politics

One year into Donald Trump’s return to office, a wave of hardline actions – from volatile ICE raids to growing concern over political pressure on the media – has raised alarm about the expansion of the president’s power.

Then with US midterms approaching, attention is turning to whether there is any meaningful challenge to Republican grip on Congress.

So what happens next?

This week on UpFront, Marc Lamont Hill speaks with journalist and author Chris Hedges about Trump’s second presidency and whether US democracy is on the decline.

NEW YORK — A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore funding to a new rail tunnel between New York and New Jersey, ruling just as construction was set to shut down and amid reports that President Trump was withholding the money unless Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer saw to it that Penn Station and Washington Dulles International Airport were renamed in the president’s honor.

The administration had sought to pressure Schumer (D-N.Y.) to help get the facilities renamed for Trump in exchange for releasing the money to fund the massive infrastructure project, according to the New York Times, citing top administration officials.

The judge’s decision Friday came months after the administration announced it was halting $16 billion in support for the project, citing the then-government shutdown and what a top federal budget official said were concerns about unconstitutional spending around diversity, equity and inclusion principles.

U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas in Manhattan approved a request by New York and New Jersey for a temporary restraining order barring the administration from withholding the funds while the states seek a preliminary injunction that would keep the money flowing while their lawsuit plays out in court.

“The Court is also persuaded that Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiffs have adequately shown that the public interest would be harmed by a delay in a critical infrastructure project.”

The White House and the Department of Transportation did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment Friday night.

New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James called the ruling “a critical victory for workers and commuters in New York and New Jersey.”

“I am grateful the court acted quickly to block this senseless funding freeze, which threatened to derail a project our entire region depends on,” James said in a statement. “The Hudson Tunnel Project is one of the most important infrastructure projects in the nation, and we will keep fighting to ensure construction can continue without unnecessary federal interference.”

The panel overseeing the project, the Gateway Development Commission, had said work would stop late Friday afternoon because of the federal funding freeze, resulting in the immediate loss of about 1,000 jobs as well as thousands of additional jobs in the future.

It was not immediately clear when work would resume. In a nighttime statement, the commission said: “As soon as funds are released, we will work quickly to restart site operations and get our workers back on the job.”

The new tunnel is meant to ease strain on an existing one that is more than 110 years old and connects New York and New Jersey for Amtrak and commuter trains, where delays can lead to backups up and down the East Coast.

New York and New Jersey sued over the funding pause this week, as did the Gateway Development Commission, moving to restore the Trump administration’s support.

The suspension was seen as a way for the Trump administration to put pressure on Schumer, whom the White House was blaming for a government shutdown last year. The shutdown was resolved a few weeks later.

Speaking to the media on Air Force One, Trump was asked about reports that he would unfreeze funding for the tunnel project if Schumer would agree to a plan to rename Penn Station in New York and Dulles International Airport in Virginia after the president.

“Chuck Schumer suggested that to me, about changing the name of Penn Station to Trump Station. Dulles airport is really separate,” Trump responded.

Schumer responded on social media: “Absolute lie. He knows it. Everyone knows it. Only one man can restart the project and he can restart it with the snap of his fingers.”

At a hearing in the states’ lawsuit earlier in Manhattan, Shankar Duraiswamy of the New Jersey attorney general’s office told the judge that the states need “urgent relief” because of the harm and costs that will occur if the project is stopped.

“There is literally a massive hole in the earth in North Bergen,” he said, referring to the New Jersey city and claiming that abandoning the sites, even temporarily, “would pose a substantial safety and public health threat.”

Duraiswamy said the problem with shutting down now is that even a short stoppage would cause longer delays because workers would be laid off and go off to other jobs and it would be hard to quickly remobilize if funding becomes available. And, he added, “any long-term suspension of funding could torpedo the project.”

Tara Schwartz, an assistant U.S. attorney arguing for the government, disagreed with the “parade of horribles” described by attorneys for the states.

She said that the states had not even made clear how long the sites could be maintained by the Gateway Development Commission. So the judge asked Duraiswamy, and he said they could maintain the sites for a few weeks and possibly a few months, but that the states would continue to suffer irreparable harm because trains would continue to run late because they rely on an outdated tunnel.

Izaguirre and Collins write for the Associated Press and reported from New York and Hartford, Conn.

WASHINGTON — Ever since a racist video was posted on President Trump’s social media account, the White House has offered shifting responses.

First it dismissed “fake outrage” by those denouncing it as racist, then it deleted the post and blamed a staff member.

Trump later told reporters Friday that “I didn’t make a mistake.” The Republican president claimed that before the video was posted, he did not see the part that depicted former President Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama as apes.

The chair of the Congressional Black Caucus was unsparing in her criticism when she spoke to the Associated Press.

“It’s very clear that there was an intent to harm people, to hurt people, with this video,” Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) said.

The AP interviewed Clarke, who leads the group of more than 60 Black House and Senate members, hours after the video was deleted Friday.

Here is an interview transcript, edited for length and clarity.

What was your reaction when you saw that the post?

We’re dealing with a bigoted and racist regime. … Every week we are, as the American people, put in a position where we have to respond to something very cruel or something extremely off-putting that this administration does. It’s a part of their MO at this point.

Do you buy the White House explanation that this was an aide’s mistake?

They don’t tell the truth. If there wasn’t a climate, a toxic and racist climate within the White House, we wouldn’t see this type of behavior regardless of who it’s coming from…. Here we are, in the year 2026, celebrating the 250th anniversary of the United States of America, the 100th anniversary of the commemoration of Black history, and this is what comes out of the White House on a Friday morning. It’s beneath all of us.

Has there been any contact between the White House and the Congressional Black Caucus on this? Could there be any good-faith exchange?

There has been no outreach from the White House. We certainly didn’t expect there to be. The outreach has to happen prior to these type of juvenile antics.

Republican criticism built more quickly Friday than it has during previous Trump controversies. What do you make of that?

It’s not lost on them, our communities that we represent, that elections are coming up. So it’s not lost on my colleagues, either. If they want to align themselves with this type of really profane imagery, this type of bigoted and racist attack on a former sitting president and his wife, they are throwing their lot in with an individual who has shown himself to be a disgrace.

It’s not common for President Trump to retract anything. What does that indicate to you that he did?

I think it’s more of a political expediency than it is any moral compass. … As my mother would say, “Too late. Mercy’s gone.”

What more do you hope to see from the White House about this?

My hope is that we can contain the harm that they’re doing. There are Black children who are listening to their president … seeing what he’s posting on Truth Social, [and] it will have an impact on how they view leadership of their own country. … I think that this administration has an opportunity to change course. They always do. We leave room for that. But, unfortunately, Donald Trump is hardwired this way.

Is there anything else you’d like to add?

As a democracy, we have to stand up together against this type of racism, this type of bigotry, this kind of hatred that is coming from the president of the United States and those who surround him. … It’s very clear that there was an intent to harm people, to hurt people, with this video. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have stayed up for 12 hours.

Barrow and Zhang write for the Associated Press and reported from Atlanta and Washington, respectively.

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday reapproved the weed killer dicamba for use on genetically modified soybeans and cotton, a pesticide that has raised widespread concern over its tendency to drift and destroy nearby crops.

The agency said dicamba was critical for farmers who would otherwise have their crops threatened by fast growing weeds. To ensure the pesticide is used safely, the agency said it imposed strong protections and limits on its use.

Dicamba is a common weed killer that can be sprayed on top of genetically engineered crops. It kills the weeds but doesn’t hurt the crops. It has been in use for decades, but it has become more widespread on farms in recent years.

Advocates sharply criticized the agency, saying they are moving forward after courts blocked similar efforts in 2020 and 2024. Allowing its use on these two common crops will drastically expand how much is applied and increase harm, advocates say.

Kelly Ryerson, an activist with the Make American Healthy Again movement that has forged a fragile political allegiance with the Trump administration, said she was disheartened by the decision.

“A top priority of mine was to have the use of Dicamba for over-the-top applications permanently discontinued because” of their harm, she said. “New restrictions on use are not sufficient, and will perpetuate the chemical treadmill where many farmers are trapped.”

The EPA said growers want the weed killer and they need to be supported — and that it isn’t a MAHA versus EPA issue.

The agency said concerns about dicamba drifting to places where it was not intended are real and must be managed. It set limits on how much can be applied per acre, how much can be applied on hot days and established buffer zones to prevent harm to nearby crops. If followed, the chemical can be used without threatening humans or the environment, according to EPA.

The American Soybean Assn. applauded the decision, saying clear rules would help farmers prepare for the next growing season and control destructive weeds.

Environmental groups said dicamba drift has damaged immense acreage, devastating vegetable farms, trees and other critical plants.

“When push comes to shove, this administration is willing to bend over backward to appease the pesticide industry, regardless of the consequences to public health or the environment,” said Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity.

Environmentalists said the EPA’s use restrictions are insufficient, allowing application for too much of the time and for too many days of the year. The buffer the agency uses to prevent harm to nearby plants has already proved ineffective, they said.

Researchers have been working to better understand its health risks. A 2020 study in the International Journal of Epidemiology found that dicamba exposure was linked to an increased risk for some cancers, including liver cancer and a type of leukemia affecting the blood and bone marrow.

Bayer, a manufacturer of dicamba, said the federal registration will allow them to now seek state approvals. They’ll launch training for applicators in the coming weeks.

Phillis writes for the Associated Press.

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

For six days this week, anybody could dream at the L.A. city clerk’s office.

Angelenos seeking elected office had to file their declarations of intent between Monday and Saturday to be eligible for the June 2 primary.

All week, the third floor courtyard of the C. Erwin Piper Technical Center was abuzz with candidates milling about, filling out paperwork, signing ethics forms and writing down their job histories.

Some will win elected office, which, naturally, means others will lose.

And some may not get on the ballot — each candidate must gather 500 legitimate voter signatures by March 4, which is relatively easy in citywide races but harder in council districts.

A candidate arrives to file to run for office in the the 2026 Municipal elections at the city clerk’s office in downtown Los Angeles on Wednesday.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

“I know I won’t win,” said Joseph Garcia, a gardener, former screenwriter and member of the Venice Neighborhood Council who filed Tuesday to run for mayor.

During an interview, Garcia removed his shoe to show an injury to his foot. City clerk staffers politely asked him to put his shoe back on.

One candidate showed up on colorful roller skates wearing a wreath of flowers on her head. Another came in scrubs.

Other aspiring politicians were ready to get down to brass tacks.

Tim Gaspar, a business owner who is running to represent Council District 3, purchased a strawberry Pop-Tart from a vending machine and spoke about his fundraising numbers.

In the race to replace Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, who is terming out, Gaspar has raised more than $300,000, which is $100,000 more than the two other candidates who have raised any cash at all.

Gaspar, who was wearing a blue suit, said the money came from more than 900 donors.

“It’s been a grassroots campaign,” he said.

Minutes earlier, former reality television star Spencer Pratt stepped out of his Ford F150 and changed from flip-flops into sneakers before walking into the building to file his declaration to run for mayor.

Pratt wore shorts, a hat that said “Heidiwood” — for his wife, Heidi Pratt — and a shirt for Heidi’s “Superficial” album tour. He was flanked by two private security guards and two aides.

As Pratt was walking in, Jose Ugarte, a top aide to Councilmember Curren Price who is running to replace his boss in Council District 9, was walking out.

“F— that guy,” Ugarte said about Pratt, a registered Republican who has received endorsements from many in the MAGA world. Ugarte has been explicit in his anti-Trump sentiment, specifically over the summer’s immigration raids.

Henry Mantel files to run for City Council District 5 at the city clerk’s office on Wednesday.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

In the elevator, Pratt edited a social media video in which he railed against Los Angeles Fire Department Chief Jaime Moore for not looking into who watered down the after-action report into the Palisades fire.

About 30 minutes later, after he finished filing, Pratt took questions from a gaggle of reporters huddled beyond a barrier that said “No media beyond this point.”

“It’s me or Karen Bass. We have no other choice,” said Pratt, one of more than 30 candidates who have filed to run against Bass, who is seeking a second term as mayor.

Watching from under a white tent as she filled out her declaration was Dylan Kendall, who is trying to oust Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez in District 13.

“I think Spencer Pratt kind of sucked the air out of the room,” Kendall said.

The former bartender said it took her about an hour to fill out her forms. She feels that Soto-Martínez has “neglected and ignored” residents in her district, which spans Echo Park and Hollywood, all the way to Atwater Village.

In the parking lot, Keeldar Hamilton, who sported a long ponytail, had just finished filing.

Asked what he was running for as he got into his Tesla Cybertruck, Hamilton said, “Governor … I mean mayor.”

State of play

— MAY-OR MAY NOT: The filing deadline to run for mayor is Saturday at 12 p.m., and some candidates have really taken it down to the wire. L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath is still weighing a run. Former schools Supt. Austin Beutner dropped out on Thursday, following the death of his 22-year-old daughter. Billionaire developer Rick Caruso, meanwhile, decided not to run — for the second time in less than a month.

— FIRE WATER: Two sources told The Times that two people close to Bass informed them that Bass wanted key findings in the LAFD after-action report on the Palisades fire softened. Bass denied The Times’ report, calling it “dangerous and irresponsible” for the newspaper to rely on third-hand information.

— SOTC PART 1: Bass delivered the first of two States of the City Monday, urging Angelenos to come together ahead of the 2028 Olympics while announcing a push to clean up Los Angeles’ busiest streets in the run-up to the Games. The second speech will take place in April.

— WASSERMANIA: LA28 Olympics committee Chair Casey Wasserman faced calls from L.A. officials to resign following revelations about racy emails he exchanged with convicted sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein’s former romantic partner. Bass did not take a stance, saying it was up to the LA28 board.

— FREE OF FEE: Palisades fire victims rebuilding homes, duplexes, condominium units, apartment complexes and commercial buildings will not have to pay permit fees, the City Council decided Tuesday. Forfeiting those fees is expected to cost as much as $90 million over three years, according to Matt Szabo, the city’s top budget analyst.

— PRICE FAINT: Councilmember Curren Price, 75, was taken to the hospital Wednesday after fainting during a Black History Month event at City Hall. Price was “in stable condition, is in recovery and doing well,” said Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson.

— HALL PASS: Former State Assemblymember Isadore Hall dropped out of the race for L.A. city controller, saying in a statement to The Times that a death in his family had prompted his decision.

— SHERIFF SUITS: L.A. County spent $229 million on legal payouts and lawyer bills last fiscal year. Nearly half of that — $112 million — went to defend the Sheriff’s Department against lawsuits, a 12% uptick in the department’s payouts from the year before.

— COUNTY CUTS: The county approved nearly $200 million in cuts to homeless services, despite 2024 voter support for a sales tax to combat the crisis.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature homelessness program went to Lincoln Heights, bringing 17 unhoused Angelenos indoors from an encampment.
• On the docket next week: A plan to build 1,000 units of housing at the Row DTLA goes before the Planning Commission on Thursday.

Stay in touch

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

WASHINGTON  — The White House’s TrumpRx website went live Thursday with a promise to instantly deliver prescription drugs at “the lowest price anywhere in the world.”

“This launch represents the largest reduction in prescription drug prices in history by many, many times, and it’s not even close,” President Trump said at a news conference announcing the launch of the platform.

Drug policy experts say the jury is still out on whether the platform will provide the significant savings Trump promises, though it will probably help people who need drugs not commonly covered by insurance.

Senate Democrats, meanwhile, called the site a “vanity project” and questioned whether the program presents a possible conflict of interest involving the pharmaceutical industry and the Trump family.

What is TrumpRx, really?

The new platform, trumprx.gov, is designed to help uninsured Americans find discounted prices for high-cost, brand-name prescriptions, including fertility, obesity and diabetes treatments.

The site does not directly sell drugs. Instead, consumers browse a list of discounted medicines, and select one for purchase. From there, they either receive a coupon accepted at certain pharmacies or are routed directly to a drug manufacturer’s website to purchase the prescription.

The White House said the reduced prices are possible after the administration negotiated voluntary “most favored nation” agreements with 16 major drugmakers including Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.

Under these deals, manufacturers have agreed to set certain U.S. drug prices no higher than those paid in other wealthy nations in exchange for three-year tariff exemptions. However, the full legal and financial details of the deals have not been made public, leaving lawmakers to speculate how TrumpRx’s pricing model works.

What does it accomplish?

Though the White House has framed TrumpRx as a historic reset for prescription drug costs, economists said the platform offers limited new savings.

But it does move the needle on the issue of drug pricing transparency, away from the hidden mechanisms behind how prescription drugs are priced, rebated and distributed, according to Geoffrey Joyce, director of health policy at the USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics.

“This has been a murky world, a terrible, obscure, opaque marketplace where drug prices have been inconsistently priced to different consumers,” Joyce said, “So this is a little step in the right direction, but it’s mostly performative from my perspective, which is kind of Trump in a nutshell.”

Still, for the uninsured or people seeking “lifestyle drugs” — like those for fertility or weight loss that insurers have historically declined to cover — TrumpRx could become a useful option, Joyce said.

“It’s kind of a win for Trump and a win for Pfizer,” Joyce said. “They get to say, ‘Look what we’re doing. We’re lowering prices. We’re keeping Trump happy, but it’s on our low-volume drugs, and drugs that we were discounting big time anyway.’”

Where does it fall short?

Early analyses by drug policy experts suggest many of the discounted medications listed on the TrumpRx site were already on offer through other drug databases before the platform launched.

For example, Pfizer’s Duavee menopause treatment is listed at $30.30 on TrumpRx, but it is also available for the same price at some pharmacies via GoodRx.

Weight management drug Wegovy starts at $199 on TrumpRx. Manufacturers were already selling the same discounted rates through its NovoCare Pharmacy program before the portal’s launch.

“[TrumpRx] uses data from GoodRx, an existing price-search database for prescription drugs,” said Darius N. Lakdawalla, a senior health policy researcher at USC. “It seems to provide prices that are essentially the same as the lowest price GoodRx reports on its website.”

Compared to GoodRx, TrumpRx covers a modest subset of drugs: 43 in all.

“Uninsured consumers, who do not use or know about GoodRx and need one of the specific drugs covered by the site, might benefit from TrumpRx. That seems like a very specific set of people,” Lakdawalla said.

Where do Democrats stand?

Democrats slammed the program this week, saying it would not provide substantial discounts for patients, and called for greater transparency around the administration’s dealings with drugmakers. To date, the administration has not disclosed the terms of the pricing agreements with manufacturers such as Pfizer and AstraZeneca.

In the lead-up to the TrumpRx launch, Democratic members of Congress questioned its usefulness and urged federal health regulators to delay its debut.

“This is just another Donald Trump pet project to rebrand something that already exists, take credit for it, and do nothing to actually lower healthcare prices,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said Friday. “Democrats will continue fighting to lower healthcare costs and push Republicans to stop giving handouts to billionaires at the expense of working-class Americans.”

Three other Democratic senators — Dick Durbin, Elizabeth Warren and Peter Welch — raised another concern in a Jan. 29 letter to Thomas March Bell, inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services.

The three senators pointed to potential conflicts of interest between TrumpRx and an online dispensing company, BlinkRx.

One of Trump’s sons, Donald Trump Jr., joined the BlinkRx Board of Directors in February 2025.

Months before, he became a partner at 1789 Capital, a venture capital firm that holds a significant stake in BlinkRx and led the startup’s $140-million funding round in 2024. After his appointment, BlinkRx launched a service to help pharmaceutical companies build direct-to-patient sales platforms quickly.

“The timing of the BlinkRx announcement so closely following the administration’s outreach to the largest drug companies, and the involvement of President Trump’s immediate family, raises questions about potential coordination, influence and self-dealing,” according to an October 2025 statement by Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Both BlinkRx and Donald Trump Jr. have denied any coordination.

What’s next?

The rollout of TrumpRx fits into a suite of White House programs designed to address rising costs, an area of vulnerability for Republicans ahead of the November midterms.

The White House issued a statement Friday urging support for the president’s healthcare initiative, dubbed “the great healthcare plan,” which it said will further reduce drug prices and lower insurance premiums.

For the roughly 8% of Americans without health insurance, TrumpRx’s website promises that more high-cost, brand-name drugs will be discounted on the platform in the future.

“It’s possible the benefits will become broader in the future,” Lakdawalla said. “I would say that the jury remains out on its long-run structure and its long-run pricing effects.”

SACRAMENTO — Only one of the candidates for California governor will appear in a splashy Super Bowl ad on Sunday, though a rival has locked in a valuable spot on Animal Planet’s lighthearted, cuddly “Puppy Bowl” before the big game.

A Silicon Valley-backed independent expenditure committee booked $1.4 million in airtime on NBCUniversal’s Peacock streaming service, which will feature the big game along with NBC, and on other broadcast networks on Sunday to introduce Matt Mahan, the mayor of San José who entered the governor’s race in late January.

A 30-second ad depicts Mahan, a moderate Democrat, as a “fixer of problems” in a big city “just miles from the big game” and touts his record reducing homelessness, building housing and reducing crime.

The ad was produced by a committee run independently of Mahan’s campaign and funded mostly by Silicon Valley executives, including $1 million from Michael Seibel of Y Combinator and $500,000 each from Riot Games co-founder Marc Merrill and his wife, Ashley.

“This Super Bowl ad kicks off our support for Matt Mahan’s run for governor,” said committee spokesman Matt Rodriguez. “His unmatched record on tackling crime, homelessness and housing in San José while focusing on the basics that Californians care about is very different than the old playbook of toxic politics.”

The committee has so far raised more than $3.2 million, according to Rodriguez, who provided the information about the contributors.

Other financial backers include Neil Mehta and Brian Singerman, two Bay Area venture capitalists, along with Paul Wachter, an investor who has advised former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and celebrity figures such as LeBron James and Dr. Dre on their business ventures.

As an independent committee, the group is barred from coordinating with Mahan and his campaign. A spokesperson for Mahan declined to comment on the committee or its game day ad.

Mahan, a moderate Democrat, has broken with Gov. Gavin Newsom on crime and other issues and is pitching himself as a pragmatist who would prioritize results over party politics or fighting with the Trump administration as Newsom has. Mahan’s campaign is not yet required to disclose donations but said it has raised more than $7 million since he entered the race, more than any candidate besides Tom Steyer, a progressive billionaire whose campaign is primarily self-funded.

Steyer, an investor turned climate activist, has already spent more than $27 million on his campaign. Most of that money went to producing and airing ads in which Steyer touts his wins supporting various ballot measures and pledges to break up utility monopolies to lower costs.

His latest ad debuts during Animal Planet’s “Puppy Bowl,” a pregame show that features two teams of adoptable dogs tussling over toys in a model football stadium. In the spot, a Realtor tells a couple that in order to afford a home, they might need to go back in time to 1980, “when the average home in California cost $100,000.”

With a burst of sparks, Steyer appears inside the time-traveling DeLorean from the 1985 film “Back to the Future” and says, “You shouldn’t have to go back in time to afford a home in California.” He then pledges to stop “Wall Street speculators from buying up homes” and pricing out “regular Californians.”

To have a legitimate shot at winning a governor’s race in a state as vast as California, home to some of the nation’s most costly media markets, candidates must raise millions of dollars to air ad campaigns robust enough to introduce themselves to voters or undercut their competitors.

According to campaign finance disclosures, former Rep. Katie Porter raised $6.1 million in 2025, the most of any candidate besides Steyer. But Mahan’s entry into the race has excited the tech and business interests that have until now avoided giving.

“The race is now kicked into gear,” and some candidates who have been fundraising for months — or years — “may find themselves lapped by the Mahan machine,” said Andrew Acosta, a Democratic strategist.

Though tech funders appear to be coalescing around the Silicon Valley mayor, he is “not going to come out of the gate lighting the campaign on fire because no one knows him,” Acosta said. With three months until primary ballots start hitting mailboxes, it’s a challenge for Mahan — though one that could be solved with enough money.

Steyer’s campaign criticized the wave of tech figures flocking to Mahan, saying business titans don’t spend their money without expecting something in return.

“This isn’t charity — it’s an investment so they get richer while everyone else gets priced out of California,” Steyer spokesman Kevin Liao said. “While San José remains the least affordable housing market in the world, Tom Steyer is ready to take on powerful special interests, make billionaires and corporations pay their fair share, and make California affordable for working people.”

With the threat of a proposed billionaire’s tax on California’s November ballot, new restrictions on AI and social media simmering in the Legislature and the impending exit of Gov. Gavin Newsom — who has been a reliable tech ally during his tenure — Silicon Valley leaders have made moves in recent weeks to boost their influence in California politics.

Google co-founder Sergey Brin and a handful of other CEOs recently loaded $35 million into a ballot measure committee and spent some of it on two separate efforts to lower housing costs.

Meta and Google have also ramped up spending on lobbying and super PACs in an effort to elect tech-friendly candidates and fight against AI regulation in statehouses both in California and around the country.

Lindsey Horvath will not run for Los Angeles mayor, becoming the latest political heavyweight to decide against a challenge to incumbent Karen Bass.

Horvath, who as an L.A. County supervisor represents 2 million people in a sprawling Westside and San Fernando Valley district, ended weeks of speculation about her political intentions, saying her work in the county “is not finished.”

“Over these past few months, you have shown me all the reasons you love Los Angeles —and why it’s worth fighting for,” Horvath said Friday in a statement. “I am grateful to the many leaders, organizations, and every single Angeleno who urged me to run for Mayor of Los Angeles.”

Horvath’s announcement, issued the night before the deadline for candidates to file, comes days after former L.A. schools superintendent Austin Beutner ended his mayoral campaign, citing the death of his 22-year-old daughter. Real estate developer Rick Caruso also removed himself from contention, saying for a second time Thursday that he would not run.

The filing period for mayoral candidates in the June 2 primary closes at noon on Saturday.

Horvath, 43, has been one of the mayor’s most outspoken critics over the past year, assailing her record on homelessness and last year’s Palisades fire, which destroyed thousands of homes and left 12 people dead. On social media, Horvath stoked speculation about her political future while calling the city’s record on homelessness “indefensible.”

Bass, in turn, has criticized county officials for pulling hundreds of millions of dollars out of a city-county agency on homelessness — a move spearheaded by Horvath — and into a new county agency. More recently, the mayor spoke out against the county’s plan to cut $200 million in homeless services.

Bass, 72, still faces several other challengers from across the political spectrum.

Reality TV star Spencer Pratt, a Republican, has received praise from an array of Trump supporters, including Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and U.S. Sen. Rick Scott, of Florida. Pratt has focused heavily on the city’s handling of the fire, which destroyed his home.

Democratic socialist Rae Huang is running against the mayor from her political left. Huang has called for more public housing and for a reduction in the number of police officers, with the cost savings poured into other city services.

Brentwood tech entrepreneur Adam Miller, who describes himself as a lifelong Democrat, said the city is on a downward trajectory and needs stronger management. The 56-year-old nonprofit executive plans to tap his personal wealth to jump-start his campaign.

Also in the race is Asaad Alnajjar, an employee of the Bureau of Street Lighting who sits on the Porter Ranch Neighborhood Council. Alnajjar, who has already loaned his campaign $80,000, said he would do a better job than Bass at running the city.

“I’m a leader. She’s a manager. That’s the difference,” said Alnajjar, 61.

With so many candidates in the mix, Bass and her political team do not expect she will clear the 50% bar to avoid a November runoff.

Bass has been running on her record, touting a major drop in homicides and reductions in street homelessness since she took office in 2022. She has talked up her efforts to speed up the approval of affordable housing and permits for rebuilding projects in Pacific Palisades.

The mayor has positioned herself as a check on Trump’s agenda. During last summer’s immigration raids in Los Angeles, she regularly called on the president to end the crackdown and remove the California National Guard from the city.

From the beginning, a mayoral run would have been a risky move for Horvath, who is not expected to face any major challengers to her own bid for reelection.

Horvath would have had to forfeit her seat to run against Bass, while facing a tight timeline for fundraising. Her campaign had already scheduled a reelection fundraiser for next week — after the filing deadline for mayoral candidates.

In political circles, Horvath is viewed as a strong candidate in 2028 for county chief executive, an elected office created through a ballot measure that Horvath championed.

The will-she-or-won’t-she events of the past week elevated Horvath’s political profile, as she aired her criticisms of the mayor on CNN and other news shows.

Relations between Bass and Horvath have been chilly at least since the Palisades fire broke out. The two were at odds over the press conferences that were held to update the public on the disaster and on efforts to reopen the burn area to traffic.

The relationship deteriorated further after Horvath and her colleagues voted to shift hundreds of millions of dollars out of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, a city-county partnership, and into a new county agency on homelessness.

Horvath, on social media, accused Bass of putting out “misinformation” about the new county agency. Bass, in turn, warned the county’s actions could cause the city to backslide in its fight against homelessness.

Horvath has been in elected office on and off since 2009, when she joined the West Hollywood City Council. She left the council in 2011, then rejoined in 2015, staying for about seven years.

In 2022, Horvath won her supervisorial seat, defeating former Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg, a political veteran.

Had she entered the race, Horvath would have faced questions about an array of issues bedeviling the county, including a $4-billion legal payout over sexual abuse that was later marred by allegations of fraud.

She was also a major force behind Measure G, a 2024 ballot measure that will expand the number of county supervisors and create the county CEO position but also is on track to inadvertently repeal a criminal justice reform measure passed by voters in the wake of the police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

An array of political parties and alliances will be vying for seats in the Bangladesh Parliament on February 12 in the country’s first election since the ousting of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in 2024. About 127 million registered voters are eligible to cast votes to elect 350 members of the Jatiya Sangsad, the country’s parliament.

The South Asian country has been in the hands of a caretaker government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus since August 2024, when a student-led uprising ended Hasina’s long rule. Hasina ordered troops to crack down on protesters, killing 1,400 people. She has since been sentenced to death by a special tribunal in Bangladesh for the brutal crackdown, but remains in exile in India, and her Awami League party has been banned from political activity.

Besides the election on February 12, Bangladesh will also hold a referendum on the July National Charter 2025 – a document drafted following the student protests, setting the foundation for future governance of the country.

The two biggest groups competing for parliamentary seats across the country’s 300 constituencies are the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), which is leading a coalition of 10 parties, and Jamaat-e-Islami (JIB), which heads an 11-party alliance, including the National Citizen Party, a group formed by students who led the anti-Hasina movement in 2024. The Awami League, which dominated Bangladeshi politics for decades, has been barred from fielding candidates.

Besides the two main blocs, the Islami Andolan Bangladesh, which broke away from the JIB-led alliance, and the Jatiya Party, a longtime ally of Hasina’s Awami League, are contesting independently.

Here is a look at the main political parties and their leaders vying for parliament seats this year, and the key players influencing the election.

Bangladesh Nationalist Party

Led by Tarique Rahman, the son of the late former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, the BNP is seen as one of the main contenders in the upcoming elections.

The party was founded in 1978 by Ziaur Rahman, Tarique’s father and one of the leading military figures of the country’s independence war against Pakistan in 1971, on the principles of Bangladeshi nationalism. According to the BNP website, this is an “ideology that recognises the right of Bangladeshis from all walks of life, irrespective of their ethnicity, gender or race”.

As a centre-right political party, the BNP has been a popular political force in the country for decades and has traditionally exchanged power with the Awami League.

For four decades after Ziaur Rahman’s assassination in 1981, his wife and Tarique’s father, Khaleda Zia, led the party. Khaleda served as the country’s first female prime minister from 1991 to 1996 and again from 2001 to 2006. In that period, Jamaat was an ally of the BNP as they together fought against Hasina’s Awami League.

After Hasina came back to power in 2009 – she had also ruled between 1996 and 2001 –  the BNP faced the wrath of her government over corruption charges, and Khaleda was put under house arrest in 2018 in two related cases. She was acquitted of all charges after Hasina’s departure in 2024.

Since Hasina’s ousting in 2024, the BNP has risen again as a political frontrunner. A December survey by the United States-based International Republican Institute indicated the BNP had the support of 33 percent of respondents. That was also the only month when the BNP — seeking to position itself as a liberal force ahead of the elections — broke its alliance with Jamaat. Polls show Jamaat just marginally behind the BNP in popular support.

Tarique, 60, had been living in London, United Kingdom, since he fled Bangladesh in 2008 over what he called politically motivated persecution. He arrived in Dhaka on December 25, 2025 to take over the BNP leadership ahead of his mother Khaleda’s death on December 30.

“We will build a Bangladesh that a mother dreams of,” he said in December after returning to the country and calling on citizens from the hills and plains – Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Christians – to join him in creating a secure and inclusive nation.

In election rallies, he has pledged to improve the country’s infrastructure, among other promises.

“If elected, the healthcare system will be improved, a flyover will be constructed in Sherpur, permanent embankments will be built in the river erosion areas of Dhunat, and the youth will be made self-reliant through the establishment of IT education institutions,” he said.

According to Khandakar Tahmid Rejwan, lecturer in global studies and governance at the Independent University, Bangladesh, since Rahman’s return, the BNP has become more organised.

“The party has basically revived with a newfound spirit in both its central and grassroots-level leadership,” he said.

“Typical objections against BNP and affiliated party activists, like [allegations of] extortion … have also significantly declined. Top leaders of the central committee have also been comparatively cautious to avoid any statement that might create popular outrage. Significantly, the people are flocking in thousands to hear from Rahman at his electoral rally, even late at midnight,” he said.

Rejwan added that it is widely believed that Rahman is the only man who can currently unite Bangladesh with an “inclusive vision”, unlike his Jamaat rivals, who have failed to address any clear stance or acknowledge what are seen by many as their restrictive policies towards women and religious minorities.

Jamaat-e-Islami

The party was founded in 1941 by Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi during British rule in India.

In 1971, during Bangladesh’s war of independence, Jamaat supported staying with Pakistan, and was banned after the country won its freedom.

But in 1979, four years after the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who had fought for Bangladesh’s independence and is seen by many as the country’s founding father, BNP founder Ziaur Rahman, who was the country’s president at the time, lifted the ban. Ziaur Rahman was also assassinated in 1981.

Over the next two decades, Jamaat developed into a significant political force. It supported the BNP-led coalition in 1991 and 2001.

But while Hasina was in power from 2009 until she was toppled in student-led protests in 2024 and fled to India, five top Jamaat leaders were executed, while others were jailed for crimes committed during the independence war of 1971. The party was barred in 2013 from running in elections.

In June 2025, the country’s Supreme Court restored the party’s registration, paving the way for its participation in elections.

While Jamaat no longer has an alliance with the BNP, its current leader, 67-year-old Shafiqur Rahman, has also focused on reorganising the party into a strong contender in the election.

Speaking at an election rally in Jamalpur city on Sunday, Shafiqur Rahman said the upcoming election “will be a turning point”.

“It is an election to end the cries of the families of martyrs. It is an election to bury the rotten politics of the past,” he said, according to The Daily Star newspaper.

But his party’s resurgence has also prompted debate over whether Bangladesh is prepared to be led by an Islamist force, which some fear could seek to enforce Islamic law or try to restrict women’s rights and freedoms.

However, Jamaat has rejected such fears and has told reporters it is focusing on expanding its electoral power. Last December, the party announced an alliance with the National Citizen Party, founded by 2024 leaders of the student-led uprising, and with the Liberal Democratic Party, led by 1971 war hero Oli Ahmad.

For the first time in its history, Jamaat is also fielding a Hindu candidate, Krishna Nandi, from Khulna, in a bid to attract non-Muslim voters.

The International Republican Institute survey suggested the Jamaat-led alliance at number two, with 29 percent, closely behind the BNP.

According to Independent University’s Rejwan, Jamaat has an appeal across Bangladesh’s social classes.

“Its student wing has literally outperformed any other political rivals in the university union elections. We are also seeing the Jamaat-affiliated women’s wing reaching out door-to-door in both rural and urban areas to expand their women’s base of voters. Moreover, since the fall of Hasina, we are seeing pro-Jamaat active and retired elites from security forces, university academics, and civil services constantly pushing the pro-Jamaat narratives within their respective capacities,” he said.

“Jamaat’s upper hand and pragmatic postures are now being extended to its allies, like NCP, which is explicitly reaping all the benefits of its senior partner in the alliance,” he added.

National Citizens Party (NCP)

The NCP, one of Jamaat’s allies, was formed in February 2025 by students who led the mass protests in July 2024 over government job quotas, which ultimately toppled Hasina’s government.

Seeking to stand for the 2026 elections, the leaders told a rally in February 2025 that they had formed the party “to uphold the spirit of the July movement among students”.

Led by Nahid Islam, 27, the stated ideals of the NCP are to ensure “governance without corruption” and to unite the country. The party says it aims to uphold freedom of the press, increase women’s representation in parliament and improve Bangladesh’s relations with neighbouring countries, such as India.

But lacking adequate funds to run by itself in an election, the party has allied with Jamaat. However, the move has been received poorly by some in Bangladesh. It also triggered some resignations by some NCP members over ideological differences.

According to local media reports, those members submitted a memorandum stating that Jamaat’s controversial political history and historical views against Bangladesh’s independence in 1971 were contrary to the NCP’s values.

In an interview with ABC News last month, Nahid Islam defended the decision to unite with Jamaat and said, “When we are forming an electoral alliance, we are not abandoning our own political beliefs. It’s just a strategic alliance.”

“It’s unfortunate to see the leader of the political party that arguably claims to own and lead the 2024 mass uprising and depose Hasina, now become a junior partner to a major political party,” Rejwan said.

“As a result, we see defections of many top leaders of NCP, and astonishingly, by allying, it was only able to bargain for 30 seats for its own candidate. To sum up, Nahid has sold his political autonomy and image of an exclusive figure by de facto becoming subservient to Jamaat,” he added.

Who are the other key players in the election?

Besides the main political parties, Muhammad Yunus, who currently leads the interim government, and General Waker-Uz-Zaman, the army chief, are also influential figures in this election.

Yunus, who was selected to run the government after Hasina’s ousting, is facilitating the election in his capacity as the country’s chief adviser.

But while political parties are campaigning for the election, Yunus is focusing on the referendum on the July Charter, which will take place on the same day.

After Hasina’s ousting, Yunus formed the Constitution Reform Commission (CRC) in 2025, seeking to amend the governance of the country. The commission proposed an anticorruption mechanism, electoral reforms and new rules the police must follow, among other issues. The July Charter is the culmination of the CRC’s work and takes its name from the protests which dismantled Hasina’s government in July 2024. Bangladeshis will vote to approve or reject it in the referendum.

Last month, Yunus expressed confidence in the results of the referendum and told the media he expected people and political parties to agree to the charter. But some critics have said holding the referendum and establishing the charter is not constitutional.

General Zaman is also a key player in the election.

Following the 1975 assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Bangladesh’s founding leader and then-president, the country entered a period marked by coups, countercoups and military rule, which reshaped the state.

Currently, the army is not vying for electoral power, but its focus will be on ensuring public order and security during the election, in light of political violence that has spread in the country since the upheaval of 2024.

The military also plays a role with respect to backing the political party in power or deciding how to govern the country during a political crisis.

In September 2024, after the protests against Hasina, Zaman told the Reuters news agency that he would back Yunus’s interim government “come what may”, while also floating a timeline for elections within 18 months, placing him central to the political debate.

A successful election will require goodwill from both Yunus and the army chief, according to Rejwan.

“Executives under the leadership of Yunus are critical to ensure the nationwide voting, while the Chief of Army Staff Waker’s forces, which would be deployed throughout the country, are indispensable to maintain public order and prevent the proliferation of political instability, violence and chaos,” he said.

Does Hasina have any power at all?

Hasina, who is currently in exile in India, has denounced the upcoming elections since her party, the Awami League, has not been allowed to take part. However, those who voted for her in the past must now choose how to vote this time.

In a message sent to the media last month, Hasina stated that “a government born of exclusion cannot unite a divided nation”.

“Each time political participation is denied to a significant portion of the population, it deepens resentment, delegitimises institutions and creates the conditions for future instability,” the former leader warned in an email to The Associated Press news agency.

Bangladesh’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it was “surprised and shocked” that Hasina had been allowed to make a public address in India. Her speeches and statements are banned from the media in Bangladesh.

“Allowing the event to take place in the Indian capital and letting mass murderer Hasina openly deliver her hate speech … constitute a clear affront to the people and the Government of Bangladesh,” the ministry said in a statement.

Hasina was sentenced to death in absentia by a tribunal in Bangladesh last November, and Dhaka has called on New Delhi to extradite her.

But she remains in India, and Rejwan says she will be a key political instigator of unrest as the elections approach.

“If Hasina were a negligible figure, then the interim government wouldn’t have banned all of her speeches and statements from being aired on television or printed in newspapers … the interim government would also not have reacted so firmly against India for allowing her to speak,” he noted.

“This means Hasina is a factor that the interim government implicitly believes has an influence over the Awami League populace, who are yet undecided on whom to cast their vote for, given that AL is banned from the polls,” he said.

“The reality is that AL has its own clear political ideology and a base of loyal cadres, many of whom have declined to change their allegiance despite living a harsh clandestine life in Bangladesh or abroad,” he added.

Lawyers for the Ecuadorian asylum seeker have speculated the Trump administration is seeking ‘retaliatory’ actions.

The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has revealed it will continue to seek the deportation of five-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his father Adrian Conejo Arias, after their recent return to Minnesota.

The department, however, denied it is seeking their expedited removal, as the family’s lawyer claimed.

“These are regular removal proceedings,” DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said on Friday. “This is standard procedure, and there is nothing retaliatory about enforcing the nation’s immigration laws.”

Conejo Ramos’s case has drawn nationwide attention since his initial detention on January 20.

Photos went viral of Conejo Ramos standing in the snow, dressed in floppy blue bunny ears, with an immigration agent grabbing onto his Spiderman backpack.

Officials in Minnesota’s Columbia Heights Public School District accused immigration officials of using the preschool student as “bait” for his father. DHS, meanwhile, has claimed that his father abandoned the child when approached by immigration authorities.

Each side has denied the other’s account of the January 20 arrest.

Since December, the administration of President Donald Trump has led an immigration crackdown in Minnesota known as Operation Metro Surge. As many as 3,000 agents were deployed to the state at the operation’s height.

But bystander videos and photos have raised questions about the heavy-handed tactics being used, particularly in the Minneapolis-St Paul metropolitan area.

There, two US citizens were shot dead by immigration agents in the last month alone: Renee Nicole Good on January 7 and Alex Pretti on January 24.

The outcry over the shooting deaths, as well as other reports of violence against bystanders and warrantless arrests, has prompted the Trump administration to announce this week the withdrawal of nearly 700 immigration agents.

The detention of Conejo Ramos and his father had been among the high-profile flashpoints during the crackdown.

The five-year-old and his father were detained as they were coming home from preschool. They were quickly transported from Minnesota to Dilley, Texas, where they were kept in an immigration processing centre while Trump officials sought their expulsion.

But on January 27, Judge Fred Biery ruled that the two should be released while they challenged their expulsion.

“They seek nothing more than some modicum of due process and the rule of law,” Biery wrote in his brief but cutting decision.

Conejo Ramos and his father arrived in the US from Ecuador. Their legal team has said the pair entered the country legally and were in the midst of their asylum proceedings at the time of their detention.

Lawyer Danielle Molliver told Minnesota Public Radio this week that DHS had filed documents to expedite the father and son’s removal, speculating that the action was “retaliatory”.

“It’s really frustrating as an attorney, because they keep throwing new obstacles in our way,” she told the public broadcaster. “There’s absolutely no reason that this should be expedited.”

Bangkok, Thailand – The orange campaign buses of Thailand’s opposition People’s Party have been hard to miss in recent weeks, winding through cities and villages carrying reformist politicians on what they call the “Choose the Future” tour.

At rally stops, thousands have gathered to hear promises of change.

On social media, videos of the candidates have drawn millions of views.

For many, the support for the party before Sunday’s general election has stirred hope that the democratic future it promises may finally be within reach.

But in Thailand, winning an election does not guarantee the right to govern.

Known simply as the Orange party for its signature colour, the People’s Party is the latest incarnation of a progressive movement that has repeatedly clashed with Thailand’s royalist conservative establishment. Its predecessor won the last election in 2023, taking 151 seats in the 500-member House. Yet it was blocked from power by a military-appointed Senate and later dissolved by the Constitutional Court over its calls to curb the powers of the monarchy.

“Our ‘soldiers’ might have grown in number, but the conservative side’s arsenal is still devastatingly strong,” said Thankrit Duangmaneeporn, co-director of Breaking the Cycle, a documentary about the “Orange Movement”. But he said he hoped the party could still force the entrenched establishment into a compromise by demonstrating overwhelming support at the polls.

“We will fight at the ballot box on Sunday,” he said. “That is all we can do.”

Overturned mandates

For more than a quarter-century, Thailand – a nation of about 71 million people – has been trapped in a dispiriting loop. Reformist parties win elections, only to be removed by courts, coups or other interventions by judges, generals and tycoons, all loyal to the monarchy.

Many fear the pattern is about to repeat itself.

While opinion polls suggest the People’s Party will again win the most seats on Sunday, analysts say the conservative Bhumjaithai Party, led by caretaker Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, stands a better chance of forming a government.

A January 30 survey by the National Institute of Development Administration put the People’s Party leader, Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut, in first place for prime minister with 29.1 percent, followed by Anutin at 22.4 percent. For party lists, the People’s Party led with 34.2 percent, followed by Bhumjaithai at 22.6 percent. In third was Pheu Thai, the party of jailed former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, with 16.2 percent.

A candidate for the top job must secure the backing of 251 legislators. Unless the People’s Party can reach that threshold on its own, analysts say Bhumjaithai could manoeuvre – with the support of conservative power brokers, Pheu Thai and smaller parties – into forming the next government.

The People’s Party traces its roots to the Future Forward Party, founded in 2018 with a pledge to curb the influence of unelected institutions. It quickly became the most serious challenge to elite domination of Thai politics and the economy in a generation, winning 81 seats in its first election in 2019.

But it was disbanded by the courts the following year.

Reconstituted as Move Forward, the party went on to win the 2023 election — only to be dissolved again the next year.

‘We don’t use money to buy power’

Rukchanok Srinork, a 32-year-old lawmaker for the reborn People’s Party’s Bangbon District in Bangkok, said past defeats should not extinguish hopes. Speaking from a rally stop in the northern city of Chiang Mai, Rukchanok, who goes by the nickname “Ice”, said her party has already changed Thai politics.

“We are a party that won an election without spending a single baht on buying votes,” she told Al Jazeera, referring to the vote-buying practices that have long shaped Thailand’s elections, particularly in rural areas.

“We don’t use money to buy power,” she said.

Rukchanok’s own rise reflects the party’s appeal.

Once an online vendor, she built a following through social media critiques of corruption and military overreach, then entered the National Assembly on the strength of that support. Her story, she said, showed what could be possible in a fairer system.

“When people understand they have a role and that their voice matters, they won’t lose hope in politics,” Rukchanok said.

But that idealism might not be enough.

Prinya Thaewanarumitkul, a legal scholar at Thammasat University, warned that “money politics” could still tilt outcomes in rural areas, even if voters increasingly “take the money but vote with their heart”.

For the People’s Party, the possibility of forming a government “becomes real” only if it secures 200 seats or more, he added.

A conservative counteroffensive

Anutin, the caretaker prime minister, is the heir to a construction fortune and the face of Thailand’s cannabis legalisation. He became prime minister in August after the Constitutional Court removed his predecessor, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, over her handling of a border crisis with Cambodia.

Since then, he has skilfully exploited nationalist sentiment around the conflict, which killed 149 people on both sides before a ceasefire in December.

“Anyone can say ‘choose me and you won’t regret it,’” Anutin told a rally near the border with Cambodia this week. “But Bhumjaithai says that with the military on our side, we will never be defeated.”

Backed by the royalist establishment, Anutin has assembled a team of seasoned figures from business and diplomatic circles and drawn support from powerful political dynasties that trade their support for cabinet positions.

His party has also rolled out populist policies, including a subsidy programme that covers half the cost of food and has proved popular among struggling households and small businesses.

“I don’t know many other policies,” said Buapan Anusak, 56, at a recent Bhumjaithai rally in Bangkok. “But there also has to be a prime minister that’s patriotic,” she added, referring to the border tensions.

Bhumjaithai has also made inroads into territory once dominated by Pheu Thai, the party that won every election from 2001 until the People’s Party’s breakthrough in 2023.

Pheu Thai’s founder Thaksin, now 76, remains a hero to many for policies like universal healthcare. But Pheu Thai has lost its mantle as the voice of reform to the People’s Party, after it placed second in the last election and joined military-backed parties to form a government. Since then, two of its governments have collapsed, with two prime ministers — including Thaksin’s daughter Paetongtarn — removed by the courts.

Thaksin is currently in prison, with a parole hearing scheduled for May, around the time a new government must be formed.

“Thaksin remains a master of the ‘deal,’” said Prinya, the scholar at Thammasat University. And given Thaksin’s legal troubles and the pending cases against his daughter, the politician “is heavily incentivised to maintain a partnership with the conservative establishment,” Prinya added.

Economic strain

Whoever wins on Sunday will inherit a country in economic distress.

Tariffs have hurt exporters, growth has slowed to less than 2 percent, and tourist arrivals have declined.

“This may be a last chance to repair Thailand’s once-Teflon economy,” said Pavida Pananond, a professor of international business at Thammasat University, referring to the country’s historical resilience. But to bounce back, political stability would be essential, she stressed.

“Respecting the results and avoiding political manoeuvring that derails democratic processes is essential to restore economic confidence,” she added.

Back on the campaign trail, Rukchanok urged Thais not to give up.

“The moment you stop sending your signal by voting, that is when the 1 percent who hold this country’s resources will decide for you,” she said. “People may look at politics and see something ‘dirty’ — full of bluffing, mudslinging and endless arguing. But your life can only change if politics changes.”

She paused, then added: “We still have faith in the people.”

Authorities investigating killing of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, once seen as de-facto PM under father’s iron-fisted rule.

Thousands of people have attended the funeral of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s most prominent son, who was shot dead this week.

The burial took place on Friday in the town of Bani Walid, some 175 kilometres (110 miles) south of Tripoli.

Nearly 15 years after the elder Gaddafi was toppled and killed in a 2011 NATO-backed uprising, thousands of loyalists turned up to mourn his son, who was once seen as the former leader’s heir apparent.

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi was killed on Tuesday in his home in the northwestern city of Zintan. His office said in a statement that he had been killed during a “direct confrontation” with four unknown gunmen who broke into his home.

The office of Libya’s attorney general said investigators and forensic doctors examined the 53-year-old’s body and determined that he died from gunshot wounds and that the office was working to identify suspects.

“We are here to accompany our beloved one, the son of our leader in whom we placed our hope and our future,” said Waad Ibrahim, a 33-year-old woman from Sirte, nearly 300km (186 miles) away from Bani Walid.

Divided country

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi was once described as the de facto prime minister under his father’s iron-fisted 40-year rule, cultivating an image of moderation and reform despite holding no official position.

Championing himself as a reformer, he led talks on Libya abandoning its weapons of mass destruction and negotiated compensation for the families of those killed in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.

But that reputation soon collapsed when he promised “rivers of blood” in response to the 2011 uprising, which led to his arrest that year on a warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity.

In 2021, he announced he would run for president, but the elections aiming to unify the divided country under a United Nations agreement were indefinitely postponed.

Today, Libya remains split between Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah’s UN-backed government based in Tripoli and an eastern administration backed by Khalifa Haftar.

The killing of Gaddafi, seen by many as an alternative to the country’s power duopoly, occurred less than a week after a reported January 28 meeting in France’s Elysee Palace, which brought together Haftar’s son and advisers to Dbeibah.

The president of the United States posted a racist video Thursday night depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as apes. On Friday, the White House dismissed criticism — but the president deleted the post. Was this episode disappointing? Yes. Surprising? Not anymore.

Last spring, after Pope Francis had died, Donald Trump posted an AI image of himself as the pope just days before cardinals convened to elect a successor.

So, no — it is not surprising that the president would choose to post virulent anti-Black imagery during Black History Month.

But it is disappointing here in 2026 that an occupant of the Oval Office is still thinking like that.

Back in 1971, the president of the United States laughed when the governor of California referred to the African delegates at the United Nations as monkeys. Less than 10 years later, that governor became the president of the United States. And here we are, half a century later, and yet another president has amplified that racist trope.

Meaning white supremacy is still on the ballot.

That Nixon-Reagan-Trump throughline isn’t tightly wound around policy or principle, but simply that shared worldview. After all, Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency and Reagan offered amnesty to immigrants — highly un-Trump-like moves. No, their commonality is best revealed in the delight each man took in an old racist attack against Black people.

For Americans who are 50 and older — roughly a third of the nation — this worldview has been the architect responsible for White House policy for most of our lives. And yet, when Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election, the forensic investigation focused on grocery prices and her absence from Joe Rogan’s podcast. Some — in trying to explain why Harris lost — mischaracterized her role at the border or inflated her influence on the war in Gaza.

For some reason, race did not seem to receive the same level of scrutiny.

This factor was slighted despite decades of data, such as the wave of white nationalists endorsing Harris’ opponent and the birther movement questioning President Obama’s citizenship. The trio of presidents who are on the record as enjoying depictions of Black people as monkeys — Nixon, Reagan and Trump — all used racist dog whistles in their combined 10 presidential campaigns. Their administrations have tended to be more anti-civil-rights movement than post-civil-rights movement.

Our nation’s attempts at understanding ourselves are continuously undercut by the denial that for some single-issue voters, race is their single issue. Not the price of bacon or their religious convictions. Not Gaza. Just the promise of having a safe space for prejudice. And when the president of the United States entertains racist jokes as Nixon did in the 1970s or shares racist videos as Trump continues to do, undoubtedly there is a sense among the electorate that such prejudice has a home in the White House.

Before Trump used social media to push yesteryear’s ugliness, earlier in the week Harris relaunched her 2024 social media campaign account, calling it a place where Gen Z can “meet and revisit with some of our great courageous leaders, be they elected leaders, community leaders, civic leaders, faith leaders, young leaders.” She exhorted: “Stay engaged. I’ll see you out there.”

Whether she plans to run again in 2028 is unclear. What we do know is she would not have posted an AI picture of herself as the new pope while Catholics were mourning Francis (or any other time). We know she would not have advocated for immigration officers to racially profile Black and brown Americans or disregard the 14th Amendment to detain children. We do not know how many of her policy proposals she would have been able to get across the finish line in Congress, but we do know her record of public service to the American people, in contrast with the current president who is suing the American people for $10 billion.

There is nothing wrong with revisiting Harris’ missteps on the campaign trail or debating her electability as she reemerges in the public spotlight. But now that Trump has resorted to posting monkey jokes about Black people, perhaps updated forensics will consider our well established history of racism among the factors in the 2024 election.

It is not a shock that a president of the United States thinks poorly of Black people. Not when you know that more than 25% of those who have held the office were themselves enslavers. But it is disappointing that 250 years into our nation’s story, some of us still deny the role that racism plays in shaping our politics and thus all of our lives.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

California lawmakers are expressing concern about how the future of Warner Bros. Discovery could affect Hollywood’s workforce.

In an open letter addressed to Netflix Chief Executives Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters and Paramount Skydance Corporation CEO David Ellison, U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) call for the industry giants to make “concrete commitments to Californian and American workers.”

Late last year, Netflix won the highly anticipated bidding war for Warner Bros, which would give the streamer control over Warner Bros.’ storied Burbank film and TV studios, HBO and HBO Max. The pending $72-billion deal would greatly reshape the Hollywood landscape. Separately, Paramount has continually thrown in counter-bids and has been consistently rejected.

With all of these moving pieces, there’s a bipartisan fear among the nation’s lawmakers about how the acquisition could affect jobs in the U.S. entertainment industry . As stated in the letter, the industry “supports more than 680,000 jobs and contributes over $115 billion annually to the regional economy.”

Given the slowdown the industry has seen post-COVID and the growing number of international productions, Los Angeles film activity was down 13.2% from July through September 2025 when compared with the same period last year. This downward trend continues to build on the loss of 42,000 jobs in L.A. between 2022 and 2024.

Ellison and Sarandos have made arguments for why they believe their respective companies are best positioned to take over Warner Bros.

But each deal comes with major cuts. Paramount is projected to slash $6 billion in expenses over three years, and Netflix is projecting to cut $2 billion to $3 billion. Some analysts believe these cuts will have a significant effect on the workforce.

Previously, Ellison said, “We believe that what we are offering is better for Hollywood. It’s better for the customers and it’s pro-competitive.”

Sarandos is also quoted in the letter saying: “We think it’s great for consumers. We think it’s a great way to create and protect jobs in the entertainment industry.”

Earlier this week during a Senate subcommittee hearing, Sarandos said Netflix plans to increase its film and television production spending to $26 billion this year, with a majority of that happening in the U.S.

The lawmakers’ letter raises a series of questions surrounding the livelihood of creators, the use of AI and “concrete steps” about preserving jobs in L.A. Schiff and Friedman also offer the CEOs an opportunity to meet with them to discuss their answers.

In an effort to ensure “America continues to lead the world in the creative economy,” the letter said that Congress is currently working on bipartisan legislation that would establish a federal film tax incentive. It will be modeled after state programs in California, Louisiana and Georgia.

“We view this as a tool to not just protect but encourage more domestic filming and sustainable job creation on American soil,” wrote the lawmakers.

Welcome to Black History Month, 2026 style.

President Trump posted a video Thursday to his social media site that contains animated images depicting former President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama as apes.

The White House took down the post Friday, and after first calling it nothing more than a meme, they dubbed it a mistake by a staffer. Sure.

But while the justifiable outrage over this overt racism spins itself into a brief media circus (because we all know something else will come along is about three minutes), let’s look a bit deeper into why this video is more than an affront to everything America stands for, or should stand for, anyway.

It’s no accident that the images of the Obamas are embedded deep inside a video about voter fraud conspiracies from the 2020 election (which are untrue, if I need to say it again). This video is an escalation in the assault that is likely to come on voting rights and voting access in the midterms.

“Absolutely, there’s a connection to the vote,” Melina Abdullah told me Friday. She’s a professor at Cal State Los Angeles and co-founder of Black Lives Matter-LA.

“This is about more than just about the Obamas,” added Brian Levin, a professor Emeritus at California State University, San Bernardino, and founder of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism. “It’s about people that are (perceived as) undermining our elections and our democracy.”

I caught Levin the day after he turned in a chapter about authoritarianism for a new book, which happens to look at how discrimination and the imposition of social hierarchies ties in with power.

Let me summarize. Vulnerable groups are smashed down as dangerous and not fit to be full citizens, so a smaller group of elites can justify power by any means to protect society from these lowly and nasty influences.

Let me make that messaging even simpler: Black and brown people are bad and shouldn’t be allowed to participate in democracy because they don’t deserve the right.

How does that play out at the ballot box?

All that talk about voter identification and election integrity is really about stopping people from voting — people who legally have the right to vote. Those who are least likely to be able to obtain proof of citizenship — which might require a passport, or birth certificate along with the money and know-how to get such documents — are often Black or brown people. They are often also poor, or poorer, and therefore have less time and money to put into obtaining documents, and also live in urban areas where they share polling places.

Is it such a stretch to imagine some kind of federal oversight at those types of polling places, turning away — or simply intimidating away — legal voters who have long made up a strong block of the Democratic base?

Let’s hope that never happens. But the current undermining of the legitimacy of Black and brown voters is, said both Levin and Abdullah, systemic and concerning.

Trump’s latest video is “part of a floodgate of bigotry and conspiracy that relates to elections and immigrants and Black people and it’s important to condemn the manner in which these puzzle pieces are put together to label African Americans and immigrants as a threat to democracy with respect to the vote,” Levin said.

The premise of the video in question is that Democrats have engaged in a complicated and decades-long scheme to steal elections. It’s presented as a documentary, and the images of the Obamas have been weirdly inserted as almost a subliminal flash near the end.

If you’ve missed the white supremacist postings that have now become commonplace on official government communications such as those from the Departments of Labor and Homeland Security, let me assure you that Levin is right and this primate video is indeed part of a “firehose” of white nationalist rhetoric coming not just from Trump but from the federal government as a whole.

The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, for example, has turned its focus toward punishing diversity, equity and inclusion. Just this week, another federal agency, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, began a probe against Nike for allegedly discriminating against white people in hiring.

“It has been not even a dog whistling, but a Xeroxing of the exact kind of terms that that I’ve been looking at on white supremacists and neo Nazi websites for decades,” Levin said.

It’s not my place or intent to warn Black people about racism, because that would be ludicrous and insulting, but I’ll warn the rest of us because in the end, authoritarianism targets everyone. This video is a clear statement that Trump’s vision of America is one in which every non-white group, every vulnerable group really, is a second class citizen.

“He’s enabling an entire group of people who want to take this country back to a time when rampant violent white supremacy was enabled in the law,” Abdullah said. “What they mean is recapturing an old school, oppressive racism that is pre-1965 pre-Voting Rights Act.”

That message, Levin said, has “a resonance with a decent part of his base,” and when fed ceaselessly into the system, can have violent outcomes.

Levin uses the example of when Trump tweeted during the protests over the killing of George Floyd, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” a phrase with a violent and racist history.

Levin said Black people have always been the primary targets of hate crimes in the United States, but after that tweet, it was some of the “worst days” for violence aimed by race.

“When a high transmitter, like a president, circulates imagery with regard to prejudice, it creates these stereotypes and conspiracy theories, which then are the groundwork for further conspiracy theories and aggression,” he added.

Abdullah said she worries that even if the voter crackdown isn’t officially sanctioned, those empowered conspiracy theorists will take action anyway.

“So the people who are so-called ‘monitoring,’ self-appointed monitors … this is who’s going to be pulling people out of voter lines, and so this is what he’s whipping up intentionally,” she said.

Keep your eye on the ball, folks, because the far-right Republicans running the show are laser-focused on it. The midterm elections have to go their way for them to remain in power.

The easiest way to ensure that outcome is to only allow voters who see things their way.

United States President Donald Trump has again stoked outrage over his online posts, this time for sharing a video depicting former President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle Obama, as apes.

The reposted clip came as part of a flurry of late-night messages on Trump’s Truth Social account.

By midday on Friday, the video had been removed — but not after an outpouring of bipartisan condemnation, slamming the post as blatantly racist.

In a post on the social media platform X, Tim Scott, the only Black Republican currently serving in the Senate, said he was “praying” that the video “was fake because it’s the most racist thing I’ve seen out of this White House”.

“The president should remove it,” he added.

Another Republican, Representative Mike Lawler, also called on Trump to delete the post, calling it “incredibly offensive — whether intentional or a mistake”.

Democrats, meanwhile, sought to tie the video to Trump’s history of insensitive remarks, and they called on Republicans to condemn this latest episode.

“President Obama and Michelle Obama are brilliant, compassionate and patriotic Americans. They represent the best of this country,” said Hakeem Jeffries, the top Democrat in the US House of Representatives.

“Donald Trump is a vile, unhinged and malignant bottom feeder. Why are GOP leaders like John Thune continuing to stand by this sick individual?”

The White House, for its part, initially defended the post as an “internet meme”. Later, it said the post had been shared “erroneously” by a White House staffer, not by the president.

Stoking outrage

Trump has long had an adversarial relationship with the Obamas, who became the first Black couple in US history to serve as president and first lady.

One of Trump’s first forays into national politics came during Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, when he pushed false claims that the Democratic leader had not been born in the US.

Trump, a Republican, is known to be a prolific social media user, and he co-founded Truth Social in February 2022 after being temporarily banned from other major social media sites.

There, he often reposts memes and videos generated through artificial intelligence that promote his public image and political platform.

The video that includes the Obamas came at 11:44pm Eastern US time (04:44 GMT) as part of a series of shared clips.

The image of the Obamas as apes comes about 59 seconds into a video that only lasts one minute and two seconds.

It appears dropped into a documentary-style segment that pushes baseless claims that the 2020 presidential election was marred by malfeasance involving electronic voting machines. Trump has repeatedly spread lies denying his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in that race.

The video, which bears the watermark of a site called Patriot News Outlet, briefly pairs the doctored image of the Obamas with the 1961 song The Lion Sleeps Tonight.

Critics have regularly accused Trump of intentionally stoking outrage to distract from politically damaging domestic issues, including the recent release of millions of files related to disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Trump’s name has featured in those files.

Midterms ahead

Some Republicans, like Lawler in New York, also face punishing re-election campaigns ahead as the country nears its November midterm elections.

Trump has warned that, if Republicans lose control of Congress, he could face new impeachment proceedings.

Initially, in the hours after the video was reposted on Trump’s Truth Social account, the White House dismissed the backlash as overblown.

White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told several US news outlets that the image of the Obamas was excerpted from an “internet meme video depicting President Trump as the King of the Jungle and Democrats as characters from ‘The Lion King’”, a 1994 animated feature film.

“Please stop the fake outrage and report on something today that actually matters to the American public,” she said in a statement to ABC News.

But that explanation did not dampen the bipartisan push for Trump to renounce the video.

Republican Senator Pete Ricketts of Nebraska was also among those calling for the post to be taken down.

“Even if this was a Lion King meme, a reasonable person sees the racist context to this,” Ricketts wrote on X.

“The White House should do what anyone does when they make a mistake: remove this and apologize.”

Democrats, meanwhile, questioned Trump’s fitness for the presidency. In a social media post, Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi drew a line between the video and the long history of racist depictions of Black people in the US.

He pointed to similarly dehumanising illustrations that were shared during the Jim Crow era, a period from 1865 to the mid-20th century when Black people faced segregation and unequal rights following the abolishment of slavery.

“This kind of Jim Crow-style dehumanisation is pathetic and a disgrace to the office,” he wrote.

For Mikayla Tencer, being self-employed already meant juggling higher taxes, irregular income and the constant pressure of finding her own health insurance. This year, it also meant rethinking how often she could afford to see a doctor.

The 29-year-old content creator in San Francisco paid $168 a month last year for a Blue Shield health plan through Covered California. This year — without enhanced federal subsidies that expired at the end of December — that same plan would have cost $299 a month, with higher copays.

“People assume that because I’m young, I can just pick the cheapest plan and not worry about it,” Tencer said. “But I do need regular care, especially for mental health.”

Tencer is among tens of thousands of middle-class Californians facing steep increases in health insurance costs after Congress allowed enhanced federal subsidies for Affordable Care Act plans to expire Dec. 31.

Those extra subsidies were enacted in 2021 as part of temporary, pandemic-era relief, boosting financial help for people buying coverage on state-run insurance marketplaces such as Covered California. The law also expanded eligibility to people earning more than 400% of the federal poverty level, about $62,600 for a single person and $128,600 for a family of four.

Mikayla Tencer records a TikTok video featuring eyeliners. Her blog showcases Bay Area attractions and local businesses.

(Paul Kuroda/For The Times)

With the expiration of the enhanced subsidies, people above that income threshold no longer receive federal assistance, and many who still qualify are seeing sharply higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs. On top of the loss of the extra federal benefits, the average Covered California premium this year rose by 10.3% because of fast-rising medical costs.

To lower her monthly bill, Tencer switched to the cheapest Covered California option, bringing her premium down to about $161 a month. But the savings came with new costs. Primary care and mental health visits now carry $60 copays, up from $35.

When she showed up for a psychiatric appointment to manage her ADHD and generalized anxiety disorder, she said, she learned her doctor was out of network.

“That visit would have been $35 before,” she said. “Now it’s $180 out of pocket.”

Because of the higher costs, Tencer said she has cut therapy from weekly to biweekly sessions.

“The subsidies made it possible for me to be self-employed in the first place,” Tencer said. “Without them, I’m seriously thinking about applying for full-time jobs, even though the market is terrible.”

For another self-employed Californian, the increase was even more dramatic.

Krista, a 42-year-old photographer and videographer in Santa Cruz County, relies on costly monthly intravenous treatments for a rare blood disorder. She asked that her full name not be used but shared her insurance and medical documents with The Times.

Last year, she paid about $285 a month for a Covered California plan. In late December, she received a notice showing her premium would rise to more than $1,200 a month. The rise was due to her loss of federal subsidies, as well as a 23% increase in the premium charged by Blue Shield.

“It terrified me. I thought, how am I ever going to retire?” she asked. “What’s the point?”

Krista ultimately enrolled in a plan costing about $522 a month, still nearly double what she had been paying, with a $5,000 deductible. She said she cannot downgrade to a cheaper plan because her clinic bills her treatment to insurance at roughly $30,000 a month, according to medical statements.

To cut costs and preserve the ability to save for retirement and eventually afford a place of her own, Krista decided to move into an RV on private land. The decision came the same week she received notices showing a rent increase and a steep jump in her health insurance premiums.

Mikayla Tencer, a marketing influencer, with her elder dog, “Lucky” at Alamo Square Park.

(Paul Kuroda/For The Times)

Krista said she had been planning for more than a year to find a long-term living situation that would enable her to live independently, rather than continue paying more for an apartment.

“Nobody asks to be sick,” Krista said. “No one should have their life ruined because they get diagnosed with a disease or break a leg.”

Jessica Altman, executive director of Covered California, said that about 160,000 Californians lost their subsidies when the enhanced federal assistance expired because their incomes were higher than 400% of the federal poverty level.

Although overall enrollment in Covered California this year has held steady, Altman said, she worries that more people will drop coverage as bills with the higher premiums arrive in the mail.

Those fears are already playing out.

Jayme Wernicke, a 34-year-old receptionist and single mother in Chico who earns about $49,000 a year, said she was transferred from Medi-Cal to a Covered California Anthem Blue Cross plan at the end of 2023. Her premium rose from about $30 a month to $60, then jumped to roughly $230 after the subsidies expired.

“For them to raise my health insurance almost 400% is just insane to me,” Wernicke said.

Her employer, a small family-owned business, does not offer health insurance. Her plan does not include dental or vision care and, she said, barely covers medical costs.

“At a certain point, it just feels completely counterintuitive,” she said. “Either way, I’m losing.”

Wernicke dropped her own coverage and plans to pay for care with cash, calculating that the state tax penalty is less than the cost of premiums. Her daughter remains insured.

Two other Californian residents told The Times that they also decided to go without coverage because they could no longer afford it. They declined to provide their full names, citing concerns about financial and professional consequences.

Under California law, residents without coverage face an annual penalty of at least $900 per adult and $450 per child.

One, a 29-year-old self-employed publicist in Los Angeles requires medication for epilepsy. Last year, she paid about $535 a month for a silver plan through Covered California. This year, the same plan would have cost $823.

After earning about $55,000 last year, she calculated that paying for care out of pocket would cost far less. Her epilepsy medication costs about $175 every three months without insurance, and her annual doctor visits total roughly $250.

“All of that combined is still far less than paying hundreds of dollars every month,” she said.

Another, April, a 58-year-old small-business owner in San Francisco, canceled her insurance in December after her quoted premium rose to $1,151 a month for a bronze plan and $1,723 for a silver plan, just for herself. Last year, April said she paid $566 for both her and her daughter. This year, her daughter’s premium alone jumped from $155 to $424.

The bronze plan also carried a $3,500 deductible for lab work and specialist visits, meaning she would have had to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket before coverage kicked in, on top of the higher monthly premium.

“The subsidies were absolutely what allowed me to sustain my business,” April said. “They were helping me sustain my financial world and have affordable care.”

She rushed to complete medical tests before dropping coverage and hopes to go a year uninsured.

“The scariest part is not having catastrophic coverage,” she said. “If something happens, it can be millions of dollars.”

Tencer, the content creator in San Francisco, believes that in order to make the nation healthier, affordable healthcare should be universal.

“Our government should be providing it.” she said. “People can’t go to the doctor for routine checkups, they can’t get things checked out early, and they can’t access the resources they need.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump shared a short video clip on social media late Thursday depicting former President Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama as apes, drawing immediate public backlash that the White House characterized as “fake outrage.”

The image, which Trump posted on his official Truth Social account around midnight, was included toward the end of a one-minute video clip that promoted a conspiracy theory about voting irregularities in the 2020 presidential election. In it, the Obamas are portrayed as apes as “The Lion Sleeps Tonight” plays in the background.

The White House said the clip was taken from “an internet meme video,” in which Trump is depicted as a lion and several high-profile Democrats — including former President Biden, former Vice President Kamala Harris, U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff and California Gov. Gavin Newsom — are rendered as giraffes, turtles, antelopes and other animals. The clip, which was shared by a social media account in October, is captioned: “President Trump: King of the Jungle.”

Only the image of the Obamas is included in the clip shared by Trump.

“Please stop the fake outrage and report on something today that actually matters to the American public,” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said in a statement Friday.

The post, however, quickly drew fierce criticism from Democrats, some Republicans and civil rights organizations. The imagery was condemned for echoing long-standing racist tropes that have historically been used to demean Black Americans.

“Trump posting this video — especially during Black History Month — is a stark reminder of how Trump and his followers truly view people,” the NAACP wrote on X. “And we’ll remember that in November.”

Newsom, a Democrat, said it was “disgusting behavior by the president” to amplify such an image.

“Every single Republican must denounce this. Now,” Newsom wrote on X.

Sen. Tim Scott, a Black South Carolina Republican who is the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said the image was “the most racist thing I’ve seen out of this White House.”

“The President should remove it,” Scott wrote on X.

Everybody is talking about how the Trump administration is combining carrots and sticks in novel ways in its attempt to control Venezuela’s present and imminent future. But the stances that other governments around the world have taken after the bizarre reality that the US Navy choppers left behind is also worthy of a closer look. 

Some governments have questioned Delcy Rodríguez’s legitimacy, or reaffirmed their support of the opposition victory in the 2024 election, while chavismo’s longtime allies and pragmatic regional partners have engaged with or recognized the interim government. 

A pattern emerges: cautious engagement that aims to prevent a state of chaos that would make our country a more problematic place than it already is. 

Neighbors Colombia and Brazil might favor the institutional continuity that Rodríguez offers, since the mayhem caused by a prolonged conflict would likely result in further migratory crises. China’s position appears to be financially driven, as the interest payments from Venezuela’s debt relied on oil shipments, which could be interrupted because of the increasing US involvement in the oil industry. In addition, it’s worth pointing out that Russia’s support is not as solid as previously considered, given statements by its ambassador that suggest broader divisions within of the chavista coalition. 

Other governments framed their position along with their longstanding rejection of Maduro’s legitimacy and the electoral fraud of 2024. Most of their current leaders come from conservative parties and positioning themselves as actively anti-chavismo might perform well with their domestic constituencies. In addition, their response reinforced alignment with Washington, at a time in which US foreign policy became particularly focused on the region. 

A third group opted for a delicate balancing act. While many support a democratic transition, they avoid endorsing Maduro’s removal, out of concern for future military interventions by the US, in particular because of Trump’s rhetoric on Greenland. These countries also emphasize elections and negotiated solutions. A notable addition of this group is Turkey, a longtime Maduro ally now seeking to preserve working relations with Washington amid shifting regional dynamics, particularly in Syria.

Colombia

Beyond “respecting” her swearing in, as stated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Rosa Villavicencio, President Petro’s administration has engaged in talks with Delcy Rodríguez and even suggested that there could be a meeting in Bogotá (although her government denied any imminent trips). On January 27th, Petro also demanded the return of Maduro and Flores, alleging that they were “kidnapped” and that they needed to face trial in Venezuela. 

Brazil

Brasilia was quick to recognize Delcy Rodríguez as interim president. President Lula Da Silva condemned the military operation referring to it as an “unacceptable crossing of a line” and a “grave affront of sovereignty”. On January 9th, Rodríguez thanked Da Silva for his “support and solidarity.”

Nicaragua

In a statement during the UN’s Security Council meeting, that country’s representative condemned American military actions, recognized Delcy Rodríguez as interim president and called for the release of Maduro and Cilia Flores. The Rodríguez government also accepted the credentials of the new Nicaraguan ambassador Valezka López.

Cuba

In addition to confirming the deaths of 32 Cuban military officers during Maduro’s extraction, the Díaz Canel government remained supportive. In a speech condemning the attacks, the Cuban president said he was willing to give his “blood” for Venezuela. Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez was seen in Caracas with Rodríguez in a memorial ceremony for the Cuban officers killed on January 3rd.

Russia

On January 6th, the Russian Foreign Ministry celebrated the appointment of Delcy Rodríguez and referred to it as a measure to safeguard stability amidst “neocolonial threats”. Moscow also called for the release of Maduro and Flores. Later, on January 25th, the Russian Ambassador in Venezuela, Sergey Melik-Bagdasarov, claimed that Maduro was betrayed by Venezuelan security officers.

China

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said her country “respected” the arrangement that led to Rodríguez’s swearing in. The Chinese ambassador Lan Hu in Caracas met with Rodríguez and stated that his country remains committed to Venezuela. Rodríguez thanked him for his support.

Mexico

On January 5th, President Claudia Sheinbaum condemned Maduro’s extraction, citing the country’s long standing rejection of foreign intervention. Mexico promoted a joint statement with Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Spain and Chile rejecting the military operation. 

Spain

After “emphatically condemning” the US incursion, the Pedro Sánchez government saluted Delcy Rodríguez as its counterpart. Foreign minister José Manuel Albares said that, while they didn’t recognize the official results of the 2024 election, they were open to working with her administration. They also have been in contact with the opposition with the hopes of facilitating dialogue. 

India

On January 4th, the Indian government expressed its concern over the situation in Venezuela and the “wellbeing of the people in Venezuela”. They called for peaceful and negotiated solutions. On January 30th, President Modi spoke with Rodriguez, referring to her as acting president and stating that both leaders would seek further cooperation between their countries. 

Qatar 

On January 10th, Delcy Rodriguez thanked the Kingdom of Qatar for facilitating the release of the first “proof of life” of Maduro. In addition, Qatari authorities said they were open to facilitate a dialogue for a peaceful resolution. The Rodríguez government also received the new Qatari ambassador, Salman Nabit Mubarak Abdullah.

Argentina

In an interview with Andrés Oppenheimer, President Javier Milei celebrated Maduro’s extraction and referred to it as a “liberation”. His government stated they trusted Trump’s transition plan towards democracy and peace.

Bolivia

In a statement on January 3rd, the Rodrigo Paz government released a statement showing support for “the Venezuelan people” in what he considered the beginning of a path of “recovery of his democracy” and considered “inescapable” that there is a “real democratic transition”. Shortly after Maduro’s removal, La Paz announced entry restrictions for individuals linked to chavismo. 

Costa Rica

On January 5th, President Rodrigo Chaves emphasized that his country never recognized Maduro as a legitimate leader and expressed hopes that the political transition leads to democracy.

Dominican Republic

President Luis Abinader posted on X that his government was closely monitoring the events in Venezuela, and emphasized respect for the true results of the 2024 election. Foreign Minister Roberto Álvarez said they did not recognize Rodriguez’s government, but emphasized the need to re-establish consular relationships. Venezuela’s chancellor Yvan Gil announced that these relationships would be reactivated in the coming days after cutting ties in the aftermath of the 2024 electoral fraud. 

Peru

Peruvian Interim President Jose Jerí had a phone call with Edmundo González, who the country recognizes as president elect. In a statement, his office said that he supported a political transition and hoped that the results of the 2024 election were respected.

Ecuador

Ecuador’s Foreign Affairs Office announced that it was restricting access to Venezuelans linked to the Maduro government. In addition, President Daniel Noboa celebrated the removal of Maduro by posting in his personal X account, “the time will come for all narco-chavista criminals. Its structure will end up falling all over the continent”. He also called for María Corina Machado and Edmundo González to take power. Noboa attended Machado’s Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in December 2025.

Panama

President José Raul Mulino of Panama, who also attended the Nobel Prize ceremony in Oslo, stated that his country does not intend to recognize Rodríguez as interim President. 

Chile

President Gabriel Boric condemned the January 3rd attacks and called for a peaceful solution to the Venezuelan crisis. In a meeting at the UN Security Council, Chile’s representative stated that her country did not recognize the Maduro regime and also called for a peaceful and gradual transition process. President-elect José Antonio Kast, set to take office in March, celebrated Maduro’s capture in early January and called for regional cooperation to re-establish democracy and to “coordinate the safe and expeditious return of Venezuelans to their country.”

Paraguay

President Santiago Peña of Paraguay lamented the military incursion in the region, but stated that he didn’t see “any other alternative”. He called for a democratic resolution of the crisis and emphasized that Maduro’s removal was positive for the region. Peña also attended Machado’s Nobel Peace Prize Ceremony.

Canada

Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney emphasized that his country has not recognized Maduro since the 2018 presidential vote, and voiced his support for a transition. However, he called for restraint and adherence among all actors involved.

Italy 

Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni stated that she is monitoring the situation in Venezuela. In an X post, she celebrated the announcement of the release of political prisoners and hoped that Rodríguez would usher in a “new era of constructive relationships between Caracas and Rome”. The Rodriguez government also accepted the credentials of the new Italian ambassador, Giovanni Umberto De Vito and, with approval of the National Assembly, named Maria Elena Uzzo as the new ambassador to Italy.

United Kingdom

Prime Minister Keir Starmer released a statement on January 3rd celebrating Maduro’s removal and saying that his government will “shed no tears about the end of his regime”. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper reaffirmed support for a transition in a speech before the House of Commons, urging Rodríguez to take steps towards democratization.

Uruguay

Foreign Minister Mario Lubetkin stated on January 9th that his country does not recognize Delcy Rodríguez, arguing it had not extend such recognition to Maduro. 

European Union

Annita Hipper, foreign affairs spokesperson for the European Commission, said the EU did not intend to recognize Rodríguez as interim president. In a press briefing, she emphasized that both Rodríguez and Maduro lacked electoral legitimacy. However, the European Commission has indicated it will maintain “limited contact” with Venezuelan officials.

Germany 

While initially condemning Maduro, calling for a political solution and respect for international law, the Merz government stated it was still conducting a legal assessment of US actions. A spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs questioned Rodriguez’s legitimacy.

France

After political backlash caused by Macron’s initial reaction celebrating Maduro’s extraction and calling for Edmundo González to be sworn in, a French government spokesperson said the president remained neutral about the method used to remove Maduro, and continued calling for González to be sworn in.

Turkey

After Maduro’s removal, President Erdogan has remained moderately silent. In the direct aftermath of the extraction, his government called for restraint of all parties involved for the sake of regional safety in a statement. On January 5th, Erdogan stated that he brought up his criticisms of the military operation to Trump during a phone call.

Najaf, Iraq – Leaders of Iraq’s Coordination Framework – the Shia political coalition that came out on top in November’s parliamentary elections – are adamant that Nouri al-Maliki will be their candidate for the Iraqi premiership, even after threats from United States President Donald Trump.

Trump warned in late January that if al-Maliki, who previously served as Iraq’s prime minister between 2006 and 2014, returned to the role, then the US would cut off aid to Iraq.

“If we are not there to help, Iraq has ZERO chance of success, prosperity or freedom,” the US president wrote in a post on his Truth Social website.

Trump, and the US administration, view al-Maliki as part of Iran’s direct network of influence in Iraq, and fear that his return would undermine American efforts to weaken Iran’s power in its western neighbour, including limiting the reach of Iran-backed armed groups.

But, even with pressure ramping up, it appears that a majority of the Coordination Framework’s most influential actors are not willing to give up on al-Maliki, and are determined to find a way to push his candidacy forward.

Coordination Framework divided

The Coordination Framework (CF) is a coalition of Shia political parties established in 2021. It represents the biggest Shia bloc in the Iraqi parliament.

The loose nature of the coalition that makes up the CF means that opinions on al-Maliki’s candidacy are varied, with some opposing it, others willing to bend to Trump’s will and switch their backing, and still others who are adamant that they will push forward.

And it seems as though the majority are in the latter camp.

The CF issued a statement on Saturday reiterating its support for al-Maliki. “Choosing the prime minister is an exclusively Iraqi constitutional matter … free from foreign interference,” the statement added.

The statement reflects the position of various pro-Maliki forces in the CF, including former deputy parliament speaker Mohsen al-Mandalawi; the Badr Organization, led by Hadi al-Amir; and the Islamic Supreme Council, led by cleric Humam Hamoudi.

Current Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, whose party received the most votes in the elections but who did not receive the CF nomination despite his membership within it, is also officially supportive of al-Maliki’s nomination, even if he has not abandoned the possibility of continuing as prime minister himself.

Several of these factions did well in last year’s parliamentary elections, including al-Maliki’s own State of Law Coalition, as well as Badr and al-Sudani’s Reconstruction and Development Coalition.

But, with support from Kurdish and Sunni parties, the Shia al-Maliki sceptics have enough seats, and enough of a voice, to block the nomination if they desire to do so.

These include important Shia figures such as Qais al-Khazali, the leader of the Asaib Ahl al-Haq group; Ammar al-Hakim, the leader of the National State Forces alliance; and former Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi.

Al-Hakim, whose parliamentary bloc has 18 seats, warned that there would be “incoming economic repercussions” if al-Maliki was chosen, and added that “public interest must be prioritised over private interests”.

Meanwhile, the Victory Alliance, led by al-Abadi, issued a statement calling for “[the prioritisation of] the people’s vital interests given the exceptional circumstances Iraq and the region are experiencing”. Al-Abadi’s group has no seats in parliament, but retains an important voice within the CF.

Both statements contain a tacit acknowledgment of Iraq’s inability to withstand US pressure and the need for an alternative candidate suited to the current reality.

Other roadblocks

The CF, therefore, still has an uphill battle to confirm al-Maliki as prime minister. Outside of the Shia political groups, there is also opposition to al-Maliki, a divisive figure remembered negatively by many Iraqis, particularly Sunnis.

And there are also divisions within the non-Shia groups that are also slowing down the nomination process.

Under the Iraqi Constitution, parliament must first elect a president for Iraq, who then mandates the nominee of the largest parliamentary bloc to form the government. According to Iraq’s post-2003 “muhasasa” system of dividing political offices by sect and ethnicity, the prime minister must be a Shia, the president a Kurd, and the parliamentary speaker a Sunni.

To date, the main Kurdish factions – the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) led by Masoud Barzani and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) led by Bafel Talabani – have failed to agree on a consensus candidate for the presidency.

The CF is attempting to broker an agreement between the Kurds. Recent efforts included a delegation led by al-Sudani meeting with both parties, and a personal visit by al-Maliki to Barzani. But these initiatives have not yet succeeded, and without a political agreement on the presidency, the process of designating a prime minister cannot proceed.

And even if the Kurds reach an agreement and don’t stand in the way of al-Maliki, the CF must persuade a long list of the former prime minister’s opponents.

Among them is Mohammed al-Halbousi, former speaker of parliament and leader of the Takadum Party, who issued a statement prior to the US veto implicitly rejecting al-Maliki’s candidacy.

Collectively, the anti-al-Maliki groups could gather roughly a third of the seats in parliament, enough to prevent a presidential election session due to a lack of quorum.

To avoid that scenario, the CF would have to either reset internal negotiations regarding the next prime minister, or nominate al-Sudani for a second term.

Al-Sudani’s party issued a statement on January 28 calling for “positive relationships with the United States” – a move interpreted as an indirect pitch for his renewal, leveraging his proven track record of managing relations with Washington during his tenure.

US leverage

The US may no longer be the occupying power in Iraq, but it still has enormous economic leverage over the country.

The revenue from Iraq’s main export – oil – is routed through the US Federal Reserve Bank in New York.

Trump may decide not to renew a presidential executive order, issued originally by President George W Bush in the wake of the Iraq War, that grants legal protection for the oil revenue funds and prevents them from being frozen by Iraq’s creditors. The order had been expected to be renewed as a formality upon its expiration in May.

If the US president decides against renewal, creditors will seek to claim their funds, and New York courts may issue rulings to freeze the Iraqi assets. This would disrupt the transfer of funds necessary to pay public salaries and sustain the economy for months or even years. In practical terms, the Iraqi economy would grind to a halt.

That therefore explains why the pro-al-Maliki bloc in the CF is attempting to persuade the US to change its position, rather than simply ignore Trump.

A high-ranking source in the CF’s State of Law coalition, who wished to remain anonymous in order to speak freely on the topic, told Al Jazeera there are “ongoing attempts to convince the US administration to lift the veto on al-Maliki”.

Aqeel al-Fatlawi, the State of Law spokesperson, also said he was hopeful that the US “will change its stance in the coming period”.

While blaming regional states, including Turkiye and Syria, for the US position towards him, al-Maliki himself has sought to soften his positions.

Syria has been one of the main points of difference between al-Maliki and the US, which has backed Syria’s President Ahmed al-Sharaa, even as the former Iraqi prime minister has denounced him for his past membership of al-Qaeda.

In a televised interview on Tuesday, al-Maliki used al-Sharaa’s full name, rather than the Syrian leader’s nom de guerre of “al-Jolani”, an attempt to emphasise that he was willing to move on from the past. Al-Maliki also attempted to soften his stance towards the Syrian government, directing his criticism towards the former regime of ousted President Bashar al-Assad and its role in supporting “terrorism” in Iraq.

Whether these attempts will go far enough to placate the US remains to be seen.

Reports indicate that US Special Envoy to Iraq Mark Savaya may have been removed from his position, although there is no official confirmation. His replacement would likely be Tom Barrack, currently the US ambassador to Turkiye and special envoy to Syria.

The CF favours Savaya, who has proven to be more supportive of using a more gradual approach in reducing the power of Iraq’s Shia militias, versus Barrack, who is viewed by the CF more negatively for his role in weakening Hezbollah in Lebanon and his support for Syria’s al-Sharaa.

An official announcement of a change could indicate where Trump’s thoughts are in the critical next few weeks – and whether the president will choose to not renew the US guarantee to protect Iraq’s oil revenue in May.

NEW YORK — The Trump administration on Thursday launched TrumpRx, a website it says will help patients buy prescription drugs directly at a discounted rate at a time when healthcare and the cost of living are growing concerns for Americans.

“You’re going to save a fortune,” President Trump said at the site’s unveiling. “And this is also so good for overall healthcare.”

The government-hosted website is not a platform for buying medications. Instead, it’s set up as a facilitator, pointing Americans to drugmakers’ direct-to-consumer websites, where they can make purchases. It also provides coupons to use at pharmacies. The site launches with over 40 medications, including weight-loss drugs such as Ozempic and Wegovy.

The site is part of a larger effort by the Trump administration to show it’s tackling the challenges of high costs. Affordability has emerged as a political vulnerability for Trump and his Republican allies going into November’s midterm elections, as Americans remain worried about the cost of housing, groceries, utilities and other staples of middle-class identity.

Trump stressed that the lower prices were made possible by his pressuring of pharmaceutical companies on prices, saying he demanded that they charge the same costs in the U.S. as in other nations. He said prescription drug costs will increase in foreign countries as a result.

“We’re tired of subsidizing the world,” Trump said at the evening event on the White House campus that lasted roughly 20 minutes.

The administration is touting substantial discounts, though it’s unclear just how much impact the changes will have for family budgets. The site includes the disclaimer that prices “may be even lower” for people with insurance, as it lists the “out-of-pocket price.” Also, some consumers might be able to use available generics that cost less than brand-name medications.

Still, Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, hyped the website as being transformative. He said the lower prices for Ozempic and Wegovy would cause the country to collectively lose 100 million pounds this year. He suggested that lower prices for the fertility drug Gonal-F would trigger pregnancies nationwide.

“We’re going to have a lot of Trump babies with these costs,” Oz said.

The president first teased TrumpRx in September while announcing the first of his more than 15 deals with pharmaceutical companies to lower drug prices to match the lowest price offered in other developed nations. He said in December the website would provide “massive discounts to all consumers” — though it’s unclear whether the prices available on drugmakers’ websites will routinely be any lower than what many consumers could get through their insurance coverage.

The website’s Thursday release came after it faced multiple delays, for reasons the administration hasn’t publicly shared. Last fall, Oz told Trump the site would share prices for consumers before the end of the year. An expected launch in late January was also pushed back.

The president has spent the past several months seeking to spotlight his efforts to lower drug prices for Americans. He’s done that through deals with major pharmaceutical companies, including some of the biggest drugmakers like Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Merck, which have agreed to lower prices of their Medicaid drugs to so-called “most favored nations” pricing. As part of the deals, many of the companies’ new drugs are also to be launched at discounted rates for consumer markets through TrumpRx.

Many of the details of Trump’s deals with manufacturers remain unclear, and drug prices for patients in the U.S. can depend on many factors, including the competition a treatment faces and insurance coverage. Most people have coverage through work, the individual insurance market or government programs like Medicaid and Medicare, which shield them from much of the cost.

Trump’s administration also has negotiated lower prices for several prescription drugs for Medicare enrollees, through a direct negotiation program created by a 2022 law.

Swenson writes for the Associated Press.

Ukraine braced for more attacks on its energy infrastructure this week as winter temperatures continued to fall to -20 degrees Celsius (-4 degrees Fahrenheit), and sought to adapt its defences against Russian drones.

On Thursday, Ukraine’s energy minister, Denys Shmyal, warned Ukrainians to prepare for more power blackouts in the coming days as Russian air attacks continued.

Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko said Russia had struck energy infrastructure 217 times this year. Shmyal said 200 emergency crews were working to restore power to 1,100 buildings in Kyiv alone.

Russia has been targeting Ukrainian power stations, gas pipelines and power cables since mid-January, leaving hundreds of thousands of people without heat or electricity at various points.

On January 29, US President Donald Trump told a cabinet meeting that Russian President Vladimir Putin had agreed to halt strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure for a week, something the Kremlin confirmed.

“I personally asked President Putin not to fire into Kyiv and various towns for a week, and he agreed to do that,” Trump said.

It was unclear when that conversation happened, exactly, but on Tuesday this week, Russia unleashed one of its biggest strikes ever on energy infrastructure in Kyiv and Kharkiv, deploying 71 missiles and 450 drones.

Ukraine’s Air Force spokesperson Yurii Ihnat said Ukraine had only managed to shoot down 38 of the missiles because a very high proportion of them were ballistic.

Russia’s defence ministry claimed it was targeting storage sites for unmanned aerial vehicles, defence enterprises and their energy supply.

The strike coincided with a visit to Kyiv by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, and came a day before tripartite talks among Russia, Ukraine and the US resumed in Abu Dhabi.

“Last night, in our view, the Russians broke their promise,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in his news conference with Rutte. “So, either Russia now thinks that a week is less than four days instead of seven, or they are genuinely betting only on war.”

The strike also came just as Kyiv had managed to reduce the number of apartment buildings without heat from 3,500 three days earlier, to about 500.

At least two people, both aged 18, were killed as they walked on a street in Zaporizhzhia, southeast Ukraine.

Even on relatively quiet days, Russia causes civilian deaths. On Sunday, February 1, Russia killed a dozen miners when a drone struck the bus that was taking them to work in Ukraine’s central Dnipro region.

Evolving drone tactics

During the few days in which it did observe the moratorium on energy-related strikes, Russia focused on striking Ukrainian logistics instead and made attempts to extend the reach of its drones.

Ukrainian Defence Ministry Adviser on Technology and Drone Warfare Serhiy “Flash” Beskrestnov reported that Russian drones were striking Ukrainian trucks 50km (31 miles) from the front line. He also said Russia had adapted its Geran drone to act “as a carrier” for smaller, first-person view (FPV) drones, doubling up two relatively cheap systems for greater range.

Ukrainian broadcaster Suspilne said Russia had begun these new tactics in mid-January.

Ukraine’s Air Force has managed to down about 90 percent of Russia’s long-range drones, and a high proportion of its missiles – almost 22,000 targets in January alone.

Zelenskyy recently demanded better results, however, and one of the Ukrainian responses to Russian tactics has been a new, short-range “small air defence” force that uses drones to counter drones.

“Hundreds of UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle] crews have already been transferred to the operational control of the Air Force grouping – they are performing tasks in the first and second echelons of interception,” wrote Ukrainian commander-in-chief Oleksandr Syrskii on Wednesday this week.

Ukraine’s second response has been to disable Russian Starlink terminals, which Russia uses extensively on the battlefield, and has recently begun mounting on UAVs.

Starlink uses low-orbit satellites and is impervious to jamming, allowing Russia to change a drone’s intended target while it is in mid-flight.

Ukraine’s newly installed defence minister, Mykhailo Fedorov, has been creating a “white list” of Starlink terminals used by the armed forces of Ukraine, and sent them to Starlink owner Elon Musk, asking him to keep these operational while shutting down all others in the Ukraine theatre.

“Soon, only verified and registered terminals will operate in Ukraine. Everything else will be disconnected,” Fedorov wrote on Telegram.

“Looks like the steps we took to stop the unauthorized use of Starlink by Russia have worked. Let us know if more needs to be done,” Musk wrote on Twitter on Sunday.

Fedorov and Beskrestnov have been asking Ukrainian soldiers and civilians to register any Starlink terminals they acquire privately on the white list.

More sanctions on the way

On the day of Russia’s large strike, Zelenskyy appealed to the US to pass a bill long in the making that would impose more sanctions on buyers of Russian oil. China is the biggest, followed by India.

The previous day, Trump said Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had agreed to stop buying Russian oil. “He agreed to stop buying Russian Oil, and to buy much more from the United States and, potentially, Venezuela. This will help END THE WAR in Ukraine,” he wrote on his social media platform.

A Russian government source told Reuters that an assumed 30 percent drop in oil sales to India, and lower sales to other customers, could triple Moscow’s planned budget deficit this year from 1.6 percent of GDP to 3.5 percent or 4.4 percent. Government data released on Wednesday showed the Kremlin’s revenues from energy at $5.13bn in January, half the level of January 2025.

Zelenskyy also discussed a 20th sanctions package under preparation with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. “We can already see what is happening to the Russian economy and what could follow if the pressure is applied effectively,” he said.

Russia has made little headway in its ground war in the past three years, a fact repeatedly documented, most recently by a CSIS report. Despite this, its top officials continued to insist last week on terms of peace that would force Ukraine to give up control of four of its southeastern regions, cut down its armed forces and agree not to join NATO – terms Ukraine refuses.

The resumed talks in Abu Dhabi on Wednesday and Thursday yielded only a prisoner-of-war exchange of 157 a side.