaceful transfer of power from one president to the next,” he added.

Inside the January 6 riot

Friday’s ruling was yet another milestone in Trump’s efforts to end the prosecution of January 6 rioters.

The attack on the Capitol came shortly after Trump lost his bid for re-election in 2020 to Democrat Joe Biden. But in the aftermath of his loss, Trump spread false claims that the election had been rigged.

January 6, 2021, was the day Congress was scheduled to certify the Electoral College votes, confirming Trump’s defeat.

His vice president at the time, Mike Pence, held a ceremonial role overseeing the certification that day. But behind the scenes, Trump reportedly pressured Pence to reject the results of the election.

At midday, Trump held a “Save America” rally in front of the White House, repeating to his supporters that he had won “by a landslide”.

“If Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election,” Trump said at one point. At another, he said, “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

Afterwards, some of his supporters marched to the Capitol and broke into the building, attacking police officers and causing millions of dollars worth of damage. Participants signalled their aim was to stop the vote certification, with some chanting, “Hang Mike Pence.”

The attack proved to be deadly. One rioter was shot by police as she climbed through a broken window to enter the House Speaker’s Lobby. An officer died from a stroke the following day after being beaten. Others died by suicide after the attack. Members of Congress had to be led to safety.

Under the Biden administration, the Department of Justice opened criminal cases against nearly 1,600 people involved.

But Trump has long defended the rioters and called their prosecution a “national injustice”.

Trump himself faced two criminal indictments — one at state level, the other federal — over his alleged attempts to subvert the election results, though the charges were dropped upon his re-election in 2024.

Unravelling the prosecutions

Calling the January 6 prosecutions an example of government “weaponisation”, Trump had campaigned during the 2024 race on a promise to pardon the rioters.

He followed through with that pledge on the first day of his second term. On January 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order granting “a full, complete and unconditional pardon” to most of the defendants involved in the Capitol attack.

Trump also commuted the sentences of 14 people, including Nordean, Biggs, Rehl and Pezzola. Under his authority, the Department of Justice also proceeded to seek the dismissal of ongoing January 6 cases.

Judge Kelly cited that series of events in Friday’s ruling, though he appeared to express a measure of scepticism.

“No one should mistake the Court’s granting of the Government’s motion for its agreement with those decisions,” Kelly wrote.

In May 2023, a jury in Washington, DC, found Nordean, Biggs and Rehl guilty of charges including seditious conspiracy, alongside Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio.

Pezzola, meanwhile, was found not guilty of seditious conspiracy, but he was convicted of several felonies, including assaulting a police officer. At sentencing, the four men received prison terms ranging from 10 to 18 years, with Pezzola receiving the lightest sentence of the group.

But in weighing the future of the case against the four men, Judge Kelly explained that it was “hard to see” any other course forward other than dismissal.

The court system, Kelly explained, cannot “compel” the executive branch to pursue prosecutions. Trump’s executive order had also required the Department of Justice to seek the case’s dismissal.

“The Court will grant the motion because there are no grounds for it to withhold leave for the Government to dismiss the case with prejudice,” Kelly concluded.

But he ended his decision with a word of warning about protecting the future of American democracy from further attacks.

“Moving forward, if this Nation’s experiment in self-government is to last another 250 years, the American people — no matter their partisan preferences — will have to act together to preserve, protect and defend that miracle through our constitutional framework,” Kelly wrote.

Politician Ann Widdecombe was found dead at her home with serious injuries, with police confirming a murder investigation is underway.

Politicians from across the political spectrum have paid tribute to the former Conservative MP turned Reform UK spokesperson, expressing shock and sadness over her death.

The builder got up every morning long before dawn, left home to pick up his construction crew and then headed out to work on yet another house somewhere across the sprawl of Houston.

Fourteen hours later, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo would return to the wife he’d met as a teenager in Mexico and the modest house he’d built for his family on the city’s east side.

It’s what he’d done for decades, according to Ronaldo Salgado, his oldest son. He said his father built hundreds of houses over 35 years, creating a life for his family and watching as his three sons headed off to college.

On Tuesday, a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer fatally shot Salgado Araujo, 52, after he was pursued by federal agents driving unmarked vehicles while he was taking his crew to their latest job site. The shooting has outraged Houston leaders and renewed public scrutiny over ICE and Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Four Democratic members of Congress who represent the Houston area said at a vigil Saturday that they would push for an independent investigation into the shooting.

“We are never going to forget that his blood is on Donald Trump’s hands,” Rep. Christian Menefee said. “We are not at war. Lorenzo Salgado Araujo was not a casualty. He was a human being who was murdered by our government.”

ICE was looking for someone else

Federal agents were looking for someone else when they tried to stop Salgado Araujo’s white van, Garcia said, citing a briefing she received from ICE’s acting director. The Department of Homeland Security has said an ICE officer fired at the van in self-defense after Salgado Araujo, whom officials described as an “illegal alien,” rammed an ICE vehicle. They have provided no evidence.

After some previous shootings by federal immigration agents, Homeland Security authorities have given accounts that were contradicted by video evidence. No video showing the moment of the shooting this time has emerged, and the agents at the scene were not wearing body cameras.

The three men that Salgado Araujo was driving said he was shot through a passenger window and that the ICE officer who fired was not in front of the van or even in danger, a lawyer who has spoken with them said Friday.

His family has also disputed the account from ICE. They said lawyers, who were helping him apply for a work permit, had explained how he should behave if immigration agents stopped him. Salgado Araujo was close to obtaining legal status when he was killed, they said.

“He knew what to do,” Ronaldo Salgado told reporters this week. “He knew not to sign anything. He knew that the first phone call he should make should be either to myself or to my mom. So that way we can get the process started of getting him out.”

He believes his father may have been scared that he was being followed by unmarked vehicles, worried someone was planning to steal his van or his tools.

The shooting in the largely Latino neighborhood is at least the eighth death connected to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement campaign.

A kind, present husband and father

Salgado Araujo entered the U.S. more than 30 years ago, settling in Houston with his wife where they raised their three children.

Education was a constant focus in the house, said Ronaldo Salgado, who is now a teacher. One of his brothers is an engineer. The other is in college studying engineering.

Several childhood friends of Salgado recalled that his father was kind and soft-spoken, always inquiring after a long workday about his wife’s day and how his sons’ friends were doing.

“We didn’t really see him until the end of the day when he came home to have dinner, but that just shows how much of a hard worker he was,” said neighbor Jessica Alanis Magdaleno. “Everything they have now is thanks to the dedication to that.”

Josué Flores, a friend of Ronaldo Salgado since their freshman year of high school, said he first saw Lorenzo Salgado Araujo at his son’s football game.

“I think it speaks volumes of the kind of person that he was,” Flores said, recalling how Salgado Araujo showed up for his son even after an arduous day of work.

Salgado Araujo’s wife, a relative said, is “inconsolable.”

“She is very upset … angry, sad, disoriented,” Jose Torres Ramon, a nephew who lives in Mexico, told the Associated Press in a Facebook message.

Ronald Salgado, his oldest son, said at the Saturday vigil that he hoped he was making his father proud.

“I’ll keep fighting for him,” he said.

His brother Lorenzo Salgado Jr. said the shooting of his father was “a hard moment to be an American.”

“Even though my government, my federal government took away my father, we the people will bring justice,” he said. “We the people are America.”

After coming home in the evening, Salgado Araujo liked to listen to music on the porch and pet the family dog. His family has described him as a simple man of routine.

“He did not deserve to die,” Ronaldo Salgado said. “He dedicated his life in the United States to giving his family the American dream.”

Sullivan writes for the Associated Press. AP reporters Jack Brook in New Orleans, Valerie Gonzalez in McAllen, Texas, and Scott Bauer in Madison, Wis., contributed to this report.

With the passing of another government deadline for undocumented Afghans to leave, Pakistan has launched a new crackdown on thousands still living in the country.

In response to criticism, authorities say they are enforcing immigration laws and cite national security concerns.

Hundreds of thousands of Afghans have returned to a country they fled. The UN says they include undocumented migrants, refugees and Afghan citizen card holders.

The campaign has coincided with rising political tensions between Islamabad and Kabul.

But is politics involved in the rising tension between the neighbours? And how is Kabul dealing with the influx of returnees?

Presenter: Scott McLean

Guests:

Obaidullah Baheer – Adjunct lecturer at the American University of Afghanistan

Kamran Bokhari – Senior fellow with the Middle East Policy Council in Washington, DC

Zahid Mahmood – Pakistani defence analyst and former senior officer of the Pakistan Army

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice has subpoenaed New York Times journalists after they reported on security concerns involving the new, Qatari-gifted Air Force One, marking a dramatic escalation of President Trump’s campaign against the media that has drawn condemnation for eroding a fundamental freedom of American democracy.

The new jet, a present from the U.S. ally on which the administration spent $400 million to retrofit and upgrade, entered service this month. But Trump used an older model Air Force One jet to leave a NATO summit in Turkey and later referenced threats against him made by Iran.

The subpoenas seek to force the reporters to testify before a federal grand jury in Manhattan next week, the New York Times said, adding that federal agents delivered some subpoenas to the reporters at their homes.

They were issued after FBI Director Kash Patel and other Justice Department officials met at the White House on Friday to talk about the matter, according to a person familiar with the discussions who was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The journalists subpoenaed included Julian E. Barnes, Eric Lipton, Tyler Pager and Eric Schmitt, the Times reported.

“The appearance of federal law enforcement agents on the doorstep of news reporters should shock the conscience of any American who believes in the Constitution and the press freedom it protects,” David McCraw, a lawyer for the Times, said in a statement.

Bruce D. Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said Trump’s “war on the press is looking for another victim.”

He said in a statement that the subpoenas “break from long-standing Justice Department practice to protect the public interest and press independence by requiring prosecutors to only seek information from reporters as a last resort when all other avenues have been exhausted.”

The department said that “to be clear, reporters are not the targets, those leaking classified information are.”

Its statement said that “we value and appreciate the important role that the press plays in this country, but DOJ also plays an important role to make sure that the people entrusted with our nation’s secrets do what they’re supposed to do with that information, which means not sharing classified information.”

While recognizing “there may always be natural tension there,” the department said, “we are not going to ignore the law and stop investigating the people who work in the administration and think it’s OK to leak classified information impacting national security.”

Pattern of anti-press actions

Issuing subpoenas represents a further ramping up of Trump’s effort to threaten independent new organizations by leveraging the power of the federal government against them. It is also part of a systematic pattern by the Republican president to attempt to undermine press freedom in order to shield him from negative coverage.

Earlier this year, the Justice Department issued subpoenas seeking to compel testimony from reporters at the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. In both cases, the department later withdrew the subpoenas.

In January, FBI agents searched the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson, who has been covering Trump’s transformation of the federal government, as part of a leak investigation into a Pentagon contractor accused of taking home classified information.

Adam Steinbaugh, senior attorney for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said Friday’s subpoenas and the prospect of “hauling reporters before grand juries sends a chilling message to journalists and whistleblowers alike: Watch what you say, or expect a knock on the door.”

“These tactics are becoming more common,” Steinbaugh said in a statement. “That doesn’t make them normal.”

During his first term, Trump suggested that the press constituted an “enemy” of the American people. Since returning to the White House, he has waged an aggressive campaign against the media unlike any in modern U.S. history.

Trump’s attacks against news outlets and media figures he believes are overly critical of him has included filing lawsuits against outlets whose coverage he dislikes, threatening to revoke TV broadcast licenses and seeking to bend news organizations and social media companies to his will.

The Justice Department over the years has developed and revised internal policies governing how it will respond to news media leaks.

Though the department across presidential administrations has periodically seized the phone records of individual journalists in hopes of identifying sources for national security stories, it is extremely rare for the government to attempt to compel reporters to reveal their sources before a grand jury.

In April 2025, then-Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi rescinded a Biden administration policy that protected journalists from having their phone records secretly seized during leak investigations — a practice long decried by news organizations and press freedom groups.

Doing so again gave prosecutors the authority to use subpoenas, court orders and search warrants to hunt for government officials who make “unauthorized disclosures” to journalists.

A memo Bondi issued said members of the press are “presumptively entitled to advance notice of such investigative activities,” and subpoenas are to be “narrowly drawn.” Warrants must also include “protocols designed to limit the scope of intrusion into potentially protected materials or newsgathering activities,” the memo stated.

Security issues with new Air Force One

The president flew the new Air Force One to Turkey during this week’s visit. But he departed Wednesday on one of the older-model Air Force One jets for Mildenhall, a Royal Air Force base in Suffolk, England.

The newer plane also flew to Mildenhall. Trump then switched to that plane for the flight home to Joint Base Andrews in Maryland.

The abrupt swap came as a shaky ceasefire with Iran had collapsed, with the U.S. launching airstrikes on Iran and Tehran attacking three gulf Arab states. Iran and Turkey share a border, sparking speculation that the new jet lacked certain sophisticated security and countermeasure systems.

The New York Times, citing anonymous sources, reported that the switch had come at the urging of the Secret Service, and that the newer plane lacked some of the advanced security features of the older aircraft, including antimissile capabilities.

Trump denied any security concerns, posting on social media that the stop in Mildenhall was so that service members there could view the new jet. During the flight, Trump denied to the reporters accompanying him that security concerns involving Iran were a factor in flying two planes home.

Still, asked if he was aware of any credible threats against Air Force One by Iran, Trump responded, “I have a threat all the time. I’m No. 1 on their list.”

The White House did not answer messages seeking comment about the subpoenas of the Times journalists.

Weissert and Khalil write for the Associated Press. AP writers Eric Tucker, Alanna Durkin Richer, Michelle L. Price and Konstantin Toropin contributed to this report.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has issued subpoenas against journalists from The New York Times, in what advocates say is an escalating attack on the free press.

Late on Friday, the Times reported that at least four of its reporters have received subpoenas, some delivered to their homes by federal agents.

Those subpoenas compel them to testify before a grand jury in Manhattan on Wednesday.

“The appearance of federal law enforcement agents on the doorstep of news reporters should shock the conscience of any American who believes in the Constitution and the press freedom it protects,” said David McCraw, the newspaper’s lawyer, in a statement quoted by the Times.

News of the subpoenas prompted outcry from leading news groups including the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), which demanded their withdrawal.

“The subpoenas are an extraordinary escalation in President Trump’s efforts to threaten and intimidate independent news organizations, and have a chilling effect on the work of journalists across the country,” said CPJ’s chief executive officer Jodie Ginsberg.

The subpoenas were authorised by a top official in Trump’s Department of Justice: Jay Clayton, the US attorney for the Southern District of New York.

Clayton is in line to succeed Bill Pulte as the director of national intelligence, a cabinet-level role Pulte holds on an interim basis. The Senate is set to begin hearings on Clayton’s confirmation next week.

Scrutiny on NATO travel coverage

At issue is The New York Times coverage of Trump’s return flight from the 2026 NATO summit in Ankara, Turkiye, this week.

While Trump flew to Europe on his new Air Force One, a jet gifted by Qatar and retrofitted by the US military, he left on the old Air Force One.

Trump claimed the switch was made to allow the new jet to visit RAF Mildenhall, an air force base in Suffolk, England, that supports US military operations.

He framed it as an opportunity to allow military members to tour the aircraft.

“It’s going to go to a couple of bases,” Trump said at the time, “so the soldiers can see it because it’s truly magnificent.”

But at the same July 8 news conference, Trump referenced concerns about his safety.

When asked about the airline switch by a reporter from The New York Post, Trump responded, “You know, the life of a president is very dangerous.” He proceeded to add that he’s “number one on the kill list for Iran”.

That same day, The New York Times reported swapped his new presidential jet for his old one because of security concerns, citing anonymous sources. The change reportedly came at the urging of the Secret Service.

Then, the next day, the Times expanded its coverage with a follow-up report, indicating that the new Air Force One lacked the security capabilities of the old jet.

The article anonymously cited two former Air Force officials as saying there would not have been enough time to make the necessary upgrades before the Ankara flight.

It is unclear what modifications have already been made, but experts have estimated that the updates could cost up to $1bn.

Friday’s subpoenas targeted four of the journalists involved in the Times’s reporting on the subject: Eric Schmitt, Tyler Pager, Eric Lipton and Julian E Barnes.

According to the Times, before the subpoenas were issued, the newspaper was contacted by a senior official from the FBI.

That person, who was unnamed, asked the newspaper to hold off on its reporting about Air Force One, citing national security. The FBI official also requested information on the Times’s anonymous sources.

The newspaper, however, declined to provide such information, in line with standard journalistic practice.

A testy relationship with journalists

The subpoenas mark the latest clash between the Trump administration and US media outlets that report on its activities.

Trump himself has a long-running feud with the Times. In September, he sued the newspaper for $15bn in damages, alleging it had defamed him and attempted to “sabotage” his candidacy in the 2024 presidential election, which he won.

After his initial complaint was thrown out as “improper”, Trump refiled it in October.

The Times, for its part, has sued the Department of Defence under Trump over its attempts to impose media restrictions on journalists.

Just this week, the Times also filed a countersuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, after it alleged the newspaper had discriminated against a white, male employee for failing to give him a promotion.

The Times has described the effort as an attempt to muffle the press, in violation of the free-speech protections enshrined in the US Constitution’s First Amendment.

The Times is not the only newspaper to face legal backlash from the Trump administration. In December, Trump launched a $10bn lawsuit against the BBC, arguing that a documentary it aired misrepresented his speech before the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Trump is also seeking $10bn from The Wall Street Journal over its reporting on a birthday message he allegedly sent to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. After that suit was thrown out, Trump refiled it in May.

The Trump administration has also taken actions against individual journalists.

In January, for instance, the FBI executed a raid on the house of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson, who covered the Trump administration’s efforts to scale back the federal workforce.

The raid came as part of an investigation into a government contractor accused of leaking information to the news media, but at least two judges have barred the Trump administration from using the information it seized from Natanson.

The Trump administration has denied seeking to erode the freedom of the press, instead citing national security needs.

But McCraw, the Times lawyer, argued that, with the latest subpoenas, the White House was trying to restrict “the American public’s right to know how their government is operating”.

“This brazen act should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs,” he said.

Top Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, also weighed in on the subpoenas, using them to slam Trump as corrupt.

“Donald Trump is one of the weakest, most thin-skinned individuals the world has ever seen,” Schumer wrote on social media.

“Reporters have the right and duty to report the truth. It’s not their fault his foreign-gifted plane is a national security threat. This subpoena is a gross overreach and a disgusting misuse of federal law enforcement resources that should alarm every American.”

Private militias, skinheads, neo-Nazis, homophobes, gun zealots, xenophobes, jingoists, anti-Semites and the whole sorry lot who advocate violence against minorities–which party will they vote for in this year’s national elections? In spite of sanctimonious and pious distancing from these groups, Republican candidates will reap their overwhelming support.

A powerful magnetism has existed between extremist right-wing groups in America and the Republican Party for more than six decades, since the days of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. During the Great Depression, fringe leaders included William Dudley Pelley and his brigades of anti-Semitic Silver Shirts, radio preacher Father Charles Coughlin and his Christian Front, Charles Lindbergh and the America First Committee, Fritz Kuhn and the German-American Bund. In the early 1950s, Sen. Joe McCarthy initiated witch-hunting that revived the dormant bigotries of the 1930s and sustained the GOP majorities in Congress. In the 1960s, the John Birch Society, protagonists of the antifluoridation hysteria and other extreme right-wing groups stepped forward to buttress Barry Goldwater’s candidacy. Anita Bryant’s Save Our Children (from homosexuals) and Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority followed on their heels in the 1970s.

Now, a host of other organizations led by the Christian Coalition have replaced communists with homosexuals as the leading enemy of “all we hold dear” and as a potent fund-raising tool.

The naked hatreds of the past have become more sophisticated in the last three decades, but they are still alive behind the rhetoric of religious leaders, conservative think tanks and radio commentators.

The Republican Party has been the target of insurgency by such groups and, in times of political difficulty, has even courted them. Their increasing influence over the years has discouraged and driven out many in the GOP with more moderate stances. Some, including me, never took too seriously the party’s complicity in the ascent of the extremists. Over the years, the Republican Party has fostered such groups, often covertly, sometimes even publicly denouncing them in a mutually understood act of pragmatic politics.

This dynamic has spawned the continuing battle in the GOP between the forces of intolerance, isolationism and extremism and the “moderate” defenders of inclusivity. Pat Buchanan and Bob Dole are now re-creating this decades-old pantomime.

This battle was brought into the living rooms of America with the TV coverage of the 1992 Republican convention in Houston. It was there that Buchanan, as spokesman for the extremists, urged delegates to choose sides in a “cultural” and “religious war” to change the very definition of America. His speech, while met by an enthusiastic throng at the convention, triggered concern in much of the viewing audience. The GOP’s long flirtation with its radical-right fringe, an open secret in the sanctums of Republican decision makers, became the subject of debate across the nation.

Two years later, a somewhat softened rhetoric was successful in sweeping the GOP into power by emphasizing Americans’ deep disaffection with the status quo. Interpreting the 1994 election results as a mandate, both the GOP right and the lunatic fringe now demand more influence in the party and the leadership seems happy to oblige.

This struggle for power has helped polarize American politics, exacerbating religious antipathies, stigmatizing minorities and heightening mistrust between citizen and government. The present danger of extremism to American democracy proves that the United States is not immune to the life-and-death evil of bigotry and intolerance that has afflicted other nations.

The Republican Party’s much touted “big tent” has provided a haven for bigotry for more than six decades; the party has never dared break the ties between itself and the intolerant right. As the extremists become stronger, the moderates become weaker. It is too late.

Recently, Buchanan lashed out at the GOP’s “lords and barons” and called on his followers to hoist their “pitchforks” to oust them from the party. For those of us who are neither lords and barons nor pitchfork brandishers, but who want a country better for all of us tomorrow than it is today, the “big tent” is one that we’ve been forced to abandon by those who fill it now.

WASHINGTON — Shortly before President Trump ended a ceasefire with Iran this week, Israeli officials presented his team with intelligence indicating Tehran was hatching new plots to kill him.

It was not the first such warning. U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies have tracked evidence for years of Iranian efforts to target the president, with signals only increasing since the start of the war.

Their desire to target Trump and his top aides began six years ago, just outside Baghdad International Airport, when the president ordered a drone strike that killed Iran’s most powerful general. The assassination of Qassem Suleimani brought the two countries to the brink of war.

Yet even as full-scale war was averted, top Iranian officials vowed revenge for the strike, authorizing attempts on the lives not just of the president, but of his secretary of State and national security advisor, among others, even after they had left office.

Now, calls for revenge have reached a sharper pitch in Tehran, after a joint U.S.-Israeli operation killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, at the start of the war in February.

At Khamenei’s funeral ceremonies this week, red flags of vengeance flew throughout the capital as protesters explicitly called on their government to “kill Trump.” His son, Mojtaba, the new supreme leader, was absent from the commemorations, fearing assassination himself.

Mourners hold an anti-President Trump banner at the Imam Khomeini Grand Mosque during mass funeral prayers for Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his family in Tehran on Sunday.

(Morteza Nikoubazl / NurPhoto via Getty Images)

The prospect of foreign assassination plots targeting U.S. leaders puts the United States in dangerous new territory, where its embrace of political killings could ultimately place its own officials at unprecedented risk. And experts fear the existential threat of assassination has pushed peace further out of reach: When both sides believe their survival is at stake, the trust required for diplomacy becomes far harder to achieve.

Israeli news organizations have reported that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, cited Iranian attempts to kill Trump in recent years as part of his case to go to war in the first place.

A U.S. official told The Times that a range of serious threats exist against the president, including from Iran, but that Israel’s intelligence pointed to a more specific plot. The official did not provide further details. Israeli officials did not respond to requests for comment.

Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, has said in recent months that the government sees vengeance against U.S. officials as “its legitimate duty and right,” and “will fulfill this great responsibility and duty with all its might.”

“The Suleimani killing accelerated a lifting of restraints on foreign assassinations — and the taboo on targeting and killing foreign leaders, with U.S. military assets, has been more or less lifted,” said Matt Dallek, a political professor at George Washington University.

“If the United States sets the example of how to conduct international relations, and it is using assassination of foreign leaders as a political weapon, it’s only logical that other countries will be more inclined to also engage in assassinations,” Dallek added. “It does seem likely that Trump will have a bigger target on his back.”

Returning from a NATO summit in Turkey on Wednesday, Trump was forced to switch back to an old model of Air Force One — equipped with specialized defensive technologies — from a new plane given as a gift by Qatar, after the Secret Service warned of potential threats to the aircraft from Iran.

“They want to take out the U.S. leader — me,” Trump told reporters aboard the plane. “I’m on whatever list. I saw this morning I’m on every single one of their lists. And so far, I guess I’ve been a bit lucky, but maybe that doesn’t last very long.”

The threat has remained on his mind in the days since. In an interview with the New York Post, Trump told the reporter, “I hope you’ll miss me,” adding that he has “been on their list for a long time.” And in a subsequent social media post Friday night, he warned of a catastrophic response he instructed the administration to pursue in the event Tehran succeeds.

“1000 Missiles are Locked and Loaded and aimed at the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he wrote, “with thousands of more to immediately follow, should the Iranian Government act on its threat, pronounced in many corners of the Globe, to assassinate, or attempt to assassinate, the sitting President of the United States of America, in this case, ME!”

The United States had a decades-old prohibition against assassinating foreign leaders before Trump’s presidency, codified in an executive order signed by President Ford in 1976 over concerns of a CIA plot to kill Fidel Castro.

The policy was only strengthened further by subsequent administrations, fearing a new international standard for targeted killings could result in unintended consequences in the halls of Washington.

Other administrations have been accused of targeting foreign leaders before. Under the Obama administration, an international coalition targeting the Libyan regime of Moammar Kadafi during the country’s 2011 civil war struck his fleeing convoy, leading to his capture and killing by rebel fighters.

But experts say Trump’s explicit targeting of Suleimani and Khamenei — and his public celebration of their deaths — marks a new paradigm.

“Through words and actions, President Trump has done more to normalize political violence than any other U.S. president, certainly in modern times,” said Robert Pape, a professor at the University of Chicago and author of “Our Own Worst Enemies: America in the Age of Violent Populism.”

“On the international front alone, the president routinely brags about killing Iranian leaders and seizing the leader of Venezuela, among others,” he added, “to the point that assassination is becoming the new normal in international politics.”

Damascus, Syria – For many Syrians, the decades of rule by the al-Assad family – Hafez al-Assad from 1971 to 2000, then his son Bashar from 2000 to 2024 – were filled with oppression from the state and eventually more than a decade of civil war.

But one of the most important legacies has been an economic one – the result of the sanctions imposed by a number of countries, led by the United States, that effectively froze Syria out of the international economic system.

Despite the fall of Bashar al-Assad after rebel groups defeated him in December 2024, many of the sanctions, including a “state sponsor of terrorism” designation, have remained.

The designation has impeded Syria’s rejoining of the international community, while sanctions have impacted Syrians. Sending money back home from abroad often requires routing transfers through neighbouring countries, such as Lebanon or Turkiye, while access to some websites and online services, including Netflix and Slack, may require a virtual private network.

But there has been a positive reaction to the announcement on Wednesday by US President Donald Trump that his administration will remove Syria from the state sponsor of terrorism list.

The lifting of previous US sanctions, such as those related to the Caesar Act, has not transformed the Syrian economy, but it is hoped that those linked to the “state sponsor of terrorism” listing will allow the country to finally flourish.

“God willing, it will improve things,” said Ihab, a pastry shop owner in central Damascus.

Reintegration

US sanctions are thought to have been a huge barrier to foreign investors since the rule of Bashar al-Assad.

The World Bank said that since 2011, sanctions have led to a major collapse in exports and an increase in the trade deficit.

After the fall of the al-Assad government, interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s administration has identified the removal of all international and US sanctions as the key to reinvigorating the economy.

Al-Sharaa, the former head of the al-Qaeda-aligned Nusra Front, was himself sanctioned by the United Nations and was wanted as a “terrorist” by the US. But he has made efforts to shed those associations and build trust internationally, including by pledging to play a role in the fight against ISIL (ISIS).

His efforts have largely been successful, with the European Union and the US removing many of the sanctions on Syria and on al-Sharaa himself. The sanctions linked to the US’s “state sponsor of terrorism” list are among the few to remain.

The first “state sponsor of terrorism” designation on Syria was during Hafez al-Assad’s rule in 1979, due to the government’s support for Palestinian armed groups.

Additional sanctions were imposed on the state and individuals associated with the al-Assad regime, due to their systematic use of torture and chemical weapons.

Some rebel groups were also sanctioned due to their links to al-Qaeda and other banned organisations.

Al-Sharaa ended al-Nusra Front’s affiliation with al-Qaeda in 2016 and effectively eschewed the group’s ideology.

He also moved to establish a broader, national armed coalition dedicated to fighting the Assad government, later becoming Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

In May 2025, around the time Trump met al-Sharaa in Riyadh, the US president promised to remove many of the sanctions on the Syrian government. But the expected removal from the “state sponsor of terrorism” list will be particularly welcome as it gets rid of one of the main barriers for international banks and companies.

“This is extremely significant because it’s the last major impediment to international economic and political engagement with Syria and with the al-Sharaa administration, and in terms of reintegrating Syria back into the international order and indeed the international economic and political system,” Rob Geist Pinfold, a lecturer on security studies at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera.

Struggling economy

However, he is careful to add that the removal of the designation does not mean a flood of investment will instantly start pouring into Syria.

“This is a big hurdle that’s been overcome, but it doesn’t mean that there’s no more hurdles to investment or engagement with Syria.”

He added that international actors may be concerned about the government’s control and ability to confront remnants from the al-Assad regime, a potential ISIL (ISIS) comeback, bureaucratic impediments and corruption.

Some Syrians were also sceptical that the designation change would lead to instant results.

“This needs a long breath,” said a minimarket owner in Damascus, who refused to give his name. “You can’t sleep and wake up and expect change.”

He referred to ongoing economic problems and rising costs, as well as a recent fuel shortage.

“There’s no economy, and there’s no investment.”

Other Syrians were more hopeful that the economy, and other aspects of daily life, would improve. Still, there is a recognition that a little more patience is needed.

For some, that patience has worn out, such as the minimarket owner. Others, however, are biding their time.

At a juice stall in central Damascus, Zaher counted money received from a customer.

“I’m on the street with my cart and nobody is bothering me,” he said. “Electricity is getting better, but nothing gets better after just one day.”

“It took God Almighty six days to create Earth,” the 50-year-old said. “These things take time.”

Relations begin to thaw as both countries reinstate ambassadors and reopen airspace closed to each other since April 2025.

More than a year after a diplomatic fallout, relations between Algeria and Mali are beginning to thaw, with both countries reinstating their ambassadors and reopening their airspace to one another.

Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune announced on Saturday that the country’s ambassador would return to Mali, a day after Algiers fully reopened its airspace to civilian and military aircraft travelling to and from its southern neighbour.

Issa Ousmane Coulibaly, spokesperson for Mali’s military government, confirmed in a statement that Bamako had taken reciprocal measures.

Relations between the two African nations deteriorated in April last year after Algeria said it had shot down a Malian surveillance drone for violating its airspace. Bamako disputes this, saying the drone was downed within its own borders.

The fallout between Algeria and Mali has jeopardised security in the Sahel region. Mali is a member of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), along with Burkina Faso and Niger. Both Ouagadougou and Niamey also withdrew their ambassadors to Algeria in April last year in solidarity with their ally.

The AES has experienced a surge in attacks by armed groups linked to the ISIL (ISIS) group and al-Qaeda in recent years. Many analysts argue that such groups were able to establish a foothold in the Sahel partly because of the NATO-backed overthrow of longtime Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.

The ousting of Gaddafi left a power vacuum that has been exploited by armed groups. Vast stockpiles of weapons belonging to forces loyal to him were looted and are believed to have been used by those groups.

Algeria has previously mediated peace talks between the Malian government and Tuareg separatist rebels waging an armed rebellion there.

However, last year’s diplomatic fallout led Algiers to step back from its role as mediator, raising concerns about Mali’s security and territorial integrity while also posing a threat to Algeria’s own internal security.

This April, Algerian Foreign Minister Ahmed Attaf reaffirmed Algiers’s support for Mali’s territorial integrity, rejecting what he described as all forms of “terrorism”.

The L.A. Zoo’s elephants are now in Tulsa, and the zoo’s longtime nonprofit partner is now in bankruptcy court.

The litany of woes at the L.A. Zoo grew longer last month as the city’s nonprofit partner, the Greater Los Angeles Zoological Association, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, citing “incessant litigation” from the city of Los Angeles as the cause.

The city sued GLAZA — its partner for more than half a century — in 2024 over a $50 million endowment that each side argued was theirs to steward.

The city won a preliminary injunction in Los Angeles Superior Court that barred GLAZA from keeping the money when its contract with the zoo ended last year. Following the split and lawsuit, GLAZA dwindled in size from 42 full-time employees to just four part-time employees.

Now GLAZA says it owes its creditors, including more than $300,000 that it needs to pay a law firm that has represented the nonprofit in its legal battle with the city.

“The City has designated an army of eight attorneys to overwhelm GLAZA with endless discovery, depositions, and court filings all to run up GLAZA’s legal fees,” the nonprofit said in a statement shared with The Times. “As a result, GLAZA has been left with no options other than to seek protection from the bankruptcy court to ensure the survival of GLAZA and the protection of its donors.”

Following its separation from the city, GLAZA executives hope the nonprofit can work in the animal conservation efforts in Southern California.

On July 1, the City Council approved $250,000 in outside lawyers related to the bankruptcy case.

The zoo is facing headwinds as membership has declined precipitously and facilities have deteriorated, according to an Los Angeles County civil grand jury report.

The city attorney’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment on GLAZA’s bankruptcy.

Pratt’s new frontier

Former mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt was far from Los Angeles as he took a meeting with President Trump in Washington, D.C., a few days ago.

Pratt, who came up short of the Nov. 2 runoff by a few percentage points, met with the president in the Oval Office, posting a photo of the rendezvous to social media Tuesday.

“I will never stop fighting for my community,” he wrote.

Pratt paired the visit with an announcement of a new media endeavor he plans to launch called “WAR.” He said the foundation will fight against political corruption, advocate for transparency in government and “restore common sense.”

The website for the foundation doesn’t have additional details, just a link to contribute and a link to a website selling Pratt merch.

The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Pratt also posted a 9-minute video Wednesday calling out California’s election system, claiming that the results of the June 2 primary were skewed by fraud.

Representatives for Pratt’s campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Phoning it in

After the flag salute and brief comments, L.A. City Council meetings kick off with a public comment period, during which crusading citizens often let loose on city officials as the council members quietly listen, leave the room or chat among themselves.

It’s not always L.A.’s finest hour, as certain commenters often resort to slurs and ad hominem attacks about the council members’ race, ethnicity and even physical appearance.

On July 1, public comment expanded as new state law, SB 707, went into effect, requiring the council to take telephonic public comment.

The council also had to verbally state the amendments they make to motions due to the new law, Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson noted. Historically, the council has affixed amendments to a bulletin board in council chambers.

After frequent speaker Armando Herman used the N-word at the July 1 meeting, Harris-Dawson noted that the state legislature had done nothing about offensive comments at public meetings.

“Our friends in the state legislature made the decision to require us to have telephonic public comment. They did nothing, zero, about what we just heard. Since they want to intervene in our meetings, I’d call on them to do something about what they just heard,” he said.

The council did ban commenters from using the N-word and C-word last year. Speakers who use those words receive a warning and are booted from the meeting if they do it again.

Harris-Dawson said the new state law was “problematic” and noted another issue.

“We can’t verify if calls are bots or foreign agents, which poses a security risk,” he said in a statement to The Times.

State of play

— BOYLE-ING OVER: Mayor Karen Bass, Councilmember Ysabel Jurado and County Supervisor Hilda Solis were roundly booed and heckled by Boyle Heights residents during a town hall Thursday about the Boyle Heights fire. The three officials struggled to speak over the irate audience.

— SOLAR FLARE: Before the Boyle Heights warehouse fire, Lineage representatives lobbied City Hall over the rooftop solar array. The company says it was seeking a safer alternative to rapid shutdown devices.

— FISCAL EDUCATION: The Los Angeles Unified School District is facing “severe” indications it could be insolvent as soon as next year and has 45 days to fix its budget or risk an outside takeover. The Los Angeles County Office of Education has projected a $231 million cash shortfall by 2027.

— HIT THE STREETS: The LAPD is considering shutting down its police academy for part of 2028 to allow hundreds of officers to hit the streets for the Olympics, according to department sources. The move could lead to a drop in police hiring.

— LEGEND GONE: Billy G. Mills, one of the first Black men elected to L.A.’s City Council, died June 27. Mills was a civil rights leader before being elected to the legislative body in 1963, the same year Tom Bradley was elected to be a council member.

— IT TAKES A VILLAGE: Billionaire developer Rick Caruso’s Palisades Village will reopen in August after more than $100 million in renovations following the January 2025 wildfire.

— EVICTION BENEDICTION: Thousands of formerly homeless people whose housing subsidies will expire in December are no longer at risk of eviction, local housing officials announced Thursday. An infusion of new funds approved by Congress this year and a waiver of eligibility procedures have staved off a potential crisis that would have left 4,200 back on the street.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program had no operations this week.
• On the docket next week: The City Council remains on recess until Aug. 4.

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.

July 10 (UPI) — A bipartisan group of senators on Friday reached an agreement with the Trump administration on a long-stalled effort to sanction buyers of Russian energy resources.

First introduced in 2025, the Sanctioning Russia Act would have imposed 500% tariffs on countries purchasing petroleum and natural gas from Russia.

But the legislation — spearheaded by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. — has repeatedly failed to pass muster.

The senators now believe they finally have a version of the bill that could be approved in both chambers and signed into law by the president.

“As Russia intensifies its slaughter of civilians, it is imperative that the legislative and executive branches work together to create tools to exact a heavy price on those who buy Russian oil and natural gas, fueling the Putin war machine,” the senators said in a statement.

Senate Armed Services Chairman Roger Wicker, R-M.S., and Senate Foreign Relations Ranking Member Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., also signed into the statement.

The senators did not provide details on the updated text of the legislation.

Speaking to reporters in Kyiv on Friday, however, Graham said he’s “never been more optimistic than I am today that we have the formula to end this war.”

He added he hopes the sanctions will “help Ukraine be more lethal [and] let those supporting Russia to know it’s going to be a price to be paid if you keep doing it,” Ukrinform reported.

Reporting from Sacramento — California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday pardoned seven former felons, including two Cambodian refugees the Trump administration wants to deport, in his first acts of clemency since the Democrat took office in January.

Newsom adopted a policy of his predecessor, former Gov. Jerry Brown, to use his state constitutional authority to issue pardons to shield immigrants targeted by federal immigration officials.

The pardons are an unmistakable rebuke to President Trump, whose fiery anti-immigrant rhetoric and demands for a giant wall along the U.S.-Mexico border have been central to the escalating political feud between Newsom and the White House.

Newsom took another shot at Trump just hours before announcing the pardons while speaking to members of the Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs Assn., a national nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy organization based in Sacramento. Newsom compared Trump to the anti-immigrant “demagogues” in San Francisco who championed the federal Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 — the nation’s first immigration ban on a specific group of people.

“I’m constantly trying to understand the moment we’re living in, the xenophobia, the nativism that marks the populism of this moment,” Newsom said. “Any of us who are students of history know that it’s not without precedent. It’s not novel. It’s hardly new. It’s very familiar.”

Trump restricts asylum further but faces legal and financial limits »

One of the Cambodian refugees pardoned by Newsom, Hay Hov of Oakland, was taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials in March. He has since been released.

Hov, a naturalized citizen who arrived in the United States in 1985 as a legal refugee when he was 6, was convicted of solicitation to commit murder and participation in a criminal street gang in 2001, when he was 21, according to the Newsom administration.

The other refugee, Kang Hen of San Francisco, like Hov, fled to the Bay Area with his family to escape the Cambodian genocide in the 1980s. Hen was convicted of grand theft in 1994 when he was 18. Hen, who has a 4-year-old son and a partner with kidney and heart problems, was taken into custody by ICE in April.

Both Hov and Hen are being processed for deportation to Cambodia. The pardons do not automatically end a deportation effort but remove the underlying criminal offense that triggered the federal removal actions.

The pardons come as the federal government continues a crackdown on the Cambodian community that began in 2017 when Trump forced Cambodia to agree to take back more deportees. Many of the Cambodians facing deportation were refugees from the brutal Khmer Rouge regime that killed thousands, and came to the United States legally as children. They have few memories or ties to the country. But because they committed crimes, even if convicted decades ago, they can be deported.

In the 2016 fiscal year, ICE reported removing 74 Cambodians. In 2017, 29 Cambodians were removed. In 2018, that number has jumped to 110 thus far.

ICE reported that, as of March 26, there were 1,784 non-detained Cambodians nationals in the United States with a final order of removal. Of those, 1,294 had criminal records.

All seven of the people Newsom pardoned on Monday had completed their prison sentences.

“By granting these pardons to people who are transforming their lives, the Governor is seeking to remove barriers to employment and public service, restore civic rights and responsibilities and prevent unjust collateral consequences of conviction,” the governor’s office said in a statement released Monday afternoon.

The other five people pardoned committed offenses that varied from selling or possessing drugs to forgery.

Brown granted a historic 1,332 pardons and 283 commutations during his last two terms as governor. However, the California Supreme Court rejected 10 grants of clemency issued by Brown, the first time the high court has blocked a pardon or commutation in more than 50 years.

The court did not issue an explanation for the action. Under the California Constitution, the governor cannot grant a pardon or commute a sentence of anyone convicted of two separate felonies without the approval of the state Supreme Court.

None of the people whom Newsom pardoned on Monday had multiple felonies, according to a governor’s office spokesperson.

phil.willon@latimes.com

Twitter: @philwillon