politics

How have US politicians reacted to the attack on Iran? | Donald Trump News

Figures from across the United States political spectrum have reacted to President Donald Trump’s joint attack with Israel on Iran, with Republicans largely expressing support and Democrats failing to offer a robust and unified response.

The attacks have reportedly killed at least 201 people, including more than 80 in a school in southern Iran, many of them children.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Iran has launched retaliatory strikes on Israel as well as US bases across the region, located in countries such as Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Kuwait, prompting fears that the conflict could spiral out of control and plunge the region into violence.

An initial YouGov poll conducted on February 28, after the strikes, suggested that 33 percent of US adults approved of the US attacking Iran, while 45 percent disapproved. Among Democrats and Independents, approval was just 10 percent and 21 percent, respectively, while 68 percent of Republicans expressed support.

Here’s how some of the US’s most prominent elected representatives and political figures have reacted.

President Donald Trump: “A short time ago, the United States military started major combat operations in Iran. Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people. Its menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our bases overseas, and our allies throughout the world.”

Republican House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson: “Today, Iran is facing the severe consequences of its evil actions. President Trump and the Administration have made every effort to pursue peaceful and diplomatic solutions in response to the Iranian regime’s sustained nuclear ambitions and development, terrorism, and the murder of Americans—and even their own people.”

Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune: “For years, Iran’s relentless nuclear ambitions, its expanded ballistic missile inventory, and its unwavering support for terror groups in the region have posed a clear and unacceptable threat to U.S. servicemembers, citizens in the region, and many of our allies. Despite the dogged efforts of the president and his administration, the Iranian regime has refused the diplomatic off-ramps that would peacefully resolve these national security concerns. I commend President Trump for taking action to thwart these threats.”

Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries: “Donald Trump failed to seek Congressional authorization prior to striking Iran. Instead, the president’s decision to abandon diplomacy and launch a massive military attack has left American troops vulnerable to Iran’s retaliatory actions. We pray for the safety of the men and women of the US military as they have been put into harm’s way in a dangerous theatre of war.”

Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer: “The administration has not provided Congress and the American people with critical details about the scope and immediacy of the threat. Confronting Iran’s malign regional activities, nuclear ambitions, and harsh oppression of the Iranian people demands American strength, resolve, regional coordination, and strategic clarity. Unfortunately, President Trump’s fitful cycles of lashing out and risking wider conflict are not a viable strategy.”

Democratic Representative Rashida Tlaib: “The American people do not want a war with Iran. Trump is acting on the violent fantasies of the American political elite and the Israeli apartheid government, ignoring the vast majority of Americans who say loud and clear: No More Wars.”

Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: “The American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions. This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic. Just this week, Iran and the United States were negotiating key measures that could have staved off war. The president walked away from these discussions and chose war instead.”

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani: “Today’s military strikes on Iran — carried out by the United States and Israel — mark a catastrophic escalation in an illegal war of aggression. Bombing cities. Killing civilians. Opening a new theatre of war.  Americans do not want this. They do not want another war in pursuit of regime change. They want relief from the affordability crisis. They want peace.”

Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders: “This Trump–Netanyahu war is unconstitutional and violates international law. It endangers the lives of U.S. troops and people across the region. We’ve lived through the lies of Vietnam and Iraq. No more endless wars. Congress must pass a War Powers Resolution immediately.”

Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen: “Trump is lying to the American people as he launches an illegal, regime-change war against Iran. This is endangering American lives and has already resulted in mass civilian casualties. This is not making us safer & only damages the US and our interests. The Senate must immediately vote on the War Powers Resolution to stop it.”

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham: “I fervently pray that the long-suffering people of Iran will have their oppression ended soon. I also fervently pray that we’re on the verge of a new dawn in the Middle East, with historic opportunity for lasting peace and prosperity. As to our allies in Israel, President Trump and all under his command, your bravery has set in motion the end of evil and darkness, and the beginning of the light. Well done.”

Democratic Representative Ro Khanna: “Trump has launched an illegal regime change war in Iran with American lives at risk. Congress must convene on Monday to vote on Representative Thomas Massie and my WPR [War Powers Resolution] to stop this. Every member of Congress should go on record this weekend on how they will vote.”

Republican Representative Thomas Massie: “I am opposed to this War. This is not “America First.” When Congress reconvenes, I will work with Representative Ro Khanna to force a Congressional vote on war with Iran. The Constitution requires a vote, and your Representative needs to be on record as opposing or supporting this war.”

Republican Senator Tom Cotton: “Iran’s missile program poses an imminent threat to the United States and our allies. I’m thankful President Trump is taking necessary action to protect our homeland.”

Democratic Senator Adam Schiff: “Trump is drawing our country into yet another foreign war that Americans don’t want and Congress has not authorised. The Iranian regime is a brutal and murderous dictatorship. But that does not give Trump the authority to unilaterally initiate a war of choice.”

Democratic Senator John Fetterman: “Operation Epic Fury. President Trump has been willing to do what’s right and necessary to produce real peace in the region. God bless the United States, our great military, and Israel.”

Former Democratic Presidential Nominee Kamala Harris: “Donald Trump is dragging the United States into a war the American people do not want. Let me be clear: I am opposed to a regime-change war in Iran, and our troops are being put in harm’s way for the sake of Trump’s war of choice.”

Former Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene: “We said “No More Foreign Wars, No More Regime Change!” We said it on rally stage after rally stage, speech after speech. Trump, Vance, basically the entire admin campaigned on it and promised to put America FIRST and Make America Great Again. My generation has been let down, abused, and used by our government our entire adult lives and our children’s generation is literally being abandoned.”

Source link

Trump bans U.S. government use of Anthropic AI products

Feb. 27 (UPI) — President Donald Trump announced he was directing all federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s artificial intelligence solutions even as it’s the only one being used in the military’s classified systems.

Trump lashed out on his social media network Truth Social Friday.

“THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL NEVER ALLOW A RADICAL LEFT, WOKE COMPANY TO DICTATE HOW OUR GREAT MILITARY FIGHTS AND WINS WARS! That decision belongs to YOUR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, and the tremendous leaders I appoint to run our Military,” he posted.

“The Leftwing nut jobs at Anthropic have made a DISASTROUS MISTAKE trying to STRONG-ARM the Department of War, and force them to obey their Terms of Service instead of our Constitution. Their selfishness is putting AMERICAN LIVES at risk, our Troops in danger, and our National Security in JEOPARDY,” he wrote.

But an unnamed source told Axios that despite the president’s post, Anthropic and the Pentagon were still negotiating ahead of the 5:01 p.m. deadline that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth set.

Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Emil Michael called Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei a liar on X. “It’s a shame that @DarioAmodei is a liar and has a God-complex. He wants nothing more than to try to personally control the U.S. Military and is OK putting our nation’s safety at risk,” he posted on X. “The @DeptofWar will ALWAYS adhere to the law but not bend to whims of any one for-profit tech company.”

Trump’s post continued: “Therefore, I am directing EVERY Federal Agency in the United States Government to IMMEDIATELY CEASE all use of Anthropic’s technology. We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again! There will be a Six Month phase out period for Agencies like the Department of War who are using Anthropic’s products, at various levels. Anthropic better get their act together, and be helpful during this phase out period, or I will use the Full Power of the Presidency to make them comply, with major civil and criminal consequences to follow,” the president said.

“WE will decide the fate of our Country – NOT some out-of-control, Radical Left AI company run by people who have no idea what the real World is all about.”

Anthropic’s AI model Claude was used to capture Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and could be used in Iran, if needed. Axios reported that defense officials praised Claude’s abilities and one admitted that it would be a “huge pain in the ass” to stop using it.

Anthropic faced a 5 p.m. EST deadline to comply with the Pentagon and allow it to use the company’s artificial intelligence system without restraint.

If Anthropic declines, Hegseth has said he will have the company labeled a “supply chain risk” or invoke the Defense Production Act to force it to agree.

In July, Anthropic signed a $200 million contract with the Pentagon, but Amodei insists that its AI model Claude not be used for mass surveillance in the United States or for autonomous weapons without human approval.

The Defense Department has said it doesn’t plan to use the tools in that manner, but that Anthropic doesn’t get to make those decisions. It says the U.S. government can use tools “for all lawful purposes.”

“Legality is the Pentagon’s responsibility as the end user,” a senior Pentagon official told NPR.

On Thursday, Amodei said the company wouldn’t agree to the Pentagon’s terms.

“I believe deeply in the existential importance of using AI to defend the United States and other democracies and to defeat our autocratic adversaries,” he wrote in a statement. “Anthropic understands that the Department of War, not private companies, makes military decisions. We have never raised objections to particular military operations nor attempted to limit use of our technology in an ad hoc manner.

“However, in a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values. Some uses are also simply outside the bounds of what today’s technology can safely and reliably do. Two such use cases [domestic surveillance and autonomous weapons] have never been included in our contracts with the Department of War, and we believe they should not be included now.”

Amodei acknowledged Hegseth’s threats to blacklist the company or force it to comply.

“These threats do not change our position: we cannot in good conscience accede to their request,” Amodei wrote. “But given the substantial value that Anthropic’s technology provides to our armed forces, we hope they reconsider.”

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said on X Thursday: “Here’s what we’re asking: Allow the Pentagon to use Anthropic’s model for all lawful purposes. This is a simple, common-sense request that will prevent Anthropic from jeopardizing critical military operations and potentially putting our warfighters at risk. We will not let ANY company dictate the terms regarding how we make operational decisions. They have until 5:01 p.m. ET on Friday to decide. Otherwise, we will terminate our partnership with Anthropic and deem them a supply chain risk for DOW [Department of Defense].”

Geoffrey Gertz, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told NPR that both measures the Pentagon threatened are unusual and contradictory.

“It’s this funny mix where they both are such a risk that they need to be kicked out of all systems, and so essential that they need to be compelled to be part of the system no matter what,” he said.

Lauren Kahn, a senior research analyst at Georgetown’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology, told CNBC: “There are no winners in this. It leaves a sour taste in everyone’s mouth.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., speaks during a press conference after the weekly Republican Senate caucus luncheon at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo

Source link

Lebanon warns of ‘adventures’ dragging it into U.S.-led war on Iran

Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, pictured at Lebanon’s presidential palace in Baabda in 2025, said that his country will not be dragged into “adventures” that threaten it’s security and unity. File Photo by Wael Hamzeh/EPA-EFE

Feb. 28 (UPI) — BERUIT — Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said on Saturday that he rejects any attempt to drag his country into “adventures” that threaten its security and unity, indirectly calling on Iran-backed Hezbollah to refrain from involving Lebanon in the ongoing U.S.-led war on Iran.

Salam’s warning coincided with a statement from the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon urging U.S. citizens still in the country to leave “now, while commercial options remain available.”

In a post on X, the prime minister appealed to all Lebanese “to act with wisdom and patriotism” in light of the “dangerous developments in the region,” urging them to place Lebanon’s interests “above any other consideration.”

“I reiterate that we will not accept anyone dragging the country into adventures that threaten its security and unity,” he said, referring to Hezbollah, which previously announced that it would not remain neutral if Iran were attacked and its leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, were targeted.

Salam, who also held a meeting with several ministers and relief officials, urged sparing the country the “repercussions” of the war on Iran, which broke out Saturday morning with joint U.S.-Israel attacks and prompted Iranian retaliatory strikes on Israel and U.S. targets across the Gulf Arab states.

When asked whether Hezbollah had reassured the Lebanese state that it would not participate in the war, he reiterated his call to spare Lebanon another war that “would bring even more suffering upon the Lebanese people.”

He was referring to the war with Israel that broke out on October 8, 2023, when Hezbollah opened a front in support of Gaza, during which top Hezbollah leaders, military commanders, and Lebanese civilians were killed, and substantial damage was inflicted, with border villages in southern Lebanon completely destroyed.

Despite a cease-fire agreement reached on Nov. 27, 2024, Israel continued to operate with near-total freedom, striking suspected Hezbollah operatives and positions almost daily, causing further destruction and casualties, including among civilians.

Salam and President Joseph Aoun also conducted diplomatic contacts in an effort to keep Lebanon “neutral and spare it from the repercussions” of the ongoing war in the region.

Aoun, for his part, affirmed that sparing Lebanon from “the disasters and horrors of external conflicts” and preserving its sovereignty, security, and stability are “absolute priorities.” Later, he was informed by U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa that Israel has “no intention of escalating” against Lebanon, as long as there are no hostile actions from the Lebanese side, according to a presidential statement.

Hezbollah, for its part, announced the postponement of a Saturday event during which its Secretary-General, Sheikh Naim Qassem, was scheduled to speak. Instead, it released a statement condemning “the treacherous U.S.-Israeli aggression” that targeted Iran after months of threats aimed at forcing it to “surrender.”

Hezbollah also expressed “full solidarity” with Tehran and urged the countries of the region to “stand against this aggressive scheme and recognize its dangers,” warning that “its dire consequences will affect everyone without exception if left unchallenged.”

It refrained from hinting to the possibility of supporting Iran militarily.

The Prime Minister condemned Iran’s strikes targeting Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, during calls with their top officials to reaffirm Lebanon’s solidarity against such “aggressions.”

Asked whether the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon and the Hamat military base, which hosts U.S. training teams, might be targeted by Iran, Salam said he could not rule it out but noted that all necessary security measures had been taken to prevent such attacks.

He also confirmed that his government was prepared for “any emergency,” having adopted “proactive measures” in anticipation of war, and assured that food, medicine, and fuel were available in quantities sufficient to meet citizens’ needs for at least two months.

He noted that Beirut’s Rafik Hariri International Airport remains open, with the country’s national carrier, Middle East Airlines, operating as usual — except for countries in the region that have closed their airspace. He added that some airlines have canceled their flights to Lebanon.

His comments came at a time U.S. citizens were urged by the U.S. State department not to travel to Lebanon and those who are already in the country to leave “now while commercial options remain available.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., speaks during a press conference after the weekly Republican Senate caucus luncheon at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo

Source link

Families tell of poor conditions in Texas detention center

A month after ICE agents sent the young Ecuadoran mother and her 7-year-old daughter to a sprawling detention center 1,300 miles from their Minnesota home, they were finally free.

But when the bus pulled up to a migrant shelter in the Texas border city of Laredo, dropping off a half-dozen families lugging bags stuffed with belongings, the stress of recent weeks tracked mother and daughter like the long shadows on that mid-February afternoon.

Night after night inside south Texas’ Dilley Immigration Processing Center with hundreds of other families, the grade-schooler wept and pleaded to know why they were being held.

“She would tell me, ‘Mom, what crime did I commit to be a prisoner?’ I didn’t know what to tell her,” said the 29-year-old, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear being identified could negatively affect their immigration case. Her husband was deported to Ecuador soon after they were taken into custody.

Many Americans were alarmed last month when photos circulated showing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Minneapolis detaining a 5-year-old boy wearing a bunny hat and carrying a Spider-Man backpack. The concern followed Liam Conejo Ramos and his father when they were sent to Dilley, surrounded by chain-link fences on a dusty plain about 75 miles south of San Antonio.

But Liam was hardly an outlier. ICE has been holding hundreds of children at Dilley — many for months.

“We are all Liam,” Christian Hinojosa, an immigrant from Mexico, said by phone from Dilley, where she and her 13-year-old son were held for more than four months. They were released this month and allowed to return home to San Antonio, where she works as a health aide.

She noted that Liam and his father were released from Dilley after 10 days, after members of Congress and a judge intervened.

“My son says, ‘That’s unfair, Mama. What’s the difference between him and us?’”

Ramping up family detentions

When the Obama administration opened Dilley in 2014, nearly all families detained there had recently crossed the border from Mexico. Detentions at the facility were scaled back by the Biden administration in 2021, before it was closed three years later.

Since being reopened by President Trump’s administration last spring, life inside Dilley — a compound of trailers and other prefabricated buildings — has been shaped by three decisive changes.

The number of detained families has risen sharply since last fall. The government is holding many children well beyond the 20-day limit set by long-standing court order. And many detainees have lived in the U.S. for several years, with roots in neighborhoods, workplaces and schools, according to lawyers and other observers.

“Just imagine that you’re a child and you’re taken out of your surroundings,” said Philip Schrag, a Georgetown University law professor and author of “Baby Jails: The Fight to End the Incarceration of Refugee Children in America.”

Suddenly you’re in “a completely strange environment with the doors locked and guards in uniform roaming around,” said Schrag, who counseled Dilley detainees as a volunteer lawyer during the Obama administration.

ICE booked more than 3,800 children into detention during the first nine months of the new Trump administration, according to an Associated Press analysis of data from UC Berkeley’s Deportation Data Project. On an average day, more than 220 children were held, with most of those detained longer than 24 hours sent to Dilley. More than half of Dilley detainees during that period were children.

Nearly two-thirds of children detained by ICE were eventually deported, and almost 1 in 10 left the country when their parents accepted voluntary departure, according to an AP analysis of the latest comprehensive data. About a quarter were released in the U.S., requiring their parents to check in regularly with ICE as their legal cases proceed.

The number of detainees at Dilley has risen sharply since the period covered by the data, nearly tripling between fall and late January to more than 1,300, according to Relevant Research, which analyzes immigration enforcement data.

“We’ve started to use 100 days as a benchmark for prioritizing cases because so many children are exceeding 20 days,” said Leecia Welch, the chief legal director at Children’s Rights, who visits Dilley regularly to ensure compliance. In a visit this month, Welch said she counted more than 30 children who had been held for over 100 days.

The increased detention of children comes as the Trump administration has gutted a Department of Homeland Security office responsible for oversight of conditions inside Dilley and other facilities.

“It’s a particular concern that family detention is being increased,” said Dr. Pamela McPherson, a child and adolescent psychiatrist contracted by Homeland Security from 2014 until last year to inspect and investigate conditions at Dilley and other ICE facilities holding children. “Just who’s providing that check and balance now?”

Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas), who represents the congressional district where Dilley is located, said multiple visits have convinced him criticism of the center is unfair.

He said he’d been impressed by Dilley’s facilities and the professionalism and dedication of staff. “They’re not doing policy. They’re just fulfilling a duty,” Gonzales said.

The Homeland Security Department did not respond to detailed questions about Dilley submitted by the AP. But both Homeland Security and ICE objected to allegations of poor care and conditions there.

“The Dilley facility is a family residential center designed specifically to house family units in a safe, structured and appropriate environment,” ICE Director Todd M. Lyons said in a statement this week. Services include medical screenings, infant care packages and classrooms and recreational spaces, he noted.

But concerns about Dilley are personal for Kheilin Valero Marcano, a Venezuelan immigrant detained with her husband and 1-year-old daughter, Amalia, in December and held for nearly two months.

When the child got a high fever, Valero Marcano said Dilley staff told her it was just a virus. Two weeks later, Amalia started vomiting, then losing weight. Valero Marcano said she took her to the Dilley doctor’s office at least eight times, and was offered only Tylenol and ibuprofen.

The baby was eventually sent to two hospitals, where doctors diagnosed COVID-19, bronchitis, pneumonia and stomach virus, she said.

ICE disputed Valero Marcano’s account, saying in a statement the baby “immediately received proper medical care” at Dilley before being sent to the hospital. Back in Dilley, “she was in the medical unit and received proper treatment and prescribed medicines,” it said.

The family’s return to Dilley coincided with a measles outbreak there. They were released earlier this month after their lawyers petitioned the court.

“I’m so worried for all the families who are still inside,” Valero Marcano said.

A teen in distress

After more than two months in a cramped room at Dilley with three other families, the 13-year-old girl’s depression turned increasingly dark.

The eighth-grader stopped eating after finding a worm in her food, family members said. Staff sometimes withheld medications she’d long been prescribed to keep her anxiety in check and help her sleep.

When a total lockdown was imposed, a guard blocked the teen from leaving the crowded room to join her mother and sister in the bathroom. She spiraled into crisis, and used a plastic knife from the cafeteria to cut her wrist.

“She said she didn’t want to live anymore because she preferred to die rather than having to keep living in confinement,” her mother, Andrea Armero, told the AP in a video call from Colombia, where the family was deported this month. The AP generally avoids identifying people who attempt or die by suicide.

The girl’s struggles began before she arrived at Dilley. Soon after starting middle school in Colombia, she learned a family member had sexually abused her younger sister. Armero said she saw no option but to leave, and in early 2024 she and her daughters traveled to the U.S.-Mexico border and applied for asylum.

Living with family in Florida, the 13-year-old was doing well in school but sometimes experienced panic attacks about being sent back to Colombia. Under a psychiatrist’s care, she was prescribed anti-anxiety and anti-depression medications and regularly saw a therapist. Then, in December, ICE agents detained Armero and her daughters during a routine check-in.

At Dilley, the 13-year-old calmed herself by drawing, producing haunting pictures of a girl locked inside gates. But when she and other detainees took part in a protest after 5-year-old Liam and his father got to Dilley, guards took away drawing materials and ordered everyone to stay inside.

The teen’s mental health collapsed. She tried to harm herself with the plastic knife, Armero said, and repeatedly hit her head. The family was put into isolation without seeing a doctor, then deported to Colombia on Feb. 11 after a judge ordered them removed, she said.

Dilley discharge documents described “active problems,” including a “suicide attempt by cutting of wrist” and “self-harm,” in addition to a “history of post-traumatic stress disorder” and “history of anxiety.” AP also spoke with detainees and attorneys who independently described the girl’s suicide attempt.

Responding to questions from AP, a Department of Homeland Security official acknowledged there had been “a case of self-harm” inside the facility, but did not specify what had happened, or how staff handled the incident. When AP asked for details, the department did not respond to follow-up questions.

“No child at Dilley … has been denied medical treatment or experienced a delayed medical assessment,” said Ryan Gustin, a spokesman for CoreCivic, the for-profit prison company that operates the facility under contract with ICE. Gustin declined to answer specific questions about the 13-year-old girl, citing privacy rules.

Detention weighs on children

On a phone call from inside Dilley, 13-year-old Gustavo Santino-Josa introduced himself to a reporter by name and the nine-digit identification number ICE assigned him when he was taken into custody with his mother.

“Until today I don’t know what we did wrong to get detained,” Gustavo said. “I’ve seen my mom cry almost daily, and I ask God that we can go out and go home soon.”

He worried they might never be released.

“My mom says that as long as there is hope it is worth fighting for,” Gustavo said before handing the phone to his mother, Christian Hinojosa, the healthcare aide originally from Mexico.

“All his friends have left already,” his mother said. “Some were deported. Some got released recently. And it hurts. It hurts to see people leaving and you’re staying here.”

Dilley was built to hold 2,400 people, housed in clusters ICE calls “neighborhoods.” Bunk beds are arranged side-by-side for up to four families, frequently putting parents with young children in close quarters.

Once in full operation, Dilley is expected to generate about $180 million in annual revenue for CoreCivic, according to the company’s recent filing with securities regulators.

In a video on its website, CoreCivic says Dilley’s “open campus layout allows residents to move freely and unescorted throughout the day.”

It does not mention that parents and their children are locked inside.

In response to questions from the AP, CoreCivic’s Gustin said the staff at Dilley includes a pediatrician, pediatric nurse practitioner and other trained medical professionals and mental health services workers to “meet the needs of children and families in our care.”

In talks with parents of children held at Dilley, however, the same problems come up repeatedly, said Welch, the children’s rights lawyer.

Kids cry often and don’t get enough sleep, in part because lights are on around the clock, she said. The water tastes terrible and causes stomachaches and rashes, so some families stick to what they can buy in the commissary.

Their children don’t eat enough and have lost weight, Welch said. There are classrooms, but instruction is limited to an hour daily, mostly filling out worksheets.

A 14-year-old girl, identified in court papers by the initials NVSM, reported there were tensions with up to 12 people sharing their room. At night when she and her mother tried to sleep, others insisted on turning up the TV.

“I feel very sad and stressed to be here,” the teen said in an account filed with the court that oversees a binding settlement governing detention and release of children. “My nerves are so high. I don’t know what is happening. My muscles will twitch because I’m so nervous and on edge.”

Concerns about oversight

As the government’s detention of parents and their children came under scrutiny in 2014, an ICE official claimed that family detention centers, equipped with basketball courts and medical clinics, were “more like a summer camp.”

The characterization irritated McPherson, the child psychiatrist who, along with another physician, was retained in 2014 by Homeland Security to inspect family detention centers. Their contracts were not renewed by the Trump administration last year after Homeland Security announced sweeping staff reductions.

“Having a clean place to sleep, having food, that’s not the same thing as having family and community,” McPherson said.

The doctors’ investigations of family detention centers exposed consistently inadequate staffing and disregard by administrators for the trauma caused by detention, concerns they reported in 2018 to a Senate caucus set up to hear from whistleblowers.

At Dilley, the doctors noted a persistent shortage of pediatricians and the inability to hire a child psychiatrist from the time they began their inspections until they alerted senators.

Employees unsure how to deal with 2-year-olds biting and hitting one another placed the children and their parents in medical isolation for days, McPherson and her colleague told senators. Without supervision, a nurse at Dilley gave adult-strength hepatitis A shots to about 250 children in 2015, the American Immigration Lawyers Assn. reported.

Homeland Security responded to many of the findings by making changes before a special committee recommended in late 2016 that the government discontinue family detention except in rare cases. The first Trump administration increased family detention before the Biden administration began phasing it out in 2021.

That the Trump administration is again holding families at Dilley after so many warnings feels “dystopian,” McPherson said.

“The decision to knowingly traumatize children and subject them to chronic stress, I just have no words for it,” she said.

Worries even after release

Huddled around picnic tables at the Laredo migrant shelter, parents released from Dilley searched anxiously for flights back to the homes they left behind. They called relatives, friends, teachers, anyone who might help with money to get there.

The young Ecuadoran mom talked of returning to Minneapolis, where her 2-year-old daughter, born in the U.S., was staying with a friend. With her husband deported, parenting will be entirely her responsibility.

That means getting her 7-year-old back in school. Then the woman, who had a work permit and a job in a Minneapolis restaurant before being detained, needs to keep her children fed.

“Let’s go home, Mom, but don’t go back to work because ICE is going to pick you up again,” the little girl said. Her mother tried to reassure her.

That won’t happen, she said, because now they have a special paper telling ICE to leave them alone.

She hopes that’s a promise she can keep.

Burke, Geller and Gonzalez write for the Associated Press. AP data reporter Aaron Kessler in Washington contributed to this report.

Source link

Trump vowed to end wars. He is now opening a new front against Iran

For a decade, President Trump promised to end what he calls forever wars, casting himself as a leader opposed to prolonged conflicts in the Middle East and who would rather pursue peace in the world.

Now, early in his second term, Trump is taking military action against Iran that could expand well beyond a limited effort to halt the country’s nuclear program.

In a video posted on Truth Social, the commander-in-chief said American forces also plan to “raze their missile industry to the ground” and “annihilate their navy.” He warned members of Iran’s military to surrender or “face certain death.” And urged the Iranian people to take the moment as an opportunity to rise up against their government.

“This regime will soon learn that no one should challenge the strength and might of the United States armed forces,” Trump said.

Trump, who has been considering a strike on Iran for several weeks, acknowledged he reached the decision to attack while aware of the human toll that could come with it.

“The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties. That often happens in war,” he said. “But we are doing this, not for now, we are doing this for the future, and it is a noble mission.”

Trump’s military campaign in Iran is a sharp turn in tone for a president who has long been critical of open-ended conflicts in the Middle East, and marks a shift from an America-first agenda message that helped him return to the White House.

I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars,” Trump said in his November 2024 victory speech as he promised to focus national resources on domestic priorities rather than foreign conflicts.

As Trump advocated to bring home American forces from deployments around the world and to withdraw from key defense treaties, his position resonated with a war-weary electorate in the lead up to the election.

Fewer than six in 10 Americans (56%) believed the United States should take an active role in world affairs ahead of the election — the second-lowest level recorded since the question was first asked in 1974, according to polling by the Council on Foreign Affairs.

Trump’s posture on war in the Middle East had been consistent before he ran for office.

In 2013, he criticized former President Obama’s negotiations with Tehran, predicting in a post on Twitter, that Obama would “attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly.” That same year, Trump warned that “our horrendous leadership could unknowingly lead us into World War III.”

And in a heated February 2016 debate, Trump attacked former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, stating that his brother George W. Bush lied about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities to get the U.S. into the Iraq War. Trump called the Iraq War a “big, fat mistake” that “destabilized the Middle East.”

“They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none,” he said.

Trump’s confrontation with Iran bears little resemblance to those early rebukes.

Trump has yet to present evidence of an imminent threat to the United States from Iran’s nuclear program — a capability he claimed to have “obliterated” just eight months ago — and has instead framed the military campaign as one to ensure Tehran never develops nuclear weapon at all.

“It is a very simple message,” he said. “They will never have a nuclear weapon.”

Trump’s shift has already drawn the attention of congressional Democrats, many of whom are calling the president out for backing out on his promise to end foreign wars — and are demanding that he involve Congress in any further military actions.

“Regardless of what the President may think or say, he does not enjoy a blank check to launch large-scale military operations without a clear strategy, without any transparency or public debate, and not without Congressional approval,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) criticized Trump for “drawing the country into yet another foreign war that Americans don’t want and Congress has not authorized.”

The military involvement in Iran is not the first time that members of Congress have complained about the Trump administration’s willingness to sideline the legislative branch on decisions that could trigger broader conflicts this year.

In January, Trump ordered military forces to capture former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and said the United States would run the sovereign nation until further notice. He threatened military action in Colombia, whose leftist President Gustavo Petro has been one of Trump’s most vocal critics.

Trump has alienated allied nations when he said he was willing to send American troops to seize Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark. And on Friday, he said U.S. is in talks with Havana and raised the possibility of a “friendly takeover of Cuba” without offering any details on what he meant.

His actions have coincided with his annoyance at not being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to seek peace in the world. At one point, the president said he no longer felt an “obligation to think purely of Peace” because he didn’t get the recognition.

Trump’s shifting tone, and his use of violent war imagery in his pretaped remarks about Iran, have rattled even part of his base.

“I did not campaign for this. I did not donate money for this,” said former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a conservative who recently left Congress after a bitter fight with Trump. “This is not what we thought MAGA was supposed to be. Shame!”

Republican leaders, however, are largely standing behind the president.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said Iran “posed a clear and unacceptable threat” to the United States and has refused “the diplomatic off-ramps.” House Speaker Mike Johnson (D-La.) said Trump took the action after exhausting “every effort to pursue peaceful and diplomatic solutions.”

Other top Republican lawmakers rallied behind the president, too.

“The butcher’s bill has finally come due for the ayatollahs,” Sen. Tom Cotton, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote in a post on X. “May God bless and protect our troops on this vital mission of vengeance, and justice, and safety.”

Source link

Congress split on support for Iran attack; some call for war powers resolution

1 of 3 | Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., (L) and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., speak to reporters outside the Department of Justice offices in Washington, D.C., on February 9. Together, the two authored a war powers resolution. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo

Feb. 28 (UPI) — While congressional reaction to the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran overnight was largely split along party lines, Democratic and some Republican lawmakers expressed concern that President Donald Trump ordered the strikes without first seeking congressional approval.

Lawmakers — who had already been pushing to limit Trump’s ability to carry out lethal strikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean — said they would renew their efforts to pass a war powers resolution.

Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., said he was “opposed to this war” in a post on X Saturday morning.

“When Congress reconvenes, I will work with [Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif.] to force a congressional vote on war with Iran,” he wrote.

“The Constitution requires a vote, and your representative needs to be on record as opposing or supporting this war.”

NBC News reported that Massie and Khanna together wrote a war powers resolution ahead of the Iran attack. Under Article 1 of the Constitution, Congress, not the executive branch, has the power to declare war on another country.

NPR reported that the White House notified the top eight leaders in Congress — known collectively as the Gang of Eight — shortly before the attack.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson showed his support for Trump’s actions to limit Iran’s nuclear program.

“Today, Iran is facing the severe consequences of its evil actions,” Johnson said in a statement posted on X. “President Trump and the administration have made every effort to pursue peaceful and diplomatic solutions in response to the Iranian regime’s sustained nuclear ambitions and development, terrorism and the murder of Americans — and even their own people.”

Johnson said the Gang of Eight received a briefing earlier in the week about the potential military action.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York, meanwhile, called on the Trump administration to brief the Senate on the threat. He said he had asked Secretary of State Mark Rubio to be transparent with Congress and the American people about the objectives of the strikes and the subsequent steps.

“The administration has not provided Congress and the American people with critical details about the scope and immediacy of the treat,” he said on X.

“Confronting Iran’s malign regional activities, nuclear ambitions and harsh oppression of the Iranian people demands American strength, resolve, regional coordination and strategic clarity.

“Unfortunately, President Trump’s fitful cycles of lashing out and risking wider conflict are not a viable strategy.”

Source link

Gore on ‘Letterman’? It’s No Joke : Media: Although he gets off his share of quips, the vice president has a policy aim. Some analysts consider it a risky strategy.

Politicians going on entertainment shows is hardly new, but Vice President Al Gore’s appearance on “Late Show With David Letterman” Wednesday took the use of popular culture further than before.

Politicians, classically, have used popular culture programs two ways: First, to repair and humanize their image, as Richard Nixon did playing the piano on the Jack Paar show in 1960 or appearing on “Laugh-In” in 1968, or as Bob Dole recently did appearing with Jay Leno on “The Tonight Show” to tell self-deprecating jokes and demonstrate that he is more than just a mean guy.

Second, politicians have used popular culture to reach out to new audiences, as President Clinton did during the campaign last year, appearing on Arsenio Hall’s show and on MTV.

“The important thing about going on MTV was not what he said, but the fact that he was there, reaching out to young people on their channel, welcoming them into the process,” Clinton media adviser Mandy Grunwald explained.

Gore’s appearance on Letterman’s new CBS show was slightly different. He did crack jokes with Letterman about his stiff image and the job of being vice president–even reading his own Top 10 list of good things about the office, including “After they sign a bill, there’s a lot of free pens.” But the vice president actually wanted to build support for a substantive public policy, his plan for reinventing government.

He demonstrated the government’s method of safety-testing an ash tray, or “ash receiver, tobacco (desk type).” Gore and Letterman donned safety goggles and smashed the ash tray with a hammer on a U.S.-mandated maple plank.

“This is a step beyond the talk shows,” or playing the saxophone in dark sunglasses, said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the dean of the Annenberg School of Communications at the University of Pennsylvania.

And that made it risky too.

In effect, the Clinton Administration “has embraced popular culture as part of a general strategy, to use it to get their message out,” said Robert Lichter, director of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a research group in Washington that studies TV.

“The danger is you can be used up by popular culture,” since the entertainment world does not operate by the same rules as the world of politics and journalism.

Politicians cannot demand equal time. And a politician with real power can look foolish tangling with an entertainer.

Vice President Dan Quayle discovered the risks after he criticized the fictional TV character Murphy Brown for her decision to have a child out of wedlock.

Not only did “Murphy Brown’s” producers retaliate with a program that denounced Quayle’s ideas in a way that was unadorned and quite serious political rhetoric, but the 1992 Emmy Awards show was converted into a diatribe against Quayle and the Republican Party for its criticism of Hollywood’s values.

According to Lichter’s Center, which monitors political humor on late-night shows, Leno, Letterman et al. are more focused on politics than ever.

In his first six months in office, Clinton has been the brunt of nearly 400 late-night jokes. George Bush, after six months, had been the brunt of about 60.

Gore, meanwhile, has been the brunt of as many jokes as Quayle was in his first six months as the First Sidekick.

“Let me give you an idea of just how boring our new vice president is,” Letterman had said of Gore on an earlier night. “Al Gore’s Secret Service code name is Al Gore.”

Source link

Central Banks Under Fire: Fighting Political Pressure Without Losing Credibility

Across advanced and emerging economies, central bankers are confronting an increasingly assertive political class. Populist leaders and fiscally strained governments are pressing for lower interest rates, easier financing and, in some cases, greater influence over monetary authorities themselves.

The response from central banks has been firm but not without risk. In defending their independence, they risk appearing political, blurring the very boundary they are trying to protect.

The U.S.: Digging In at the Federal Reserve

In the United States, the confrontation has been direct. Jerome Powell has faced repeated criticism from President Donald Trump over interest rates, with Trump arguing that tighter policy undermines economic growth.

Rather than soften its stance, the Federal Reserve has emphasized its legal independence and data-driven approach. Powell has repeatedly stressed that decisions will be based on inflation and employment data, not political preference.

The stakes are high. With U.S. federal debt at $36 trillion and large refinancing needs ahead, pressure to keep borrowing costs low is intensifying. Any perception that the Fed is yielding to political demands could unsettle bond markets and erode confidence in its anti-inflation mandate.

Europe: Pre-Emptive Exits and Institutional Defense

In Europe, resistance has taken a subtler form. François Villeroy de Galhau is stepping down from the Bank of France months before elections that polls suggest could benefit the far right. Though officially described as a personal decision, the move is widely seen as an attempt to preserve institutional continuity before a potential political shift.

Similarly, Christine Lagarde has not ruled out the possibility of leaving the European Central Bank before completing her term, even while stating her baseline intention is to stay.

Such pre-emptive departures highlight a paradox: central banks are trying to shield themselves from politicization, yet early resignations can themselves be interpreted as political maneuvers. Critics argue this risks undermining the perception of neutrality.

European institutions are legally insulated by treaties, but they are not immune to democratic pressures particularly as high debt levels in countries such as France and Italy fuel debates over whether central banks should help finance public spending.

Japan: Market Discipline as a Shield

At the Bank of Japan, the dynamic is slightly different. Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi appointed dovish economists to the board, a move seen by some as an effort to temper rate hikes.

Yet the BOJ has maintained its commitment to policy normalization. In Japan’s case, currency markets have provided reinforcement. A weakening yen during earlier periods of ultra-loose policy heightened political sensitivity to inflation risks. Market volatility effectively strengthened the central bank’s hand, illustrating how investor reactions can discipline governments as well as monetary authorities.

Why Independence Matters

The battle is about more than institutional pride. Central bank independence emerged in the late 20th century as a response to the inflationary spirals of the 1970s. Countries that subordinated monetary policy to political cycles often experienced runaway prices and capital flight.

More recent examples underscore the danger. In countries such as Turkey and Argentina, political interference in rate-setting has coincided with surging inflation and currency instability.

For advanced economies now grappling with record sovereign debt and rising defense spending, the temptation to lean on central banks is clear. Lower rates ease fiscal pressure. But if investors believe policy is being distorted for political convenience, borrowing costs may ultimately rise rather than fall.

The Blurred Line Between Mandate and Mission Creep

The past decade has complicated the picture. Massive bond-buying programs during the global financial crisis and the pandemic pulled central banks deeper into fiscal territory. In Europe and Britain, limited climate-related initiatives sparked accusations of overreach.

Critics argue that such expansions of mandate have made central banks more politically visible and therefore more vulnerable.

This creates a delicate trade-off. Remaining silent in the face of political pressure may preserve appearances but risk policy distortion. Publicly resisting may safeguard inflation credibility but invite accusations of entering the political arena.

Markets as Final Arbiter

Ultimately, financial markets may determine how much room politicians have to maneuver. Governments can pressure central banks, but they cannot easily compel investors to finance deficits at artificially low rates.

If markets sense that independence is eroding, they may demand higher yields, weaken currencies or pull capital outcomes that raise inflation and undermine growth. In that sense, investor discipline can reinforce central bank autonomy more effectively than legal protections alone.

A Costly Defense

Central bankers today face a more hostile and fragmented political landscape than their predecessors. The old assumption that technocrats could quietly manage inflation while politicians handled everything else no longer holds.

By fighting back, they defend hard-won credibility. But in doing so, they risk appearing as participants in political struggles rather than neutral arbiters of economic stability.

The challenge is no longer simply setting interest rates. It is preserving trust in institutions designed to stand above politics at a time when politics increasingly refuses to stand aside.

With information from Reuters.

Source link

What’s at stake for oil markets as U.S. strikes Iran

President Trump’s decision to strike Iran creates new risks for a significant chunk of the world’s oil supply.

The Islamic Republic itself pumps about 3.3 million barrels a day, or 3% of global output, making it the fourth-largest producer in OPEC. But the nation wields far greater influence over the world’s energy supplies because of its strategic location.

Iran sits on one side of the Strait of Hormuz, the shipping lane for about a fifth of the world’s crude from key suppliers including Saudi Arabia and Iraq. While the waterway remains open, some oil tankers were avoiding sailing through following the attacks and ships were piling up on either side of the entrance, tracking data compiled by Bloomberg show.

Oil markets are closed for the weekend, and there was no initial information on whether the attacks on Iran and the country’s retaliatory strikes across the region Saturday targeted any energy assets.

Here are the pressure points to watch in oil as events unfold.

Iran’s production

Iran produces about 3.3 million barrels of oil a day, up from less than 2 million barrels a day in 2020 despite continued international sanctions. The country has become more adept at skirting these restrictions, sending about 90% of its exports to China.

The largest oil deposits are Ahvaz and Marun and the West Karun cluster, all in Khuzestan province.

Iran’s main refinery, built at Abadan in 1912, can process more than 500,000 barrels a day. Other key plants include the Bandar Abbas and Persian Gulf Star refineries, which handle crude and condensate, a type of ultra-light oil that’s abundant in Iran. The capital, Tehran, has its own refinery.

For Iran’s overseas shipments, the Kharg Island terminal in the northern Persian Gulf is the main logistical hub. There was an explosion on the island Saturday, according to Iran’s semiofficial Mehr news agency, which didn’t provide details or make any reference to the oil terminal.

Kharg Island has numerous loading berths, jetties, remote mooring points and tens of millions of barrels of crude storage capacity. The facilities have handled export volumes exceeding 2 million barrels a day in recent years.

U.S. sanctions discourage most potential buyers of Iran’s crude, but private Chinese refiners have remained willing customers, provided they get steep discounts. For international shipments, Iran relies on a fleet of aging tankers that mostly sail with their transponders deactivated to avoid detection.

Earlier this month, Iran was rapidly filling tankers at Kharg Island, probably in an effort to get as much crude on the water and move vessels out of harm’s way in case the facility was attacked. It was a move similar to last June ahead of Israeli and U.S. attacks.

Any strike on Kharg Island would be a desperate blow for the country’s economy.

Iran’s main natural gas fields are farther to the south along the Persian Gulf coast. Facilities at Assaluyeh and Bandar Abbas process, transport and ship gas and condensate for domestic use in power generation, heating, petrochemicals and other industries.

The area is the main point for Iran’s condensate exports. During the June war, an attack on a local gas plant sparked jitters among traders, but didn’t cause a lasting spike in oil prices because it didn’t affect any export facilities.

Regional Dangers

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned on Feb. 1 of a “regional war” if his country was attacked by the U.S. Tehran has claimed that a full closure of the Strait of Hormuz is within its power.

It would be an extreme step that the country has never taken but remains a nightmare scenario for global markets.

Hormuz is the chokepoint for bulk of the Persian Gulf’s exports of crude and also refined fuels such as diesel and jet fuel. Qatar, one of world’s biggest liquefied natural gas exporters, also relies on the strait. At least three gas tankers going to or from Qatar had paused voyages following the latest attacks in the region, according to ship-tracking data.

A seized South Korean-flagged tanker is escorted by Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats.

A seized South Korean-flagged tanker is escorted by Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats in the Persian Gulf’s Strait of Hormuz in January 2021. If Iran were to close the strait after the U.S.-Israel strikes Saturday, it would likely cause a massive disruption to exports and cause crude prices to spike.

(Tasnim News Agency via AP)

While OPEC members Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have some ability to reroute their shipments via pipelines that avoid Hormuz, closing the strait would still cause a massive disruption to exports and cause crude prices to spike.

There were signs that other Gulf producers were also accelerating shipments in February. Saudi Arabia’s crude shipments averaged about 7.3 million barrels a day in the first 24 days of the month, the most in almost three years. Combined flows from Iraq, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates were set to climb almost 600,000 barrels a day from the same period in January, according to data from Vortexa Ltd.

In the past, Tehran has made retaliatory strikes on some of its neighbors’ energy assets. In 2019, Saudi Arabia blamed Tehran for a drone attack on its Abqaiq oil processing facility that halted production equivalent to about 7% of global crude supply.

Many observers say it’s improbable that Iran could keep Hormuz closed for long, making lower-impact actions like harassment of shipping more likely.

During last year’s war on Iran by Israel and the U.S., nearly 1,000 vessels a day were having their GPS signals jammed near Iran’s coast, contributing to one tanker collision. Sea mines are another long-threatened option for deterring shipping.

Market reactions

Oil surged the most in more than three years during the June war, with Brent crude rising above $80 a barrel in London. However, the gains quickly faded once it became clear that key regional oil infrastructure hadn’t been damaged.

Since then, concerns about an oversupply have dominated global markets, with crude in London ending 2025 about 18% lower than where it started.

Despite those fears of a glut, prices have surged 19% this year, partly due to fears of U.S. strikes on Iran.

With the main oil futures closed for the weekend, there’s limited insight into how traders are reacting to the latest attacks. However, a retail trading product, run by IG Group Ltd., was pricing West Texas Intermediate as high as $75.33, a gain of as much as 12% from Friday’s close.

Burkhardt and Di Paola write for Bloomberg. Bloomberg writer Julian Lee contributed to this report.

Source link

DOD agrees to continue supporting Scouting America after ‘key reforms’

Feb. 27 (UPI) — The Department of Defense reached an agreement with Scouting America to continue to support the organization after it committed to end its diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said he had been considering an end to supporting the organization because of “significant cultural changes” it made in the early 2010s.

The 116-year-old organization changed its name from Boy Scouts of America to Scouting America, allowing girls to join and introducing programs that included various DEI themes.

“The Boy Scouts lost their way, and a once-great organization became gravely wounded,” Hegseth said in a statement.

“[DEI] crept in, the name was changed to ‘Scouting America,’ girls were accepted [and] the focus of God as the ruler of the universe was watered down to include openness to humanism and Earth-centered pagan religions,” he said in the statement.

Hegseth tied the move to an executive order President Donald Trump signed on his first day in office seeking to end “illegal discrimination and restoring merit-based opportunity,” including with the end of DEI programs among government agencies.

Scouting America said in a statement that it is making changes to align with DOD policies and goals as it has engaged in negotiations with the department for several months about its support for the organization.

The group said in a statement that it plans to waive registration fees for military families, launch a new merit badge focused on military service and veterans and reinforce its commitment to “scouting’s foundational ideas: leadership, character, duty to God, duty to country and service.”

As it has engaged the DOD about potential changes to its program, Scouting America said in the statement that it has “preserved our service to the more than 200,000 girls who participate in our programs.”

Noting that girls have participated in scouting since the 1960s, Scouting America said that its commitment to girls being part of the organization is “unwavering.”

Since 1910, more than 130 million people have participated in scouting programs and it is a well-known pipeline to the U.S. military based on its history showing that “scouts are significantly more likely to serve in uniform than the general population.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., speaks during a press conference after the weekly Republican Senate caucus luncheon at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo

Source link

Democrats push for war powers vote over U.S. attack on Iran

Democrats are pushing for a vote next week on a resolution to curtail President Trump’s authority to conduct strikes in Iran, a move that would reassert Congress’ role in approving the use of military might.

The effort was already underway to force a vote on a war powers resolution, but it gained fresh momentum as the U.S. and Israel bombed Iran beginning early Saturday, an action that Trump referred to in a video shortly afterward as “war.” House Democratic leaders announced this week — before the strikes — that they would begin procedures to force a floor vote on a resolution for Iran.

The resolution directs Trump to terminate the use of armed forces against Iran, unless explicitly authorized by Congress. Presidents of both parties have skirted around war powers resolutions in the past.

Passage is uncertain in the Republican-controlled House and Senate, with GOP members of both chambers expressing initial support for the bombing of Iran. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) praised the attacks Saturday and said to reporters that the administration “better well make it about getting new leadership and regime change.”

But the effort for a war powers vote has gained the support of at least two House Republicans, Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio, making it possible for the measure to pass the House if enough Democrats support the measure and enough members show up for the final vote.

On the Senate side, Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky, who voted for an earlier war powers resolution, said he would “oppose another presidential war.”

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said Iran “is a bad actor and must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism and the threat it poses” to allies in the region.

“However, absent exigent circumstances, the Trump administration must seek authorization for the preemptive use of military force that constitutes an act of war,” Jeffries’ statement said.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), a California Democrat who is co-sponsoring the resolution with Massie, urged lawmakers to reconvene in Washington on Monday to vote, calling the strikes the launch of “an illegal regime change war in Iran with American lives at risk.”

Massie on social media described the attack as “acts of war unauthorized by Congress.”

The resolution faced initial opposition from staunch pro-Israel House Democrats Jared Moskowitz of Florida and Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said the Senate should pass the resolution but didn’t outright oppose the strikes. He complained that the administration did not lay out its case to Congress or the public.

Trump would surely veto the resolution if passed, but substantial GOP votes for it could persuade him to limit the attacks on Iran. The Senate passed a procedural vote for a resolution against the strikes in January that culminated in the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, after which the White House sent Secretary of State Marco Rubio to Capitol Hill to testify to members.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but no president since Franklin D. Roosevelt in World War II has used that formal declaration, instead relying on less expansive authorization to deploy military force. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973 to slow the Vietnam War.

However, most presidents have sought some level of buy-in and approval from Congress, which approves the budget for the Pentagon.

“The Constitution is clear: The decision to take this nation to war rests with Congress, and launching large-scale military operations — particularly in the absence of an imminent threat to the United States — raises serious legal and constitutional concerns,” Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said in a statement. “Congress must be fully briefed, and the administration must come forward with a clear legal justification.”

Other Senate Democrats, including Tim Kaine of Virginia and Andy Kim of New Jersey, have also urged their chamber to vote on a similar measure to put checks on Trump’s use of military force in Iran.

Rubio notified the so-called Gang of Eight — the top congressional leaders in the House and Senate and on the intelligence committees — of the strikes, the White House said.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, defended the strikes as “pivotal and necessary.”

“The President has stated the operation’s goals clearly: thwart permanently the ayatollahs’ desire to create a nuclear weapon, degrade their ballistic missile force and their production capacity, and destroy their naval and terrorism capabilities,” Wicker said in a statement.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) noted in his statement: “This is not how a democracy goes to war.”

Wasson writes for Bloomberg.

Source link

Mayor Karen Bass is pulling Nithya Raman from her post at the AQMD.

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s Noah Goldberg, with an assist from David Zahniser, giving you the latest on city and county government.

When Los Angeles City Councilmember Nithya Raman launched her bid for mayor, her decision stunned many of the city’s political players, in large part because she had endorsed Karen Bass’ reelection a few weeks earlier.

Since Raman jumped into the race, those politicos have been searching for clues as to why Raman broke so completely with Bass, going from ally to opponent.

Now, an additional data point has emerged that, at minimum, signals that Bass and Raman were not as simpatico as they seemed.

Last month, Bass quietly took steps to drop Raman from the powerful board that oversees the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Raman had been serving in that role since 2022, when she was appointed by then-Mayor Eric Garcetti.

Bass’ team said they notified Raman’s office on Jan. 16 that the mayor planned to select someone else to represent her on the AQMD’s 13-member board, which works to ensure that more than 17 million people across four counties — Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino — have cleaner air.

You’re reading the L.A. on the Record newsletter

Raman’s term expired last month, and Bass has not announced a replacement. Until that happens, Raman will continue to serve in the post.

Bass spokesperson Amanda Crumley did not provide an explanation for Bass’ decision but said it was not prompted by any policy disagreements between the two.

“The Mayor has 60 days to appoint a new council member to the AQMD, and she and her team started conversations with council members weeks ago in planning for the end of the term,” Crumley said. “As has been the plan for weeks, Mayor Bass will be moving forward with an appointment soon.”

Raman, in a statement, said that losing the AQMD seat was not a factor in her decision to run for mayor.

“During my time on the Board, I’ve been able to meaningfully push for cleaner air, stronger accountability for major polluters, and real progress on zero-emission freight and building standards that protect the health of Angelenos,” Raman said.

Raman said she learned she was being “removed” from her post in mid-January. On Jan. 27, Bass announced that Raman had endorsed her bid for a second term. A few days before that, the mayor’s team informed Raman’s office that they would be going public with her endorsement, according to a Bass campaign aide.

Raman launched her own mayoral campaign on Feb. 7, hours before the filing deadline, saying the city “can’t seem to manage the basics.”

Bass and Raman have mostly been in sync over the last three years, frequently appearing together and only occasionally revealing points of contention.

Raman, who lives in Silver Lake, opposed a package of pay increases for police officers, saying it was financially reckless. Bass, who resides in Windsor Square, said the raises and bonuses were needed to boost recruitment at the Los Angeles Police Department, which has lost 1,300 officers since 2020.

Last year, Raman also opposed a $2.6-billion plan to upgrade the Convention Center. She called the project a budget buster, while Bass said it is needed to revitalize downtown and the region’s economy.

The mayor’s move at the AQMD suggests the two may have disagreed in another policy area. But the back story is tough to decode.

One possible clue: the AQMD’s recent approval of a major agreement to bring zero-emissions technology to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The agreement commits the ports to add electric truck chargers, hydrogen fuel pumps and other technology aimed at eliminating diesel pollution.

At one point, Raman pushed for a more aggressive “rulemaking” approach that would give the AQMD enforcement power if the ports failed to meet certain emissions goals, according to a source with knowledge of the process, who asked to remain unnamed.

Bass favored a less regulatory approach — a cooperative agreement between AQMD and the ports, the source said. That strategy was also favored by the shipping industry and organized labor.

In the end, Raman voted in favor of the cooperative agreement, while acknowledging outside criticism of the decision. She said she supported the agreement to keep the AQMD from “continuing a decade of inaction.”

Environmental groups were disappointed. Bill Magavern, policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air, said the AQMD “adopted a weak, unenforceable agreement when what the board had committed to doing for years was an actual enforceable limit on emissions.”

Magavern said he thinks there were times that Raman, as a Bass appointee, “felt compelled to go along with the mayor’s wishes.” At the same time, he expressed some concern about Raman’s departure.

“We are sorry to see her leave the board because we think the AQMD needs to face up to our air pollution challenges,” Magavern said. “We certainly hope that Bass will appoint someone who is willing to stand up for clean air and take on polluting special interests.”

For now, Raman’s name still appears on the AQMD website as a member of the board. Its next meeting is on Friday.

State of play

— BIGGER IS BETTER: The city’s Charter Reform Commission recommended this week that the City Council grow to 25 members, up from 15. The citizens panel also called for the city to switch to ranked-choice voting, with voters choosing their candidates in order of preference. Both proposals could wind up on the city’s ballot in November, depending on the wishes of the council.

— FEDS SWOOP IN: The FBI raided the home and office of L.A. Unified schools Supt. Alberto Carvalho this week, in what appears to be a probe involving a company that developed an AI chatbot for the nation’s second-largest school system. Two days later, the school board placed Carvalho on paid leave.

— HEADING TO COURT: Former Fire Chief Kristin Crowley sued the city of Los Angeles this week, saying the mayor retaliated against her in an attempt to shift blame over the city’s handling of the Palisades fire. A Bass aide said the lawsuit has no merit. The council decided to pay Crowley’s successor, Fire Chief Jaime Moore, nearly $474,000 per year.

— ‘RED HOT COALS’: Meanwhile, a Los Angeles firefighter said in sworn testimony that he sounded the alarm about the inadequate mop-up of the Lachman fire — and was blown off by a captain — days before the embers reignited into the deadly Palisades fire.

— SIGNATURE SEARCH: Wednesday’s deadline for candidates to turn in their petitions for the June 2 primary election is fast approaching. So far, six mayoral candidates have qualified for the ballot — Bass, Raman and four others: housing advocate Rae Huang, engineering manager Asaad Alnajjar, political scientist Juanita Lopez and technical architect Andrej Selivra.

— WHO ELSE IS IN? All of the incumbents have qualified: City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, City Controller Kenneth Mejia and Councilmembers Eunisses Hernandez, Katy Yaroslavsky, Monica Rodriguez, Traci Park, Hugo Soto-Martínez and Tim McOsker.

According to the City Clerk’s latest update, the challengers so far are Deputy Atty. Gen. Marissa Roy, running for city attorney; real estate executive Zach Sokoloff, running for city controller; and council candidates Maria Lou Calanche, Nelson Grande, Jose Ugarte and Faizah Malik.

— GIVING BACK GRANTS: About $100 million in state funding for transportation projects in Boyle Heights, Wilmington and Skid Row is now in jeopardy because the city doesn’t have the staff to complete the projects. The issue is part of the fallout from last year’s $1-billion budget shortfall, when city leaders cut hundreds of vacant positions.

— RIDING THE RAILS: The long-awaited extension of the Metro D Line subway, once known as the Purple Line, will finally make its debut on May 8. The extension will take subway riders west from Koreatown to La Cienega Boulevard, with brand-new stations at La Brea and Fairfax avenues.

— ANIMAL ATTACK: A jury has awarded $5.4 million to a woman who was mauled by a dog at an L.A. animal shelter, the latest in a string of such cases. The woman said neither the shelter nor the rescue group she worked for told her about the dog’s bite history.

— BAR FIGHT: Downtown LA Law Group, the firm at the center of the scandal over Los Angeles County’s $4-billion sex abuse settlement, is fighting to keep thousands of documents out of the hands of state bar investigators. The bar launched its probe after The Times reported that nine DTLA clients said they had been paid to sue the county over alleged sex abuse.

— DON’T JUMP: An LAPD officer who went on disability and then was caught skydiving now faces criminal charges. Christopher Brandon Carnahan, 43, committed insurance fraud by exaggerating the extent of an on-duty work injury, according to the D.A.’s office.

— SIDELINED SUPERVISORS: L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger recently sounded off on the governance overhaul coming to the county. Appearing at the Los Angeles Current Affairs Forum, Barger said the powerful new position of elected countywide CEO would relegate the supervisors to the realm of ribbon-cutting and little else.

“You’ll see a CEO that has autonomy to do what he or she wants with no term limits, veto power,” Barger said. “Quite frankly, I think the supervisors are going to be in name only.”

QUICK HITS

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.

Source link

L.A. City Council should expand to 25 members, charter reform commission says

The size of the Los Angeles City Council should increase from 15 to 25 seats, the city’s Charter Reform Commission recommended Thursday.

On a 9-2 vote, the commission backed the council expansion, with supporters saying that smaller ethnic groups, including Black and Asian American and Pacific Islander residents, would be better represented.

The council has consisted of 15 members since 1925, when the city had fewer than 600,000 residents, compared with 3.9 million today.

“I think we owe the people of Los Angeles to walk out of this room saying that we are a commission that’s concerned about equity, that we are a commission that is concerned about Black and AAPI folks who live in this city,” said Commissioner James M. Thomas, who supported the expansion.

The commission also recommended ranked choice voting, where voters list candidates in order of preference, for municipal elections beginning in 2032. The city should also establish a new position, chief financial officer, which would essentially be a title change for what is now called the city administrative officer, the commission recommended.

By April 2, the commission, which has been meeting since last July, must send all its recommendations to the City Council on changes to the city’s governing charter. The council will then vote on which changes will go before city voters as ballot measures in November.

Thursday’s meeting was packed with supporters of City Controller Kenneth Mejia, who feared that the commission would gut his office’s watchdog role.

Among the CFO’s duties would be preparing the city budget, advising the mayor on fiscal policy and producing revenue forecasts — duties currently under the CAO.

Tim Riley, owner of Heavy Water Coffee Shop in Chinatown, said trust in government is at an all-time low and urged the commission to keep the controller’s powers intact.

“Kenneth has been the only form of government that we have felt has represented us as a community,” Riley said.

City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo spoke briefly and confirmed his support for designating the CAO as the city’s chief financial officer, without impacting the controller’s office. The CFO role recommended by the commission does not take away any duties from the controller.

In 1925, each of the 15 City Council members represented about 38,000 residents. Now, each council district has an average of 265,000 residents. If the council grows to 25, each member would represent roughly 159,000 residents.

The commission did not discuss whether the council members’ salaries and office budgets should remain the same, potentially increasing costs for taxpayers.

Nick Caputo, who has been chronicling the charter reform commission‘s progress online, advocated during public comment for the commission to endorse more than 23 seats. The commission had debated for weeks about whether to go as low as 23 seats or as high as 31, settling on 25 as a compromise.

With smaller council districts, Caputo said, residents will be represented by people who know their neighborhoods better.

“I’m happy that they did go to 25,” Caputo said Friday. “I think that would be a tremendous boost for not just representation, but also you’ll get real specialists.”

Commissioner Carla Fuentes noted that three City Council members — Nithya Raman, Ysabel Jurado and Heather Hutt — have publicly supported expanding the council to 25.

“This is a huge moment for the commission,” Chairperson Raymond Meza said after Thursday night’s meeting. “We have been hearing from hundreds of stakeholders, academics, members of the public, other interested parties — and to be able to begin drafting charter language for the City Council to consider is pretty momentous.”

During the debate on ranked choice voting, Commissioner Diego Andrades explained that the city would no longer hold a primary election, which would save money. Instead, all candidates would run in a general election.

Commissioner Christina Sanchez expressed concern that non-English speaking voters and those in under-served communities might have trouble understanding the complexities, which drew ire from the crowd.

“Are you calling us stupid?” two people said.

The commission also passed a recommendation that the city should approve an ordinance for language accessibility and educating residents about the new voting system.

Two days earlier, the commission voted unanimously to bifurcate the duties of the city attorney, currently an elected official who prosecutes misdemeanors and represents the city in civil litigation. Under the commission’s proposal, an appointed city attorney would take over the civil litigation duties, while an elected city prosecutor would handle the misdemeanors.

The decision to bifurcate the position came after consulting with good governance groups, the public and city departments, Andrades said. The current system allows a city attorney eyeing higher office to potentially offer bad advice to a sitting mayor, and conflicts of interest could occur on issues like police-related settlements and misconduct, he said.

Times staff writer Dave Zahniser contributed to this report.

Source link

Analysis: Lebanon’s May elections in limbo despite Hezbollah’s decline

Supporters of Hezbollah and allied parties carry flags of Hezbollah and a picture of former Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah (C) during a protest organized by Hezbollah under the slogan “The entire country is resistance” outside the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia headquarters in Beirut, Lebanon, on February 4. Photo by Wael Hamzeh/EPA

BEIRUT, Lebanon, Feb. 28 (UPI) — Lebanon’s parliamentary elections, scheduled for May and widely seen as a new test for the country’s main political players, remain in limbo amid uncertainty over whether they will be held on time or postponed – and whether they will bring about any meaningful change.

While it will be the first election since Iran-backed Hezbollah was significantly weakened during the recent war with Israel, it is unlikely to alter the current balance of power.

Officially, Lebanon says it is ready to proceed on schedule. Most political parties have publicly committed to the vote, with the number of declared candidates for the 128-member parliament rising to 44 as of Friday.

However, as with many other issues in the country, Lebanese are divided over the electoral law and proposed changes concerning expatriate voting and the establishment of mega-centers allowing voters to cast ballots outside their home districts.

Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, Hezbollah’s main ally and leader of the Shiite Amal Movement, has refused to bring the proposed amendments put forward by his and Hezbollah’s political opponents to a vote.

The current law is largely inapplicable and requires one or two amendments — specifically, whether to allow or bar Lebanese expatriates from voting in embassies abroad for all 128 parliamentary candidates instead of just six — before it can be fully implemented, according to elections expert Nazih Darwish.

“In any case, it would require a parliamentary vote and cannot be implemented automatically,” Darwish told UPI.

The dispute over diaspora voting essentially revolves around equal political rights and the strategic calculations of political parties aiming to protect or increase their leverage.

Delaying the elections by a few months or postponing them for one or two years has emerged as a likely scenario, with each party trying to safeguard or extend its power.

At the heart of the matter is Hezbollah’s reduced influence, both militarily and politically.

If the delay is purely technical — such as moving the elections from May to July — it would not significantly affect the outcome, with one key exception: More members of the diaspora could participate, as many spend the summer in Lebanon, according to Karim Bitar, a lecturer at Saint Joseph University of Beirut and Sciences Po Paris.

Hezbollah, Bitar said, argues that diaspora voting could tilt the balance against it, as it cannot campaign effectively in many European and Western countries, where it is designated a terrorist organization and large Lebanese expatriate communities reside.

“Hezbollah remains a significant force. Even though it was severely weakened militarily, strong support for Amal and Hezbollah persists among their constituencies,” Bitar told UPI. “Supporters feel they must stick together and continue voting for the two parties to prevent rivals from exploiting their political and military setbacks.”

Although many of Hezbollah’s supporters acknowledge that the group was defeated in the war and should admit it, they still pledged to vote for its candidates.

“That’s because no serious political alternatives have emerged so far for Lebanon’s Shiite community,” David Wood, a senior Lebanon analyst at the International Crisis Group, told UPI.

The challenge is that while Hezbollah retains significant backing, not all Shiites in Lebanon support the group, and the existing Shiite opposition lacks a popular base and relies on backing from other groups.

Darwish argued that the balance of power in the country would remain unchanged as long as Hezbollah — which might lose at most two seats if the elections proceed as scheduled — is not fully disarmed.

“That could change if Hezbollah were to relinquish its weapons completely, but not before four to five years, when a genuine Shiite opposition is likely to emerge and succeed in convincing the Shiite base,” he said.

Postponing the elections would thus benefit the country’s main parties: Hezbollah would maintain its current parliamentary representation, while its opponents could wait for regional developments to shift further against Hezbollah and hasten its full disarmament.

“So, the logic would be that a postponement would actually suit Hezbollah’s opponents, because the group’s situation — both inside Lebanon and in the region — will only get weaker.” Wood noted.

What could accelerate the process is either the conflict between the United States and Iran — Hezbollah’s patron — or a deal affecting Iran’s proxies and regional role.

Other political parties, notably the Christian Lebanese Forces — Hezbollah’s main rival — were gearing up for the elections.

Jade Dimien, the Lebanese Forces deputy secretary-general in charge of elections, said the vote could bring change, provided the Lebanese people want it and are ready to make it happen.

Dimien said this year’s general elections would be shaped by major events of the past three years, including the Israel-Hezbollah war, the election of a new president, the government’s firm stance on Hezbollah’s disarmament and the fall of Syrian President Bashar Assad‘s regime.

“There will be some big changes, but whether they will cause a major shift in the balance of power now, I don’t know,” he told UPI, noting the accelerated developments in the region and fearing “compromises” at the expense of Lebanon.

Separately, campaign financing emerges as another major challenge, with some parties favoring wealthy businessmen who can fund their own campaigns amid limited foreign funding.

While not new in Lebanese parliamentary elections, especially after the 1975-90 civil war, such financing has become increasingly visible today, fueled by the 2019 financial collapse.

“Foreign funding has been reduced … even Iran might not be willing under its current conditions to spend as much money supporting Hezbollah,” Bitar said.

The fear remains that wealthy candidates could buy their way into parliament — by paying for votes or providing clientelist services — thereby boosting the seat count of the most powerful parties.

Bitar warned of an even more alarming issue concerning the redistribution of losses following the collapse of the financial system in 2019.

“Major bank shareholders are trying to sway the vote by electing MPs who could block any IMF deal requiring them to cover their share of the losses,” he said.

Source link

Why Iran resists giving up its nuclear program, even as Trump threatens strikes

Embassy staffers and dependents evacuating, airlines suspending service, eyes in Iran warily turning skyward for signs of an attack.

The prospects of a showdown between the U.S. and Iran loom ever higher, as massive American naval and air power lies in wait off Iran’s shores and land borders.

Yet little of that urgency is felt in Iran’s government. Rather than quickly acquiescing to President Trump’s demands, Iranian diplomats persist in the kind of torturously slow diplomatic dance that marked previous discussions with the U.S., a pace that prompted Trump to declare on Friday that the Iranians were not negotiating in “good faith.”

But For Iran’s leadership, Iranian experts say, concessions of the sort Trump are asking for about nuclear power and the country’s role in the Middle East undermine the very ethos of the Islamic Republic and the decades-old project it has created.

“As an Islamic theocracy, Iran serves as a role model for the Islamic world. And as a role model, we cannot capitulate,” said Hamid Reza Taraghi, who heads international affairs for Iran’s Islamic Coalition Party, or Hezb-e Motalefeh Eslami.

Besides, he added, “militarily we are strong enough to fight back and make any enemy regret attacking us.”

Even as another round of negotiations ended with no resolution this week, the U.S. has completed a buildup involving more than 150 aircraft into the region, along with roughly a third of all active U.S. ships.

Observers say those forces remain insufficient for anything beyond a short campaign of a few weeks or a high-intensity kinetic strike.

Iran would be sure to retaliate, perhaps against an aircraft carrier or the many U.S. military bases arrayed in the region. Though such an attack is unlikely to destroy its target, it could damage or at least disrupt operations, demonstrating that “American power is not untouchable,” said Hooshang Talé, a former Iranian parliamentarian.

Tehran could also mobilize paramilitary groups it cultivated in the region, including Iraqi militias and Yemen’s Houthis, Talé added. Other U.S. rivals, such as Russia and China, may seize the opportunity to launch their own campaigns elsewhere in the world while the U.S. remains preoccupied in the Middle East, he said.

“From this perspective, Iran would not be acting entirely alone,” Tale said. “Indirect alignment among U.S. adversaries — even without a formal alliance — would create a cascading effect.”

We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating and, again, they cannot have nuclear weapons

— President Trump

The U.S. demands Iran give up all nuclear enrichment and relinquish existing stockpiles of enriched uranium so as to stop any path to developing a bomb. Iran has repeatedly stated it does not want to build a nuclear weapon and that nuclear enrichment would be for exclusively peaceful purposes.

The Trump administration has also talked about curtailing Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support to proxy groups, such as Hezbollah, in the region, though those have not been consistent demands. Tehran insists the talks should be limited to the nuclear issue.

After indirect negotiations on Thursday, Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi — the mediator for the talks in Geneva — lauded what he said was “significant progress.” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said there had been “constructive proposals.”

Trump, however, struck a frustrated tone when speaking to reporters on Friday.

“We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating and, again, they cannot have nuclear weapons,” he said.

Trump also downplayed concerns that an attack could escalate into a longer conflict.

Anti-government protest in Tehran, Iran, on Jan. 9.

This frame grab from footage circulating on social media shows protesters dancing and cheering around a bonfire during an anti-government protest in Tehran, Iran, on Jan. 9.

(Uncredited / Associated Press)

“I guess you could say there’s always a risk. You know, when there’s war, there’s a risk in anything, both good and bad,” Trump said.

Three days earlier, in his State of the Union address Tuesday, said, “My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. But one thing is certain, I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon — can’t let that happen.”

There are other signs an attack could be imminent.

On Friday, the U.S. Embassy in Israel allowed staff to leave the country if they wished. That followed an earlier move this week to evacuate dependents in the embassy in Lebanon. Other countries have followed suit, including the U.K, which pulled its embassy staff in Tehran. Meanwhile, several airlines have suspended service to Israel and Iran.

A U.S. military campaign would come at a sensitive time for Iran’s leadership.

The country’s armed forces are still recovering from the June war with Israel and the U.S, which left more than 1,200 people dead and more than 6,000 injured in Iran. In Israel, 28 people were killed and dozens injured.

Unrest in January — when security forces killed anywhere from 3,000 to 30,000 protesters (estimates range wildly) — means the government has no shortage of domestic enemies. Meanwhile, long-term sanctions have hobbled Iran’s economy and left most Iranians desperately poor.

Despite those vulnerabilities, observers say the U.S. buildup is likely to make Iran dig in its heels, especially because it would not want to set the precedent of giving up positions at the barrel of a U.S. gun.

Other U.S. demands would constitute red lines. Its missile arsenal, for example, counts as its main counter to the U.S. and Israel, said Rose Kelanic, Director of the Middle East Program at the Defense Priorities think tank.

“Iran’s deterrence policy is defense by attrition. They act like a porcupine so the bear will drop them… The missiles are the quills,” she said, adding that the strategy means Iran cannot fully defend against the U.S., but could inflict pain.

At the same time, although mechanisms to monitor nuclear enrichment exist, reining in Tehran’s support for proxy groups would be a much harder matter to verify.

But the larger issue is that Iran doesn’t trust Trump to follow through on whatever the negotiations reach.

After all, it was Trump who withdrew from an Obama-era deal designed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, despite widespread consensus Iran was in compliance.

Trump and numerous other critics complained Iran was not constrained in its other “malign activities,” such as support for militant groups in the Middle East and development of ballistic missiles. The Trump administration embarked on a policy of “maximum pressure” hoping to bring Iran to its knees, but it was met with what Iran watchers called maximum resistance.

In June, he joined Israel in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, a move that didn’t result in the Islamic Republic returning to negotiations and accepting Trump’s terms. And he has waxed wistfully about regime change.

“Trump has worked very hard to make U.S. threats credible by amassing this huge military force offshore, and they’re extremely credible at this point,” Kelanic said.

“But he also has to make his assurances credible that if Iran agrees to U.S. demands, that the U.S. won’t attack Iran anyway.”

Talé, the former parliamentarian, put it differently.

“If Iranian diplomats demonstrate flexibility, Trump will be more emboldened,” he said. “That’s why Iran, as a sovereign nation, must not capitulate to any foreign power, including America.”

Source link

Renee Good ‘slow to anger, quick to love,’ her father says

Renee Good loved sparkles and laughter and any excuse for a celebration. She loved pretty much everyone she met, and was late for pretty much everything.

“She had this way of making you feel special and loved that I didn’t even understand … until we lost her,” Donna Ganger said Friday of her daughter, who was shot and killed by an immigration officer during the federal crackdown in Minneapolis.

She was “slow to anger, quick to love, quick to care,” said her father, Tim Ganger. “That’s the essence of who she was.”

Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, was killed Jan. 7 as immigration agents surged through the Minneapolis area, sparking waves of protests. Her death and that of another U.S. citizen, Alex Pretti, weeks later in Minneapolis sparked outrage across the country and calls to rein in immigration enforcement.

In a wide-ranging interview in Colorado, where some of the family lives, Good’s parents and two of her brothers, Brent and Luke Ganger, talked to the AP about the joy Good found in life, their grief and their hopes that her death can bring about change in a deeply polarized nation.

“It’s going to be hard in the future,” Donna Ganger said. “It’s going to be kind of a constant pain.”

Settling in Minneapolis

Good, who graduated from college later in life, was volunteering in a local school district and working as a substitute teacher when she was killed, her parents said.

“She was working so hard to get her education, and then she was finally able to use it, and I could just tell how happy she was and how fulfilled,” Donna Ganger said.

Good, her 6-year-old son and her partner, Becca Good — the women were not legally married, according to a family lawyer, but referred to each other as wives — had only recently relocated to Minneapolis from Kansas City, Mo., settling on a quiet residential street in a tight-knit neighborhood known for its progressive activism.

In social media accounts, Renee Good described herself as a “poet and writer and wife and mom.” On Pinterest, a profile picture shows her smiling and holding a young child, alongside posts about tattoos, hairstyles and home decorating.

The family “settled very quickly into the community in Minneapolis,” said Donna Ganger, describing how the neighborhood had also welcomed the rest of the family when they came after the shooting. They see that as the result of the love that Good had showed her new neighbors.

“It was incredible to receive that back,” Luke Ganger said.

Donna Ganger held a stuffed toy owl as she spoke, a gift from her daughter, who knew how much she loved the birds. It had sparkles on its feet, a reminder of Good’s love for glitter.

At Good’s memorial service, a table of glitter had been set out for guests. Donna Ganger had put a piece on a lens of her glasses and it’s remained there.

“She just kind of sparkled all the way through,” said Donna Ganger. “I think of her and I look down and see my little sparkle.”

‘A very American blend’

The family is “a very American blend,” Luke Ganger said recently in testimony to Congress. “We vote differently, and we rarely completely agree on the finer details of what it means to be a citizen of this country.”

Yet “we have always treated each other with love and respect,” he said.

On Friday, the family didn’t want to discuss the specifics of their differences, but Donna Ganger said she’d long prayed for guidance: “Before all this happened, I said, ‘Make me a wise woman.’”

In the hours after Good’s death, Trump administration officials said she had been shot as she tried to drive her car into an immigration officer. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Good had committed “an act of domestic terrorism.”

But as video evidence and other details of the confrontation emerged, and criticism of the crackdown began growing, administration comments softened.

President Trump said he’d been told that Tim Ganger had supported him.

“He was all for Trump, loved Trump. And, you know, it’s terrible,” he told reporters. “I hope he still feels that way.”

Tim Ganger declined to talk about his political affiliation or whether it had changed with his daughter’s killing.

“I think I’m just going to leave that go,” he said. “There’s so many other important things” to deal with now, he added.

But family members said they hoped their ability to get along would be an inspiration.

“Our purpose through this whole tragic, difficult, unbelievable time, is to have something good come out of this,” Tim Ganger said. “Otherwise the senselessness of this is overwhelming.”

Sadness echoed in Donna Ganger’s voice as she talked about navigating family differences.

“Sometimes I’m just silly, you know, and I joke with them and I’m goofy,” she said. “But I want to be able to talk about hard things — and that’s hard sometimes with your own family to talk about hard things that maybe you don’t agree on. And I don’t want there to be any hardships between us or hurt.

“But it’s important that we learn to be careful with our words, but share them in a deep way,” she said. “It’s really important.”

Family members spoke only in general ways about the change they’d like to see come from Good’s death.

“I think it’s evident that something is broken, right?” said Brent Ganger. “And when something is broken, you have to take a deep look to see what it is that can be changed and fixed in order for it to not happen again.”

The morning of the shooting

On the morning of the shooting, as immigration raids and protests were flaring across the city, Becca Good has said she and Renee stopped their car in the street to support neighbors during an immigration operation.

Video shows Renee Good in a maroon SUV blocking part of the road and repeatedly honking her horn.

Two immigration officers get out of a truck and one orders Good to open her door. She reverses briefly, then turns the steering wheel as the officer says again, “Get out of the car.” Almost simultaneously, Becca Good, standing in the street shouts, “Drive, baby, drive!”

When Good begins pulling forward, an ICE officer standing in front of the vehicle — later identified as Jonathan Ross — pulls his weapon and fires at least two shots into the car, through the driver’s-side corner of the windshield and the driver’s window, killing Good.

Weeks later, Tim Ganger said he hoped the family’s tragedy would lead to change, though “I’m not even sure what that will look like.”

“But for something good, for people to stop and take a breath and take a look and have a dialog,” he said. “That’s the broader mission of what we want, for people to come together and take care of each other.”

The Justice Department has said it sees no basis to open a federal civil rights investigation into Good’s death, but the family has hired a law firm that is conducting its own investigation and exploring potential legal action.

Family members said no one from the federal government has contacted them about Good’s killing, and they are unsure whether anyone will be held accountable.

“All we can do is speak out and hope that our sincere words are enough to enact some kind of change,” Brent Ganger said.

Slevin and Sullivan write for the Associated Press and reported from Denver and Minneapolis, respectively.

Source link

U.S. and Israel carry out strikes across Iran

Israel and the United States launched an air campaign against Iran on Saturday, striking Tehran and several other cities in what President Trump said was the start of “major combat operations.”

The attacks began with Israeli strikes Saturday morning — a workday in Iran — on Tehran, the capital, with residents speaking of attacks near the presidential palace and Iran’s National Security Council.

There were also reports of Israeli strikes on the Ministry of Intelligence, Ministry of Defense, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran and a military complex.

Israel’s defense minister said the “pre-emptive strike” was to “remove threats against the State of Israel”.

It remains unclear the extent of the campaign and what its ultimate aim will be. But in an eight-minute recorded video message on Truth Social, Trump outlined a maximalist strategy that would see much of what he called “this very wicked, radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security interests.”

“We are going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground. … We are going to annihilate their navy. We are going to ensure that the region’s terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world, and attack our forces,” he said. “And we will ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.”

He urged Iranians to take over their government.

“This will be probably your only chance for generations,” he said. “For many years, you have asked for America’s help, but you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight.”

Trump also said U.S. military forces “may have casualties.”

Iran’s IRNA news agency quoted a source in the presidential office who said Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian was unharmed in the strike.

Besides the capital, explosions could be heard in other the cities, including Isfahan, Karaj, Kermanshah and Qom, according to Iranian state media.

Both Israel and Iran shut down their airspace.

Cellphone and internet communications were disrupted shortly after the attacks began. Multiple Iranian state news websites also appear to have been hacked.

There was no immediate official response from Iran, but Ebrahim Azizi, the head of the Iranian parliament’s national security commission, vowed retaliation.

“We warned you!” he wrote on social media. “Now you have started down a path which end is no longer in your control.”

Residents reported hearing sounds of missiles flying over cities in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon in what was thought to be a missile barrage from Iran against Israel.

The attacks come two days after the U.S. and Iran concluded a third round of Oman-brokered negotiations in Geneva aimed at reducing tensions and stopping the prospect of war.

On Friday, Trump expressed displeasure with the pace of the talks, saying the Iranian side were not negotiating in “good faith” or giving in to U.S. demands. But Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi said a deal was “within reach.”

Source link

Column: Fall of Kabul may not mean end of U.S. global power

Amid the chaos in Kabul, politicians and pundits have declared the Taliban’s victory in Afghanistan a defeat from which U.S. influence may never recover.

“Biden’s credibility is now shot,” wrote Gideon Rachman, chief oracle of Britain’s Financial Times.

“A grave blow to America’s standing,” warned the Economist.

But take a deep breath and remember some history.

When South Vietnam collapsed after a war that involved four times as many U.S. troops, many drew the same conclusion: The age of U.S. global power was over.

Less than 15 years later, the Berlin Wall came down, the Cold War began to end, and the United States soon stood as the world’s only superpower.

The lesson: A debacle like the defeat in Kabul — or the one in Saigon two generations earlier — doesn’t always prevent a powerful country from marshaling its resources and succeeding.

I’m not dismissing the tragedy that has befallen the Afghans or the damage that U.S. credibility has suffered. When President Biden told a news conference that he had “seen no questioning of our credibility from allies,” he sounded as if he was in denial — or, perhaps worse, out of touch.

No questioning? How about the question from Tobias Ellwood, chairman of the British Parliament’s defense committee: “Whatever happened to ‘America is back’?”

Or the complaint from Armin Laschet, the German conservative who could be his country’s leader after elections next month: “The greatest debacle NATO has experienced since its founding.”

Whether he likes it or not, Biden has repair work to do.

The first step, already underway, is making sure the endgame in Kabul doesn’t get any worse.

That means keeping U.S. troops on the ground until every American is out, as Biden has promised. It also requires an energetic effort to evacuate Afghans who worked with the U.S. government and other institutions, even if that requires risking the lives of some American troops. Those Afghans trusted us; if we abandon them, it will be a long time before we can credibly ask the same of anyone else.

And, of course, the administration needs to prevent Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups from replanting themselves in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. If the United States fails at that — the original reason we invaded the country almost 20 years ago — Biden’s decision to withdraw will justly be judged a fiasco.

There’s repair work to do beyond Afghanistan, too.

“We’ve got to show that it would be wrong to see American foreign policy through the lens of Afghanistan,” Richard N. Haass, president of the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations and a former top State Department official, told me.

The United States has more important interests that need attention and allies that need reassurance, he said.

“The most important thing is to deter our major foes,” he said, referring to China, Russia and Iran.

“This is a moment to strengthen forces in Europe, mount more freedom of navigation operations [by the U.S. Navy] in the South China Sea,” he said. “This is a good time to say we’re serious about our commitment to Taiwan,” which China periodically threatens.

Biden took a step in that direction in his recent interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, listing Taiwan along with South Korea and Japan as places where the U.S. “would respond” to an attack.

If anything, Haass and other foreign policy veterans say, the questions about American credibility are likely to make Biden react more strongly to the next few challenges overseas.

“The most intriguing question is what effect this episode has on Biden’s thinking,” suggested Aaron David Miller of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Will he think: ‘I’ve got to be tougher with the Iranians now? Do I have to signal to a country like Taiwan that I’m prepared to protect American interests there?’”

But the notion that American influence has been fatally damaged is overblown, he argued.

“There have been many other instances in which U.S. credibility has been diminished, but our phone continues to ring,” Miller said.

Biden and his aides already know most of this. The premises of his foreign policy — reviving U.S. domestic strength, revitalizing U.S. alliances, and focusing on vital interests like China and Russia — provide a foundation for recovery.

“My dad used to have an expression: If everything is equally important to you, nothing is important to you,” the president said last week. “We should be focusing on where the threat is the greatest.”

The test Biden faces now is whether he can execute that strategy — and show that he’s credible where it matters most — more successfully than in his botched withdrawal from an unwinnable war.

Source link

As power of California Senate leader grows, so does her spouse’s consulting business

Toni Atkins is one of California’s most powerful lawmakers, ascending to leadership roles in the Assembly and Senate the last five years.

As Atkins’ clout has soared, so too has the consulting businesses of her spouse, Jennifer LeSar.

The clientele for LeSar’s two affordable housing and economic development firms has grown nearly fourfold since 2013, the year before Atkins became Assembly speaker, according to Atkins’ economic disclosure forms.

In 2018, the year that Atkins’ colleagues elevated her to Senate president pro tem, her spouse’s firms had contracts with 86 public agencies, developers, nonprofits and other clients, the forms indicate, which was more than in any previous year. The year before, LeSar had received a lucrative contract from a Bay Area agency without going through a competitive bidding process — a rare step allowed in emergencies, when a company offers a unique service or when the agency can justify a compelling reason to do so.

LeSar is now in a position to potentially garner even more business as Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders, including her spouse, propose increasingly bold responses to the state’s housing affordability crisis.

In the last three years, LeSar’s firms have received $1.3 million from state agencies alone, including contracts to implement one of the state’s largest low-income housing programs, which Atkins, a Democrat from San Diego, supports. Additionally, over the last 18 months, LeSar worked on a plan that calls for a package of state legislation that would rewrite major California housing policies. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, a Bay Area public agency, is paying LeSar’s firm more than half a million dollars for the effort, through the no-bid contract.

Agency executives said LeSar’s relationship with Atkins had no bearing on their decision to hire her, and the Senate leader said she wouldn’t treat the bills any differently than any other proposals from her colleagues.

Atkins and LeSar, who has worked in affordable housing for nearly three decades, both said they are concerned about a perception of conflicts of interest and, as a result, consult with attorneys about possible intersections in their work.

“We spend a lot of time trying to make sure in our very busy days that we’re following the letter of the law,” Atkins said.

“These questions have been asked and answered before by the press and have largely been accepted as a nonissue,” LeSar said in an email response to The Times. She declined an interview request.

Rey Lopez-Calderon, executive director of the government ethics group California Common Cause, said the dramatic increase in LeSar’s clientele could raise concerns from the public that outside groups are trying to curry favor with a powerful politician by hiring her spouse.

“That’s really obviously a number that’s eyebrow raising,” Lopez-Calderon said. “It definitely runs the risk of the public thinking something shady is going on.”

Still, he said, absent evidence LeSar or Atkins used their relationship to leverage new business, there wasn’t anything illegal or unethical about LeSar’s consulting work.

Source: State Sen. Toni Atkins’ Annual Statements of Economic Interest

(Kyle Kim / Los Angeles Times)

Lawmakers have faced questions about potential conflicts involving a spouse and development issues before. In 2011, opponents of redevelopment agencies, which provided significant funding for low-income housing, criticized then-state Sen. Bob Huff about his efforts to save the program, noting that Huff’s wife was a paid consultant for a developer with a financial stake in the issue.

Political rivals have alleged Atkins’ relationship with LeSar is also a conflict, given Atkins’ outsized role in housing debates. In 2015, Atkins, then in the Assembly, proposed legislation to impose a fee on real estate transactions, such as mortgage refinancing, to fund low-income housing development. A version of the bill passed in 2017. When she first introduced the measure, Atkins requested an opinion from the Office of Legislative Counsel, which assured her that the bill presented no conflict of interest because the funding was not tied to any specific company or project. LeSar has vowed not to bid on funding directly tied to the bill.

Assembly leader Toni Atkins denies conflict of interest in funds proposal »

The couple married in 2008 after meeting while running in housing, LGBT advocacy and political circles in San Diego, where Atkins once served as a city councilwoman. Just before her election to the Legislature, Atkins worked for LeSar Development for about 18 months. While there, she wrote a report on development near transit and handled other housing work across the state. As of last month, Atkins was pictured on the business’ website, listed as an alumna of the firm. She no longer appears on a redesign of the site that became public Wednesday.

In 2011, after Atkins had been elected to the Legislature, LeSar opened a second firm, Estolano LeSar Advisors, with Cecilia Estolano, an attorney who worked in housing and economic development for the city of Los Angeles. Last year, Atkins abstained from voting on Estolano’s appointment to the powerful UC Board of Regents, which governs the state’s flagship university system.

Recent clients for the two firms, according to Atkins’ economic disclosures, have included the city and county of Los Angeles, UC Berkeley, USC, the California Endowment, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, for-profit and nonprofit developers and the Open Society Foundations, the organization founded by billionaire George Soros.

Rick Gentry, president of the San Diego Housing Commission, praised LeSar. Among other work, he said, she guided his public housing agency in 2014 into expanding its portfolio to provide homelessness services.

“She knows as much about the industry as anyone I’ve ever met,” Gentry said.

Officials with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission cited LeSar’s experience as their reason for hiring her.

The agency was finishing an effort to plan for growth in the Bay Area through 2040 and realized that project was futile without a comprehensive attempt to deal with the nation’s worst housing affordability challenges.

“Jennifer LeSar is extremely qualified and well-positioned to take on multiple roles for this project,” wrote Vikrant Sood, a senior planner with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, in a June 2017 memo justifying her hiring.

LeSar’s firm researched prior studies on the region’s housing problems and planned and attended the group’s meetings. The result of the effort was a proposal, known as the CASA Compact, which said the Bay Area could fix its housing problems only through a suite of state legislation.

The CASA Compact calls for new state laws to boost protections for tenants, increase apartment construction near transit and help raise more than $1 billion to build low-income housing, among other things. Bay Area legislators have introduced more than a dozen bills that align with the plan, nearly all of it affecting the entire state.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission officials said LeSar did not recommend any of the policies the region decided to pursue but, rather, packaged together the conclusions into a final report. LeSar also said she declined additional work with MTC once it became clear that the CASA Compact was going to advance state bills.

She said she sought a legal opinion in January after the agency discussed offering her a new contract to help implement the plan.

LeSar initially told The Times that her attorney had advised her that the second contract would be a potential conflict so she declined the work. But in later correspondence with The Times, she said that she had been mistaken. The attorney’s advice, LeSar said, was that the new contract wouldn’t pose a conflict, but she decided to forgo the work to avoid any appearance of a problem.

Commission officials anticipated the CASA Compact process would lead to state legislation from the beginning. Sood said in the June 2017 memo that originally justified LeSar’s hiring that CASA “will yield a package of legislative and funding solutions at the state and regional level.”

Despite that, agency officials decided to pursue LeSar directly rather than putting the initial contract out to a competitive bid, a process designed to ensure an agency receives the best services for the lowest cost and without bias. The agency said it could do so because it had a compelling reason — LeSar’s background and the ambitious nature of the project — to hire her without first seeking out other firms.

No MTC officers publicly opposed hiring LeSar. Following agency rules, then-Executive Director Steve Heminger signed off on the first $200,000 of the contract himself. The agency’s administrative committee, which is made up of Bay Area elected officials, voted unanimously and without comment in December 2017 to increase the amount to $450,000. (The contract value rose to $511,000 when it was extended again at the beginning of this year.)

Some local government officials in the Bay Area’s smaller cities oppose the CASA Compact because they believe it takes away their power. Michael Barnes, a councilman in the city of Albany — a community that borders Berkeley — said LeSar’s extensive work with the MTC over the last 18 months adds to fears that lawmakers, out of deference to Atkins, will overlook local leaders’ concerns when evaluating the legislation.

“We have very strict guidelines for our ethical behavior,” Barnes said. “For me, as someone who has lived under these guidelines as an elected official, this doesn’t seem ethical.”

LeSar’s businesses also have seen an increase in contracts with state agencies, per Atkins’ economic disclosures. Since February 2016, the two firms have received at least nine contracts from four state departments. All but one — a $5,000 contract to advise housing department employees on evaluating loan documents — were awarded through competitive bidding processes.

Much of the contract work has come from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, which is responsible for administering housing and planning efforts funded by the state’s cap-and-trade program, which taxes polluters. The state has provided roughly $400 million annually through Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, one of the largest budget allocations for low-income development and one that Atkins has said she “led the effort” in the Legislature to fund. Estolano LeSar was hired to help applicants from disadvantaged communities write grants and provide other support for their projects.

Newsom’s office declined to comment, but Ken Alex, who was OPR director under former Gov. Jerry Brown, said he was unaware of Atkins and LeSar’s relationship.

“I have heard from staff that the work was good and would have been advised if it was not,” Alex said.

Atkins said she has sometimes voted in ways that have hurt her spouse’s business. In 2011, she supported ending the state’s redevelopment program, the property tax set aside for local governments that funded local affordable housing and economic development.

“I was part of a vote that actually almost killed her business for a period of time,” Atkins said.

Atkins said she doesn’t plan to write any of the bills recommended in the CASA Compact proposal. She said she wouldn’t abstain from voting on them or otherwise handle them differently than any other piece of legislation because the bills address broad policy matters and therefore don’t present a conflict.

But if CASA Compact measures pass, it could be a signal to outside groups that hiring LeSar could be beneficial to getting similar efforts through the Legislature, given Atkins’ substantial influence over the fate of legislation at the Capitol, said Lopez-Calderon of Common Cause.

“I definitely think that some businesses will imagine that exact scenario and act accordingly,” he said.

liam.dillon@latimes.com

@dillonliam



Source link

Judge extends order protecting Minnesota refugees from arrest, deportation

A federal judge Friday extended an order protecting refugees in Minnesota who are lawfully in the U.S. from being arrested and deported, saying a Trump administration policy turns the “American Dream into a dystopian nightmare.”

U.S. District Judge John Tunheim granted a motion by advocates for refugees to convert a temporary restraining order that he issued in January into a more permanent preliminary injunction while the case develops.

The order applies only in Minnesota. But the implications of a new national policy on refugees that the Department of Homeland Security announced Feb. 18 were a major part of the discussion at a hearing held by the judge the next day.

“Minnesota refugees can now live their lives without fear that their own government will snatch them off the street and imprison them far from loved ones,” Kimberly Grano, an attorney with the International Refugee Assistance Project, told the Associated Press.

The Trump administration asserts that it has the right to arrest potentially tens of thousands of refugees across the U.S. who entered the country legally but don’t yet have green cards. A new Homeland Security memo interprets immigration law to say that refugees applying for green cards must return to federal custody one year after they were admitted to the U.S. so that their applications can be reviewed.

The judge expressed disbelief in a 66-page opinion.

“This Court will not allow federal authorities to use a new and erroneous statutory interpretation to terrorize refugees who immigrated to this country under the promise that they would be welcomed and allowed to live in peace, far from the persecution they fled,” Tunheim said.

He said the U.S. decades ago promised refugees fleeing persecution that they could build a new life after rigorous background checks.

“We promised them the hope that one day they could achieve the American Dream,” Tunheim wrote. “The Government’s new policy breaks that promise — without congressional authorization — and raises serious constitutional concerns. The new policy turns the refugees’ American Dream into a dystopian nightmare.”

Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said in a statement Friday night that the ruling was “yet another lawless and activist order from a federal judge” and that the Trump administration expected to be “vindicated in court.”

“USCIS is committed to rooting out fraud and protecting the public safety and national security interests of the American people by screening and vetting aliens,” the statement said.

Justice Department attorney Brantley Mayers said during a court hearing last week that the government should have the right to arrest refugees one year after entering the U.S., but he also indicated that would not always happen.

The judge noted that one refugee in the case, identified as D. Doe, was arrested in January after being told that someone had struck his car.

“He was immediately flown to Texas, where he was interrogated about his refugee status. He was kept in ‘shackles and handcuffs’ for sixteen hours. D. Doe was ultimately released on the streets of Texas, left to find his way back to Minnesota,” Tunheim said.

Karnowski and White write for the Associated Press and reported from Minneapolis and Detroit, respectively. AP writer Rebecca Boone in Boise, Idaho, contributed to this report.

Source link

Ramadan in Yemen’s Aden: Optimism dimmed by tensions and shortages | Politics News

Aden, Yemen – Abu Amjad was shopping with his two children last week, finally able to take them out and buy them new clothes – a cherished Ramadan tradition in Yemen.

The 35-year-old is a teacher, and he had just received his salary. That payment was a sign things are improving in Aden – the salaries are funded by Saudi Arabia as a way of backing the Yemeni government, which has recently arrived to take control of Aden after the defeat of secessionist forces.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

But problems and instability are never far away in Yemen.

Just as soon as the children, Amjad, 10, and Mona, 7, began trying on their outfits, the sound of gunfire erupted. Shoppers froze. Amjad and Mona clutched their father, asking to leave.

About 3km (2 miles) away, security forces had opened fire on protesters who attempted to breach the gates of al-Maashiq Palace, where members of the Yemeni government have been based since they arrived from Riyadh a week ago.

The gunfire shattered the family’s moment of joy.

“It ruins your joy when you see a person bleed and robs you of peace when you hear prolonged gunfire,” Abu Amjad told Al Jazeera.

After years of operating from exile, Yemen’s Saudi-backed, UN-recognised cabinet is spending Ramadan in Aden, a move that has coincided with improvements in basic services and a renewed sense of relief. Yet that relief was overshadowed by the deadly confrontation between security forces and antigovernment protesters, in which at least one person was killed.

“That was the first clash after the return of the government to Aden. Our concern is that it may not be the last,” said Abu Amjad.

Government wins

Yemen’s new Prime Minister Shaya al-Zindani has said that stabilising Aden and other areas under government control was among the new government’s main priorities.

The Yemeni government is currently in its strongest position for years. An advance by the separatist Southern Transitional Council (STC) at the end of last year in eastern Yemen ultimately was a step too far for the United Arab Emirates-backed group.

Saudi Arabia considered the STC advance the crossing of a red line, and lent its full military backing to the Yemeni government, allowing it to take territory it had not controlled for years.

Now, the Yemeni government and Saudi Arabia are focused on attempting to improve conditions in the southern and eastern areas of Yemen under government control, to attract more public support. That would in turn weaken support for both the STC and the Houthi rebels, who have controlled northwestern Yemen, including the capital, Sanaa, since the country’s war began in 2014.

Lit city and busy markets

Abdulrahman Mansour, a bus driver and resident of Khormaksar in Aden, said Ramadan this year feels different.

“When I see the lights on and the markets busy on Ramadan nights in Aden, it feels like a different city. The improvement is undeniable,” Mansour, 42, told Al Jazeera.

He noted that one distinct difference this Ramadan is the stable provision of electricity. “This reminds me of the pre-war time. We used to take that service for granted,” said Mansour.

“When the city is dark at night, it appears gloomy, and families prefer to stay home. The movement of people brings life to the city and helps small businesses keep afloat, especially in Ramadan,” Mansour added.

Yemeni Electricity Minister Adnan al-Kaf said last week that efforts to improve electricity services in Aden and other provinces continue, noting that Saudi support had contributed to improved service over the past two months.

Wafiq Saleh, a Yemeni economic researcher, said the improvement in the living standards of citizens in Aden and southern Yemen, in general, was obvious, particularly after Saudi Arabia’s payment of public sector salaries and the supply of basic services such as water and electricity.

Saleh told Al Jazeera, “The recent Saudi financial support has been very generous, and it can help the government during this period by enabling it to work on reactivating dormant resources, resuming oil exports, combating corruption, and improving the efficiency of revenue collection with transparency and good governance.”

But Saleh emphasised that the progress achieved so far is not the result of economic reforms by the Yemeni government, but rather because of Saudi support.

Therefore, according to the economist, the improvement in the living situation and the currency’s value may not be sustainable, even if it is a positive indicator and may be the first step towards promised economic reforms in the country.

“There must be a comprehensive vision for developing revenue collection so that the government can implement sustainable economic reforms,” Saleh said.

Search for cooking gas

While the distribution of electricity has improved in Aden, other essential services remain strained. Cooking gas shortages remain a major concern. The search for it remains a daily struggle for families in the port city, and the crisis has intensified in Ramadan.

Lines of vehicles queue at stations, while residents wait with cylinders for a few litres (quarts) of gas.

“Going from one station to another in search of cooking gas while fasting is exhausting,” said Fawaz Ahmed, a 42-year resident of Khormaksar district.

Fawaz describes the shortage of cooking gas as a cause of hunger in the city. “If I stay in [my home] village, I would resort to firewood. But in the city, that option is not available, and if we find firewood in the market, it is expensive.”

Gas distributors say the quantity of cooking gas supplied to them is not adequate, citing this as the root cause of the crisis. Supplies are transported from Marib province in northern Yemen.

Tensions to continue

The cooking gas shortage is a sign that it will not be plain sailing for the Yemeni government in Aden.

And opponents will likely seize on any ongoing problems to foment more unrest.

Majed al-Daari, editor-in-chief of the independent Yemeni news site Maraqiboun Press, described the situation in Aden as “very worrying”.

“What happened to the demonstrators at the start of Ramadan underscores the fragility of the political and security situation. Tensions are set to continue,” al-Daari said.

“The STC will continue mobilising its supporters against the government. This is its last card that it will use to restore lost political interests,” al-Daari added.

The STC said in a statement last week that raids and arbitrary arrests had targeted people who had participated in the recent protests. These attacks, the statement emphasised, would only increase the determination of the southerner secessionists.

For Abu Amjad,  demonstrations in Aden give space to chaos, which he resents.

“At least, Ramadan should pass without protests. Political actors should spare us this month so we can fast and share some joy with our children,” he said.

Source link

Peace ‘within reach’ as Iran agrees no nuclear material stockpile: Oman FM | Military News

Oman’s Foreign Minister says most recent indirect talks between US, Iran ‘really advanced, substantially’ and diplomacy must be allowed do its work.

Iran agreed during indirect talks with the United States never to stockpile enriched uranium, said Oman’s top diplomat, who described the development as a major breakthrough.

Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi also said on Friday that he believed all issues in a deal between Iran and the US could be resolved “amicably and comprehensively” within a few months.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

“A peace deal is within our reach … if we just allow diplomacy the space it needs to get there,” Al Busaidi said in an interview with CBS News in Washington, DC, after Oman brokered the third round of indirect talks between the US and Iran in Geneva on Thursday.

“If the ultimate objective is to ensure forever that Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb, I think we have cracked that problem through these negotiations by agreeing [on] a very important breakthrough that has never been achieved any time before,” Al Busaidi said.

“The single most important achievement, I believe, is the agreement that Iran will never ever have nuclear material that will create a bomb,” he said.

“Now we are talking about zero stockpiling, and that is very, very important because if you cannot stockpile material that is enriched, then there is no way that you can actually create a bomb,” he added.

There would also be “full and comprehensive verification by the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency]”, he said, referring to the UN’s nuclear watchdog.

Oman’s top diplomat also said Iran would degrade its current stockpiles of nuclear material to “the lowest level possible” so that it is “converted into fuel, and that fuel will be irreversible”.

“This is something completely new. It really makes the enrichment argument less relevant, because now we are talking about zero stockpiling,” Al Busaidi said.

Regarding recent US demands regarding Iran’s missile programme, Al Busaidi said: “I believe Iran is open to discuss everything”.

Asked if he thought enough ground was covered in the most recent talks in Geneva to hold off a US attack on Iran, the minister said, “I hope so.”

“We have really advanced substantially, and I think, obviously, there remains various details to be ironed out, and this is why we need a little bit more time to really try and accomplish the ultimate goal of having a comprehensive package of the deal,” he said.

“But the big picture is that a deal is in our hands,” he added.

The foreign minister’s comment followed after he met earlier on Friday with US Vice President JD Vance and as US President Donald Trump continued to sabre-rattle while at the same time declaring he favoured a diplomatic solution with Tehran.

Trump said on Friday that he was not happy with the recent talks that concluded in Geneva.

“We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating,” Trump told reporters in Washington, adding that Iran “should make a deal”.

“They’d be smart if they made a deal,” he said.

Trump later said that he would prefer it if the US did not have to use military force, “but sometimes you have to do it”.

The US and Iranian sides are expected to meet again on Monday in Vienna, Austria, for more indirect negotiations.

Source link