politics

Interim United States Attorney General Todd Blanche is facing a possible roadblock from within the Republican Party as he faces a confirmation hearing to formally lead the Department of Justice.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Republican Senator John Cornyn said he was still sceptical about confirming Blanche to the top federal law enforcement position in the country.

“I’m not prepared to vote yes,” said Cornyn.

The senator’s comments come a day before a key committee vote in the US Senate to move Blanche’s nomination forward.

Cornyn cited concerns about Blanche’s current stewardship of the Department of Justice, which he has led in an acting capacity since April.

Previously, Blanche served as deputy attorney general, and before joining President Donald Trump’s second term, he worked as the Republican leader’s criminal defence lawyer.

But Cornyn has questioned a rare settlement Blanche brokered in May, in response to a lawsuit Trump filed against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Under the deal, Trump and his family would be shielded from future IRS audits. The scheme also created a so-called “anti-weaponisation fund”, under which individuals deemed to have faced alleged political persecution could seek financial compensation.

Blanche has backed away from the “anti-weaponisation fund” amid bipartisan backlash. Critics had described it as a slush fund that would benefit the president’s allies.

Earlier this month, a federal judge also ruled the settlement illegal, accusing Blanche of double-dealing by working on behalf of both the federal government and Trump as a private citizen.

During his confirmation hearing, Blanche again assured lawmakers that the fund was dead, but Cornyn said he was awaiting written guarantees on the matter.

“I haven’t seen a single piece ⁠of writing that is responsive to what I’ve requested,” Cornyn told reporters.

Committee vote looms

Cornyn spoke before the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to hold a Thursday vote on Blanche’s nomination, the first step in a wider Senate debate on his confirmation.

All Republicans on the committee would need to vote in favour of Blanche for him to progress to the broader confirmation hearing.

While Republican lawmakers have generally been wary of opposing Trump, Cornyn has become an increasingly public critic of the president in recent months.

Trump endorsed Cornyn’s primary opponent, former Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, in May. Paxton went on to win the Republican Party’s nomination in May, allowing him to progress to the midterm election in November.

That race will see Paxton take on Democratic upstart James Talarico in what is expected to be one of the closest Senate races of the season.

Cornyn will leave the Senate, where he has served for more than two decades, at the end of his term in January.

In an Oval Office news conference on Wednesday, President Trump was asked about Cornyn’s reticence about approving Blanche for the attorney general role.

“ Well, all I can say is Todd Blanche is outstanding,” Trump said, before questioning Cornyn’s motives.

“Maybe John Cornyn’s upset with me because I didn’t endorse him. I don’t know what it is, but I haven’t heard that there’s a problem.”

Critics have accused Blanche of placing his loyalty to Trump above all else, including by using the Department of Justice to prosecute the president’s political adversaries.

Under Blanche’s watch, for instance, the Justice Department chose to file a second indictment against James Comey, a former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, over a social media message made of seashells.

Blanche has denied any claims that his relationship with Trump presents a conflict of interest, saying he acts independently of the president.

However, he did little to shed the perception during a mid-July hearing before US lawmakers. Senator John Kennedy, a Republican, asked at the time if Blanche considered Trump a “friend”.

“I’m his lawyer,” Blanche replied, before quickly correcting himself to say “was his lawyer”.

The Department of Justice has had a long tradition of prosecutorial independence, whereby criminal charges are not meant to be influenced by politics.

Reporting from Sacramento — Gov. Jerry Brown’s effort to revise and ultimately loosen state prison parole rules appears to be on its way to passage on Nov. 8, as a new poll finds strong support across a wide swath of California voters.

Fifty-seven percent of likely voters in a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times survey backed Brown’s Proposition 57, and only 31% were opposed. While earlier polling showed an even wider lead, the proposal has had consistently solid backing throughout the campaign season.

“Proposition 57 should pass comfortably,” said Ben Winston of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, the Democratic pollster who makes up the bipartisan team that conducts the survey.

The measure, which would allow more prisoners a chance at parole and give additional authority to prison officials to award good-behavior credits, has wide appeal among the state’s young voters.

As many as two-thirds of the poll’s likely voters under the age of 40 supported Proposition 57, with the highest backing from younger white Californians. Support was at, or surpassed, the 60% threshold among Democrats, white voters who are “independent” of any political party and Latino women.

The only serious opposition came from registered Republicans, self-described conservatives and older, non-college-educated voters.

Young voters may be a harbinger of a dramatic long-term shift on crime and punishment in a state where long prison sentences for sensationalized crimes were once the hallmark of successful campaigns.

“This generation of California voters simply wasn’t alive when a tough-on-crime approach was necessary to win a statewide election,” said Dan Schnur, director of USC’s Unruh Institute of Politics.

Political analysts also point to a potential correlation in the poll between supporters of the parole overhaul and those who support Proposition 64, the effort to fully legalize marijuana. Seventy-one percent of the likely voters who support the marijuana measure also support Proposition 57.

“I think there are parallel issues here,” said Doug Herman, a Democratic strategist. “They’re making the point that the criminal justice system is broken.”

The ballot box guide to California’s propositions »

Brown has fought bitterly with district attorneys across California over Proposition 57, which he contends is simply offering the chance for a prisoner’s request to be heard by the state Board of Parole Hearings. Under the measure, parole commissioners could consider releasing any prisoner whose primary sentence was not for one of the state’s specifically listed violent crimes, and then only for secondary crimes or enhancements added at the time of sentencing.

Prosecutors, on the other hand, argue that Proposition 57 would almost certainly lead to the early release of dangerous criminals. And they believe the initiative’s expansion of good-behavior credits would mean less time behind bars even for high-risk predators.

The USC/Times poll, like most nonpartisan surveys, tested voter opinions by using Proposition 57’s official ballot title and summary — a description that has become a bone of contention during the campaign.

“The ballot title and summary is a gross and blatant misrepresentation of what this measure would do,” said Merced County Dist. Atty. Larry Morse. “It is incredibly dishonest.”

Law enforcement opponents dispute that new parole eligibility would be given only to offender, who are “nonviolent,” a word that Morse said he believes downplays the threat and thus artificially inflates any estimates of true voter support for the governor’s policy proposal.

“He knows damn good and well this applies to crimes that anyone would see as violent,” Morse said of Brown.

Dan Newman, a spokesman for the Proposition 57 campaign, said the measure is “exactly what voters want in a public safety policy — a focus on keeping dangerous offenders locked up while rehabilitating nonviolent offenders before they get out.”

While most of the focus is on the impact of revising prison parole procedures, Proposition 57 also would revoke provisions of a 2000 ballot measure that has sent some juvenile defendants into adult courtrooms. Prosecutors helped lead the campaign for that proposal 16 years ago, but Morse said he and other district attorneys now agree those teenagers should remain in the juvenile justice system.

Sign up for our daily Essential Politics newsletter »

The survey of 1,500 registered voters was conducted for USC Dornsife and the Los Angeles Times by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and American Viewpoint. Support for the ballot initiative was almost identical among the entire sample — 58% in favor — as it was among likely voters.

The poll results come as both sides in the Proposition 57 campaign ramp up efforts to persuade voters. Brown has raised more than $19.7 million in support of the measure, with the largest share of that money spent during the spring on gathering signatures to quickly qualify the initiative for the ballot after skirmishes in court over whether it was properly vetted under state election law. The governor’s effort had enough money left over for campaign mailers and a statewide radio ad blitz, while opponents, having raised less than $1.4 million, have had fewer opportunities.

That imbalance may help explain another strong marker for the initiative in the poll: It was winning with 63% of voters who said they already have cast a ballot.

john.myers@latimes.com

Follow @johnmyers on Twitter, sign up for our daily Essential Politics newsletter and listen to the weekly California Politics Podcast

ALSO:

Detailed poll results

Gov. Jerry Brown’s Prop 57 is a parole showdown with prosecutors

What you need to know about the 17 propositions on the Nov. 8 ballot

Track news on California ballot measures and campaigns

By almost every measure, Latino communities are bearing the brunt of the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign, according to a new report.

The League of United Latin American Citizens or LULAC, a Latino civil rights organization, found that court-sanctioned racial profiling has contributed to the disproportionate targeting of Latinos regardless of their immigration status.

“The impact of mass deportation is falling on Latinos as an ethnic group, not on undocumented immigrants as a legal category,” the report read in part. “U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, work-authorized immigrants, and multi-generational American families are absorbing measurable harm: economic, physical, and civic.”

Although other immigrant groups have been targeted, LULAC found that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have mostly focused on immigrants from Latin America, particularly workers with no criminal history, who are also more likely to face violence or be placed in detention centers with substandard conditions.

Citing a recent UCLA study, LULAC said from January to October, federal immigration agents arrested more than 187,000 Latinos and deported more than 126,000.

Latino arrests also jumped from under 3,900 to nearly 6,000 after Stephen Miller, White House senior advisor and chief architect of President Trump’s immigration policy, set a new goal of arresting 3,000 undocumented people a day.

In an email response to The Times, a spokesperson with the Department of Homeland Security rejected the report’s findings.

“Allegations that DHS law enforcement engages in ‘racial profiling’ are disgusting, reckless, and categorically FALSE,” the spokesperson wrote. “What makes someone a target for immigration enforcement is if they are illegally in the U.S.—NOT their skin color, race, or ethnicity.”

“Law enforcement officers use ‘reasonable suspicion’ to investigate immigration status and probable cause to make arrests consistent with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” the spokesperson added. “The Supreme Court has already vindicated us on these practices.”

LULAC’s report comes amid recent court filings claiming that federal immigration agents were caught on body camera footage and in text messages using racial slurs when referring to Latinos.

Additionally, Congress recently approved nearly $70 billion in immigration enforcement funding to cover the rest of Trump’s term with at least $38 billion to go to ICE and $26 billion to Customs and Border Protection.

LULAC said in putting the report together it reviewed public data and published studies to provide a fact sheet that paints a broader picture about the impact mass deportations are having on Latinos.

“The people being removed are disproportionately working-age, employed and without criminal records — the demographic core of the workforce in construction, hospitality, agriculture, food processing, and care work,” the report read.

As of July 11, more than 65,000 people were being held in detention and about 70% of the population had no criminal convictions, according to Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a data gathering organization.

ICE detention data show that about 40% of detainees were being held for civil immigration violations including visa overstays and work visa violations.

Unless previously deported, living in the country illegally is considered a civil violation rather than a crime and carries penalties such as arrests, fines and deportation proceedings.

The indiscriminate immigration raids that terrorized Latino communities appeared to have worsened after the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in September, according to LULAC’s report.

The Supreme Court justices overturned a district court injunction that barred immigration agents in Los Angeles from roving around Home Depots and car washes, stopping brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking day laborers and others from arrest on immigration charges.

But once the injunction lifted, federal immigration agents descended once more on Latino communities, even stopping U.S. citizens, according to LULAC.

This month, the American Civil Liberties Union reviewed more than 1,200 enforcement incidents across eight states, identifying 155 U.S. citizens who were detained, targeted, or experienced law enforcement misconduct, and 437 incidents involving likely racial profiling. It also identified 214 children affected, including 32 Americans.

LULAC said the immigration raids had an economic impact. Citing a recent UCLA study, it said small business and Latino entrepreneurs in Los Angeles County saw foot traffic drop significantly, losing millions in potential revenue in June 2025.

A spokesperson for LULAC could not immediately be reached for comment.

The United States Federal Reserve is set to hold interest rates steady as inflationary pressures mount, driven by heightened fuel prices as tensions between the US and Iran continue.

The central bank said on Wednesday that it will maintain rates at 350-375 basis points during the second monetary policy decision under new Chairman Kevin Warsh.

“Inflation remains elevated relative to the Committee’s 2 percent goal, in part reflecting supply shocks that have driven price increases in certain sectors, including energy. The Committee will deliver price stability,” the central bank said in a statement upon the release of its decision.

CME FedWatch, which tracks the likelihood of monetary policy decisions, forecast a 66.3 percent chance of maintaining rates, while there was a 33.7 percent chance that rates would increase to 375-400 basis points.

Of the 12, three members, Beth M Hammack, Neel Kashkari, and Lorie K Logan, voted to raise rates by 25 basis points.

“My colleagues and I considered the economic shocks of recent years, strained supply chains arising from the pandemic, military conflicts, energy supply disruptions, substantial increases in tariff rates, and yes, the surge in AI-related investment,” Warsh told reporters.

“We are not relying on any one individual piece of data as cover or as an excuse, or as validation. What I care about and what I think the Committee cares about is trends on the data.”

Monetary policy decisions have become more uncertain as Warsh has scrapped forward guidance, which typically helps financial institutions and journalists better understand upcoming policy choices.

Flying blind

That is putting pressure on analysts.

“With little guidance on the reaction function under the new chairman, markets are filling the void with speculation that Warsh may be eyeing a surprise hike to reinforce anti-inflation credibility,” Barclays economists said in a note.

Citadel Securities earlier this week forecast a rate hike. Meanwhile, analysts at S&P Global forecast that rates would hold steady.

At the last meeting, the central bank’s governors were evenly split on whether to raise interest rates this year, as the central bank maintained rates during its first meeting under Warsh.

Warsh had previously said that there was “no tolerance” for inflation as the central bank pushes to reach the Fed’s 2 percent target.

Market shifts

Financial pressures on the broader market eased last month, with consumer inflation moderating. The Consumer Price Index report released in July for the month of June by the US Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics showed a 0.4 percent decline in consumer inflation, marking the first monthly decline since April 2020 in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, that was a correction from the previous month, when the CPI rose by 0.5 percent.

The CPI remains elevated at 3.5 percent on an annual basis, according to the report, though that is still a slowdown from 4.2 percent in May. However, consumers are still feeling the pinch, especially at the petrol pump.

Prices are on the upswing. The average price for a gallon of petrol is $4.09 ($1.08 per litre), up 3 cents from this time last week, and up from $3.86 ($1.02 per litre) this time last month, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), which tracks daily petrol prices. By comparison, daily petrol prices were $2.98 ($0.78 per litre) when the US and Israel first struck Iran on February 28.

Those pressures are echoed by a slump in consumer confidence for the third straight month, according to The Conference Board, which released its report on Tuesday.

“Consumers anticipate little improvement in business conditions over the next six months,” Dana M Peterson, chief economist at The Conference Board, said upon the report’s release.

Political flashpoint

The decision is overshadowed by pressure from the White House. Interest rates have been a point of contention between Trump and the central bank. Trump has long pushed the Fed to cut rates, putting former Chair Jerome Powell in the crosshairs and making him the subject of investigations by the US Department of Justice.

But Warsh has yet to become a target of Trump’s scorn. “Kevin is fantastic,” he told reporters on Monday on board Air Force One. “He’s got a board, and the board members are very political.”

Trump made those claims despite the central bank’s longstanding commitment to maintaining its independence from political pressure.

Roughly six weeks before the first midterm ballots are mailed out, the U.S. Postal Service is emerging as a pivotal player in an election season that will determine control of Congress.

President Trump is seeking greater control over mail balloting through an executive order while a change to how the agency processes mail is leading to criticism that it’s failing to deliver ballots on time.

Democratic officials have raised concerns over the past week about how quickly the Postal Service will process ballots after tens of thousands of them in California and hundreds in Wisconsin arrived at local election offices too late to be counted in elections earlier this year. The top election offices in Kansas and Michigan are urging voters who want to cast their ballots early to avoid the mail and instead drop them off in person.

The Postal Service replied to those concerns by saying it remains “committed to fulfilling our role in the electoral process.”

“We provide a secure, efficient, and effective way for citizens to participate when policymakers decide to use mail as part of their elections,” it said in a statement Tuesday.

Trump’s order puts more focus on mail ballots

The Postal Service faced similar questions about mail delivery in 2024, but the scrutiny this year is heightened because of an executive order Trump issued in March that seeks to create a national voter list to guide the Postal Service in deciding who gets a mail ballot.

The order has sparked multiple lawsuits and federal court orders, leading to a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court in which the administration is asking the justices to allow it to impose its restrictions on mail balloting.

Trump has lied for years about voter fraud to try to explain away his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in 2020, and mail balloting is a favorite target, even though he has used the method himself. During a recent stop in Michigan, he falsely characterized mail balloting as “inherently corrupt” and added, “Hopefully there will be no mail-in ballots.”

A 2025 report from the research group Brookings identified about four cases of fraud for every 10 million mail ballots cast.

Despite Trump’s attacks, the method remains popular with voters of both major parties. In 2024, nearly 30% of U.S. voters cast their ballots by mail, according to federal data. In Michigan, where competitive U.S. House and Senate races could help determine the balance of power in Congress, the state said it has sent out more than 2 million absentee ballots for the state’s Aug. 4 primary.

“We want to keep vote by mail. We want to protect it. We want to expand it,” said Jonathan Smith, president of the 200,000-member American Postal Workers Union, which launched a campaign in April promoting it and is opposed to turning the Postal Service into an election administrator. “Why? Because it works.”

Legal battles intensify over Trump’s order

The Postal Service proposed a rule in June in line with Trump’s executive order that would create a national list of eligible voters, based on databases kept by other federal agencies. Only those on the list would be eligible to receive mail ballots.

Democratic officials in nearly two dozen states filed a federal lawsuit in Massachusetts. A federal judge there blocked Trump’s order last month, and an appeals court upheld that ruling, prompting Trump’s appeal to the Supreme Court. But the appeals court for the District of Columbia refused Tuesday to block the order in a separate case, calling a legal challenge premature.

Democratic senators and governors have written to the Postal Service urging it to abandon efforts to implement Trump’s order.

“Donald Trump has shown he’ll stop at nothing to meddle in our upcoming elections,” Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin said in a statement to The Associated Press. “At best, this new push will exacerbate already severe delays for mail-in voters and at worst, it will stop eligible Americans from casting their ballots.”

In a letter to Democratic senators earlier this month, the heads of the Postal Service said they were abiding by the court rulings that had halted the executive order. But Smith, of the postal workers union, told the AP on Tuesday that USPS information technology staffers who are union members are working on a planned portal for the list of eligible voters “behind the scenes.”

The Postal Service declined to respond to Smith’s statements and said it could not comment about whether it’s moving forward with work related to Trump’s order because of the litigation.

The postal workers’ union opposes the plan for a portal, a national list of eligible voters and using that list to determine who can receive a mail ballot. Smith said it shouldn’t be postal workers’ responsibility “to decide who can vote and who can’t vote.”

A plan to consolidate mail processing centers upsets officials

The Postal Service has been under financial stress for years and has been consolidating mail processing into fewer regional centers. Mail travels an average of 139 miles to reach one and sometimes 500 miles, according to a recent Brookings report.

In January, a group of mostly Democratic senators said it was concerned about a decision to end twice-daily mail dispatches from local post offices to regional processing centers. The result is that mail arriving after the only daily dispatch would go out the next day.

California officials said the change was a factor in the state rejecting more than 148,000 ballots from its June primary, with 63% of them arriving too late despite a seven-day grace period. Officials worried that some ballots were postmarked at processing facilities the day after they were dropped off at a post office, possibly invalidating them. Wisconsin officials also said hundreds of ballots from an election in April arrived late.

The Postal Service said postmarks generally are being applied with automated equipment at processing centers, “in the same manner and to the same extent as before.” It said someone who wants to make sure their ballot envelope gets a timely postmark can get a free one applied by a postal worker.

A report on the 2024 election by the USPS Office of Inspector General said the Postal Service handled more than 59 million pieces of ballot mail from Sept. 1 to Nov. 15 that year and that 97.3% arrived on time.

Some state election officials advise voters to avoid the mail

The Michigan secretary of state’s office is advising voters to hand-deliver ballots to their local clerk’s office or a drop box.

“We’ve seen these issues over a number of election cycles now — they’re always concerning, and that’s why we’ve put out that guidance,” said Deputy Secretary of State Aghogho Edevbie.

The Postal Service said its Michigan centers are not seeing processing delays.

In Kansas, concerns about late ballot deliveries in the state’s 2024 primary election prompted a quip on the social platform X from Secretary of State Scott Schwab, a Republican: “The Pony Express is more efficient at this point.” Asked his view now, spokesperson Whitney Tempel said Schwab still believes “keeping your ballot out of the hands of the federal government is best.”

Jamie Shew, a Democrat elected to oversee elections in Douglas County, home to the main University of Kansas campus, said his office is trying to change voters’ perceptions.

“I think voters are used to, you can drop it off on Friday and we’re going to receive it by Election Day,” Shew said Tuesday. “That’s just not the reality.”

California’s state budget includes $10 million for social media campaigns and other efforts to discourage last-minute ballot mailings.

And the Postal Service said it hasn’t changed its own longstanding advice for voters: They should get their ballots in the mail at least a week before their state’s deadline for receiving them.

Hanna writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Scott Bauer in Madison, Wis., Michael R. Blood in Los Angeles, Michael Casey in Boston, and Jacqueline GaNun in Lansing, Mich., contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump and the Justice Department are asking the Supreme Court to toss an $83 million defamation verdict won by writer E. Jean Carroll after she accused him of sexual assault, saying he can’t be sued for comments he made while he was president.

It’s the second time Trump has asked the justices to nix damages awarded by a jury to Carroll, a longtime advice columnist and former TV talk show host. The Supreme Court refused in June to hear his appeal of another verdict, for $5 million, that found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation.

The latest case centers on comments Trump made during his first term as president. The Justice Department wants to invoke the Westfall Act, which shields government employees from being sued for doing their jobs.

“Absent this Court’s intervention, the sitting President is facing nearly a hundred million dollars of personal liability for conduct that was well within the scope of his federal office,” federal attorneys wrote. “That alone deserves this Court’s attention.”

The appeal was filed electronically and is expected to be formally docketed with the court Wednesday.

Trump’s lawyers, meanwhile, argued that an appeals court “engaged in procedural contortions” to avoid addressing Trump’s claims that presidential immunity protects him from the $83 million award because he made the statements in question in 2019 while he was president.

The lawyers argued that the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled in a manner that “cries out for this Court’s review in this unprecedented case” and called the damages “grossly excessive.”

“This is the first case in our nation’s history in which a court has imposed damages liability on a president for his conduct in office,” the lawyers wrote.

Carroll’s lawyers have declined to comment on the latest Trump filing.

Trump has long argued he cannot be sued over comments he made about Carroll during his first term where he disavowed knowing her and attacked her motivations for going public with her story in a recent memoir. He’s also asking the Supreme Court justices to reconsider their rejection of his appeal in the $5 million verdict.

The appeal comes about two years after the Supreme Court granted Trump broad immunity from criminal prosecution as a former president.

Carroll testified twice before New York juries that Trump sexually assaulted her in spring 1996 in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman, a luxury retailer across the street from Trump Tower. She first went public with the claims in a 2019 memoir.

She sued Trump for defamation after he accused her of making up the allegation to help book sales, adding that he’d never met her and “she’s not my type.” He has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

A Manhattan jury awarded her $83 million in damages in January 2024. Lower courts have so far rejected Trump’s appeals to overturn the verdict, though the New York-based appeals court split over the decision and agreed to delay that payout until the Supreme Court weighs in.

In 2023, another jury said Carroll was entitled to $5 million after concluding that Trump had subjected her to sexual abuse in the department store encounter and for defamation for remarks he had made after his first term ended. That judgment has been paid.

The Associated Press does not identify people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly, as Carroll has done.

Whitehurst and Neumeister write for the Associated Press. Neumeister reported from New York.

Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains in effect halted.
Tankers are now avoiding another critical waterway – Bab al-Mandeb – as Yemen’s Houthi forces threaten Saudi-linked vessels. Ukrainian strikes have hit Russian export infrastructure.
Three major routes are now disrupted at once: the Gulf, the Red Sea and the Black Sea.

Together, they threaten trade flows equivalent to nearly a quarter of global oil supplies just as reserves sit at multiyear lows.
Goldman Sachs says oil could rise above $120 a barrel by the fourth quarter if disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz alone persist.
Economies worldwide are bracing for another energy shock.

COLUMBIA, S.C. — The Washington powerbroker Sen. Lindsey Graham returned home to South Carolina for the last time Wednesday for his funeral and burial.

After Graham was eulogized Tuesday in the nation’s capital as an indefatigable dealmaker by the president, vice president and others, mourners in Columbia prepared to remember him Wednesday as the son of pool hall owners who never forgot his roots.

Graham seemed to know every small-town mayor and police chief and the location of every Chick-fil-A across South Carolina. His PAC made sure Republicans had money to run in legislative and local elections across the state.

Graham died suddenly on July 11 at his home in Washington, likely of an aortic tear, according to preliminary findings. He had just returned from a whirlwind trip to a NATO summit in Turkey, where he celebrated his 71st birthday, and a visit to Ukraine as he negotiated punishing sanctions against Russia. Senators voted late Tuesday to advance the package as a final gesture for their colleague.

Wednesday’s funeral was at First Baptist, the giant downtown church where his predecessor Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond was honored 23 years ago.

Graham’s body was first brought to the South Carolina Statehouse, where he started his political career in 1993, for a law enforcement ceremony and a flyover by military jets. A horse-drawn caisson then carried his casket to the church, where his family followed members of his family carrying it inside.

Graham’s burial Wednesday near his home in Pickens County was planned as a private ceremony.

On Tuesday, Graham’s flag-draped casket was at the U.S. Capitol, where the Republican spent more than 30 years talking and laughing and badgering his colleagues into action.

President Trump then joined foreign leaders at the Washington National Cathedral, a testament to Graham’s stature on the global stage.

Trump called Graham “a giant of the United States Senate, a true American original who left us much too soon.”

Graham’s death has created opportunities for change in South Carolina. Graham had already won the Republican nomination as he ran for a fifth term. Gov. Henry McMaster named his younger sister Darline to hold his seat until January. Darline Graham then surprised many by deciding to run for the full six-year term herself.

State law has Republicans holding a special primary in two weeks to decide the new nominee. Eight others are competing, including former Gov. Mark Sanford and U.S. Reps. Ralph Norman and Russell Fry.

Kinnard and Collins write for the Associated Press.

An Indian student from Bihar says he has been charged over ‘Cockroach’ protests despite being in Russia for the last four months. Hundreds of students across India have faced arrest for participating in the youth-led demonstrations.

WASHINGTON — Dr. Anthony Fauci on Wednesday invoked the Fifth Amendment and declined to answer questions from senators in a Republican-led committee hearing about his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The move injects new drama into the lingering tensions between Fauci and Republican lawmakers over his handling of the coronavirus pandemic and accusations he lied about the origins of COVID-19, which he denies.

Fauci was set to answer lawmakers’ questions after being subpoenaed by Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has long had a fraught relationship with the now-retired infectious-disease expert and led the charge seeking that he testify, again, under oath about his role in containing the pandemic.

Fauci’s decision to invoke the Fifth, at least for now, sidesteps calls for his prosecution if he is accused of lying at Wednesday’s hearing, part of a yearslong campaign for his arrest spearheaded by some Republicans in Congress. But it may also further inflame partisan divides that have festered for years about the origins and handling of the pandemic, which was declared by the World Health Organization in March 2020.

Fauci, who helped lead the nation’s COVID-19 response, has become a target of those frustrations. But to his supporters he is an emblem of sound scientific expertise.

In his opening statement, Fauci said Paul has an “obvious obsession with calling for my prosecution.”

“The only conclusion I can reach is that the sole reason he is calling me before this Committee is to prompt me to say something, anything, that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up, in his words, ‘behind bars,’” Fauci said, adding that while it pains him to do so, he is following his attorney’s advice by taking the Fifth.

Paul releases some of Fauci’s diary

Paul in his opening statement sought to build the case that Fauci helped produce the COVID-19 pandemic by approving funding of research on virus mutations and then covered up his complicity.

“Instead of an apology, you have for years avoided responsibility,” Paul said.

Democratic Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, the committee’s ranking member, said that Paul’s hearing was a partisan exercise and that the hearing was looking backward instead of focusing on current national security challenges.

Leading up to the hearing, Paul released more than 1,000 pages of Fauci’s personal diary covering the pandemic years. Pointing to some notes about early efforts at understanding how the virus emerged, Paul wrote on the social media platform X that what Fauci “wrote privately and what he told the country are two different stories.”

Some of the diary entries – including Fauci’s uncertainty in the pandemic’s earliest days as scientists around the world raced to understand the new virus and how best to curb it before vaccines could be created – already were reflected in a 2024 memoir and in interviews at the time.

But they have nonetheless drawn attention from people who blame Fauci for mask mandates, school closures and other policies they believe infringed on their rights as hundreds of thousands of people were dying.

Ahead of the hearing, President Trump wrote on social media that he stopped relying on Fauci over the course of the pandemic because he felt Fauci made bad decisions on masks, shutdowns and other issues.

In a statement, Fauci’s attorney David Schertler said Paul’s accusations are “false and disgraceful, and we will examine all options to hold him accountable.”

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime anti-vaccine activist before he entered public office, said Monday that his department gave the diary entries, which were created on a government computer, to the committee. He told a Fox News Channel host that he thought Fauci might lie before the committee, opening him to perjury prosecution despite his preemptive pardon from then-President Joe Biden, a Democrat.

Scientists scrambled to Fauci’s defense ahead of the unusual hearing — the second time the longtime National Institutes of Health scientist has been back before Congress to discuss pandemic origins since leaving the government in 2022. While the COVID-19 pandemic introduced him to millions of Americans, he talked the nation through numerous outbreaks over decades, including HIV, Ebola and the 2001 anthrax attacks, while advising seven presidents.

Some disease experts criticize the accusations against Fauci

In a public letter, more than 150 infectious-disease experts and other scientists wrote that “no credible evidence has been produced to support these absurd charges” and that they are “urging our elected representatives in Congress stop these witch-hunts.”

The expected crux of Wednesday’s hearing was whether NIH-funded research in China may have played a role in how the pandemic started.

Many scientists believe the virus most likely emerged in nature and jumped from animals to people, coming to light when it spread at a wildlife market in the Chinese city of Wuhan. There’s no new scientific information supporting that the virus might instead have leaked from a laboratory, a theory Paul champions. A GOP-led subcommittee that studied the question in 2024 did not find any evidence linking Fauci to wrongdoing.

Fauci has long said publicly that he was open to both theories but that there’s more evidence supporting COVID-19’s natural origins, the way other deadly viruses including coronavirus cousins SARS and MERS jumped into people.

Republicans also have accused Fauci of lying about whether his agency funded what’s known as gain of function research — the practice of enhancing a virus in a lab to study its potential real-world impact — at a lab in Wuhan.

The NIH for years gave grants to a New York nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance, which used some of the funds to work with a Chinese lab studying coronaviruses commonly carried by bats. But the definition of gain of function covers both general research and especially risky experiments to enhance the ability of potential pandemic viruses to spread or cause severe disease in humans. Fauci has previously stressed he was using the risky experiment definition and that “it would be molecularly impossible” for those bat virus experiments to have turned into the pandemic virus.

Trump, a Republican, last year paused some federally funded gain of function research, and on Tuesday his administration announced new rules to tighten oversight.

Neergaard and Swenson write for the Associated Press. Swenson reported from New York.

July 29 (UPI) — The United States announced a ban on imports of humanoid robots from China and other countries, citing “unacceptable risks” to national security and the safety of Americans.

The advanced robots ban, including humanoid, four-legged robots and bipeds, was part of a Federal Communications Commission update on Tuesday to a list of equipment and services “deemed to pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of U.S. persons” under the 2020 Secure Networks Act.

Power inverters that convert DC electricity to the AC electricity that flows across the country’s power grid were also banned.

The bans come after government agencies with “appropriate national security expertise” convened by President Donald Trump to look at the issue designated both technologies as national security threats.

“The networked capabilities of advanced robotic systems create extensive vulnerabilities and vectors for attacks that can manipulate the data and physical operation of the advanced robotic system. Relying on foreign-produced advanced robotic devices presents unacceptable supply chain and cybersecurity vulnerabilities,” the group said in its National Security Determination.

“Advanced robotic devices collect data that could be leveraged by malign actors to surveil Americans, enhance the capabilities of foreign intelligence services, or to remotely commandeer the robots,” it added.

China is the world’s largest producer of humanoid robots, with the United States its largest market.

Power-inverters, a critical kit which converts DC electricity from solar panels, batteries and other alternate energy sources into AC electricity enabling it to be fed into the U.S. energy grid, were also banned over fears overseas supplies could be manipulated or disrupted, compromising the United States’ electricity supply.

Any threat to electricity supply constituted a threat to the economy and national security, the FCC said, adding that in addition to supply chain vulnerabilities it was concerned increasingly networked inverters posed cybersecurity risks, including the possibility they could be switched off or used to harvest data as well as “facilitating remote access and surveillance by foreign government actors.”

Both bans only apply to new models and exempt overseas manufacturers with existing conditional waivers from the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau or, in the case of robots, the Defense Department, with the FCC saying it encouraged suppliers to apply for “conditional approval.”

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said he welcomed the measures from the White House.

“I am pleased that the FCC has now added foreign produced advanced robotics and power inverters to the FCC’s Covered List. Following President Trump’s leadership, the FCC will continue to do our part to secure America’s critical supply chains and, with today’s action, the FCC is acting in lock step with our national security agencies to do just that,” said Carr.

China criticized the move, accusing the United States of overreach and erecting trade barriers.

“China firmly opposes the U.S. overstretching the concept of national security and going after Chinese companies. Protectionism does not make the U.S. more competitive and will only hurt the interests of U.S. companies and consumers,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning told a news conference in Beijing on Wednesday.

“China will continue to do what is necessary to firmly defend the legitimate and lawful rights and interests of Chinese companies,” she added.

China’s Commerce Ministry called for the global community to combine forces to develop technologies “for the positive and for good,” saying Beijing resolutely stood against the “politicizing” of trade issues and the use of “groundless pretexts” to justify sanctions.

“China urges the United States to heed the objective and rational voices of the business communities in both countries, abandon its hegemonic mindset, and stop smearing Chinese companies and threatening them with sanctions,” a spokesperson for the ministry said.

Israel will head to national elections on October 27, marking the country’s first vote since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack that triggered the Gaza war and later expanded into conflicts with Lebanon and Iran. The election is widely seen as a defining moment for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose political future faces its toughest test in years.

Although opinion polls suggest Netanyahu is heading toward defeat, Israel’s fragmented parliamentary system means election outcomes often depend on coalition negotiations rather than outright victories, leaving several possible paths to power.

Polls Signal Trouble for Netanyahu

Recent surveys indicate declining public confidence in Netanyahu, whose long standing reputation as Israel’s security leader suffered after the October 7 attack.

While many Israelis have supported military operations against Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, dissatisfaction has grown over the government’s handling of domestic issues, including the relationship between religion and the state.

Despite the unfavorable polling, Netanyahu remains one of Israel’s most experienced political figures and has repeatedly returned to power after seemingly insurmountable political setbacks.

Who Are Netanyahu’s Main Challengers?

Several political figures are seeking to capitalize on Netanyahu’s weakened position.

Former military chief Gadi Eisenkot has emerged as one of the strongest contenders. Having lost his son during the Gaza conflict, Eisenkot has built a reputation as a respected security figure while portraying himself as an honest alternative to the current leadership.

Former prime ministers Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid have reunited politically after previously forming the coalition that briefly removed Netanyahu from office in 2021. Their earlier government brought together parties from across Israel’s political spectrum, although it lasted only 18 months.

Another challenger is former Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, once a close Netanyahu ally. Lieberman later became one of his fiercest critics, accusing him of failing to adopt a sufficiently tough security policy.

How Israel’s Election System Works

Israel elects its 120 member Knesset through a nationwide system of proportional representation.

Rather than voting directly for a prime minister, citizens vote for political parties. Seats are distributed according to each party’s share of the national vote, provided they receive at least 3.25 percent, the equivalent of four parliamentary seats.

Because no party has ever secured an outright majority, governments are always formed through coalition negotiations among multiple parties.

This coalition system gives smaller parties significant influence over government formation and policymaking, often making them decisive kingmakers after elections.

Why Coalition Politics Matter

Coalition governments have become a defining feature of Israeli politics.

Since 2019, repeated political deadlock produced multiple elections before Netanyahu returned to power in 2022 with the country’s most right wing coalition to date.

His governing alliance has relied heavily on ultra Orthodox Jewish parties, whose demands, particularly regarding exemptions from compulsory military service, have generated growing public controversy during wartime.

Following disagreements, some coalition partners have already left the government, although they have continued providing parliamentary support on key votes.

The Main Parties in the Election

Netanyahu’s coalition includes:

• Likud
• Religious Zionism
• Jewish Power

The opposition currently consists of:

• Yashar, led by Gadi Eisenkot
• Together, the alliance between Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid
• Israel Our Home, led by Avigdor Lieberman
• Arab parties including Hadash, Taal, Raam, and Balad
• The left wing Democrats, headed by former general Yair Golan

The political landscape could still change before candidate registration closes, as parties may merge, split, or withdraw from the race.

Why This Election Matters

The October election will shape Israel’s political direction at a time when the country remains engaged in multiple regional conflicts and faces mounting domestic challenges. While polls currently favor opposition forces, Israel’s coalition based electoral system means the final outcome will depend less on which party wins the most votes and more on which leader can assemble a governing majority in parliament.

Analysis

The 2026 Israeli election is not simply a referendum on Benjamin Netanyahu but a broader test of whether Israeli voters want continuity or political renewal after years of conflict and instability. Netanyahu enters the race weakened by security failures linked to the October 7 attacks and growing public frustration over domestic governance, yet his long record of coalition building means he cannot be discounted. Even if his Likud party falls short, post election negotiations could still determine his political survival.

For the opposition, electoral success alone may not be enough. Parties ranging from centrists to left wing and Arab factions must overcome ideological divisions to build a stable coalition, a challenge that has repeatedly undermined previous governments. The election therefore highlights a recurring feature of Israeli politics: governments are decided not only at the ballot box but also through complex coalition bargaining that can reshape leadership long after votes are counted.

With information from Reuters.

Eight years ago, during a campaign for Texas attorney general, Justin Nelson ran television advertisements with security camera footage of Ken Paxton pocketing an expensive pen that didn’t belong to him.

Four years ago, George P. Bush went after Paxton by putting up billboards that said “he’s a crook” next to his mugshot from when he was charged with securities fraud.

And this year, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn said “judgment day is coming” as he tried to fend off a Republican primary challenge from Paxton.

All of them lost. Now the question is whether James Talarico, who topped Rep. Jasmine Crockett in an expensive and fiercely contested Democratic primary, will have any more luck as he faces off against Paxton in one of the country’s most closely watched U.S. Senate races.

“The guy’s ability to take shots and just keep moving on and stay in elected office is unlike anything I’ve ever seen in my career, in 25 years of running campaigns,” said Ash Wright, who worked as a senior adviser to Bush.

Paxton never has been convicted and he’s survived by championing conservative legal battles over immigration, abortion and transgender issues in a Republican-dominated state. Much like President Trump, he’s long portrayed himself as the victim of political persecution.

Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico speaks at a rally in Houston in May.

(Danielle Villasana / Getty Images)

Former Paxton challengers and a half-dozen campaign strategists who worked against him warned that Texans may tune out any attempt to revive scandals that they’ve heard about for years, especially when rigid partisanship has convinced voters to be extraordinarily forgiving of candidates’ trespasses.

However, Talarico’s team has studied the previous races and is attempting its own version of the playbook by trying to paint Paxton as part of a broader culture of corruption that has failed to improve people’s lives.

Paxton’s campaign suggested Talarico’s claims were aimed at distracting voters from a record of “out-of-touch views.”

“Every time a fighter, like President Donald Trump and now Ken Paxton, stands up to the permanent political class, even after they are completely acquitted of wrongdoing, people like James Talarico continue pushing the same accusations and claiming corruption,” Paxton campaign spokesperson Madison Cercy said.

Paxton won first reelection despite indictment

Paxton was first elected as Texas attorney general in 2014, and Nelson ran against him in 2018. A Democratic lawyer from Austin, Nelson made Paxton’s indictment on charges of securities fraud central to his campaign, and poked fun at him for picking up another lawyer’s $1,000 pen after finding it at a courthouse security checkpoint.

“Vote Justin Nelson for Texas attorney general,” the narrator said. “He will fight on behalf of all Texans. And he won’t steal your pen.”

Nelson argued that his approach was effective, reflected in Paxton’s narrow margin of 3.6 percentage points in a year when Republican Greg Abbott was reelected as Texas governor by more than 13 percentage points. Nelson’s campaign spent roughly $6.5 million, about half of what Paxton’s campaign spent.

“My message was working,” Nelson said. “I just needed to go louder and longer.”

In 2022, Paxton faced a Republican primary challenge from George P. Bush, the Texas land commissioner and the grandson and nephew of two former presidents from the state.

The securities fraud case was ongoing, and Paxton also was under federal investigation over accusations that he abused his position to benefit an Austin real estate developer, took bribes and retaliated against whistleblower employees.

Paxton responded by portraying himself as a Trump-era Republican and Bush as the heir to a privileged political legacy.

Pro-Paxton organizations spent more than $20 million, about twice as much as Bush and his allies. The race went to a runoff, in which Paxton defeated Bush by 34 percentage points.

Paxton ran against Rochelle Garza, a Democratic civil rights lawyer from Brownsville, in the general election. She said her campaign had a 300-page opposition research file on Paxton but it was difficult to figure out how to approach his past because voters had heard about it for years.

“The amount of potential hits on Paxton can make message discipline challenging,” Garza said.

Paxton ran as the leading legal opponent of President Biden, promoting a string of lawsuits against Biden’s Democratic administration on immigration, abortion and gender policy.

Overwhelmingly outspent, Garza lost by roughly 10 percentage points.

Some supporters see Paxton as a ‘flawed’ fighter

There was more trouble ahead for Paxton.

He split with his wife, who later filed for divorce “on biblical grounds.” He also was impeached by the Texas House, although the Senate acquitted him in 2023 and allowed him to remain in office. The securities fraud case ended in 2024, and Paxton was directed to pay nearly $300,000 in restitution.

Throughout the years, he’s maintained strong support from Republican voters like David and Nancy Lapp, a retired couple from the small town of Wolfforth. They described him as a conservative warrior who has been a victim of persecution.

“He’s had his share of scandals, and almost all of them have, so it’s not necessarily disqualifying anymore,” said David Lapp, 76. “He’s a flawed person, no doubt about it, but he fights for traditional American ideals.”

He added that “nowadays, as long as you’re not in jail, they’ll elect you.”

Beaumont writes for the Associated Press. Associated Press reporters Jesse Bedayn in Del Rio, Texas, and Marc Levy in Wolfforth, Texas, contributed to this report.

Berlin, Germany – Music is a major part of Rayhan Butt’s life. The 18-year-old from the west German city of Bielefeld discovered his passion for the piano a few years ago, and now plays daily, sometimes for 12 hours a day. Picking up singing along the way, he performs regularly across the country.

Butt has now found a way to combine his love of music with his love for Germany. Next month, he will travel to Berlin for an internship with the German Armed Forces, and in autumn he will be joining full-time as part of the army’s marching band.

“Music, especially piano and singing, is not a hobby – it’s my whole life, and I want to build my future around it,” Butt tells Al Jazeera. “The Bundeswehr [German Armed Forces] has an excellent reputation, and there are a lot of opportunities to perform at a very high professional level, for example, in front of the German chancellor.

“I have decided to enrol because I can continue receiving musical training alongside learning valuable skills within the army such as teamwork and discipline.”

As he looks ahead to joining, Butt says that he supports voluntary military and civic duty and believes all young people should pursue one of these paths. “If tomorrow I’m called away from the marching band to fight, I would not hesitate in stepping up as a soldier. I’m a child of immigrants, and I’ve had a lot of opportunities growing up here, such as freedom and a great education. I would definitely defend this country with my life,” adds Butt, who Al Jazeera met through his participation with Generation Global, an initiative by the Liz Mohn Foundation that aims to prepare young people for future leadership roles.

That’s a sentiment the German government is desperately counting on, as it seeks to ramp up its military recruitment.

Germany’s expanded military ambitions

The Bundeswehr wants to increase its active-duty force by 80,000 men and women to 260,000, through a voluntary recruitment drive. In addition, it wants 200,000 men and women in the reserves.

The drive forms part of the Military Service Modernisation Act, which came into effect on January 1 and lays out a new set of requirements for young Germans. Since January, more than 300,000 letters have been sent to 18-year-olds to gauge their willingness to join the armed forces, as well as requesting information on their physical fitness and education. Women have also been sent the letter but, unlike young men, are not legally required to respond.

It’s one strand within Germany’s broader military expansion plans, initiated in 2022 after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In one of his first major speeches as chancellor last year, Friedrich Merz pledged to build the “strongest conventional army in Europe”.

Most recently, a new military concept outlining how Germany intends to fight and a capability profile were published three months ago.

Moritz Graefrath, an assistant professor of international security at the University of Oklahoma’s School of International Studies, said that more than this new document, the timing of its publication is what’s significant.

“One of the most plausible explanations is that it’s part of an effort to show, particularly to Washington as well as potentially other European allies within NATO, how serious the German government now is about ‘Europeanising’ European security and taking on more of the burden of continental defence,” he told Al Jazeera. “In many ways, this is a relatively costless signal of commitment to that idea of burden shifting within NATO, to that idea of taking on more responsibility.”

Opposed to conscription

Yet the latest measures on conscription are not being welcomed by all.

Official figures published on July 14 showed that so far this year,  6,000 young men have applied to remain out of the military service on “religious” and “moral” grounds, more than the number throughout the whole of last year.

A clause in the new law that required young men between the ages of 17 and 45 years old to seek prior approval for long stays abroad was repealed following a backlash by opposition voices, including student activists who have arranged three large-scale demonstrations attended by a reported 50,000 young people across 90 German cities since December.

Bela Breitner is a 22-year-old computer science student living in Bochum in western Germany. He is part of the Schulstreik Gegen Wehrpflicht (School Strike Against Conscription) campaign group, which formed late last year in response to what they see as the “militarisation” of German society.

“Our main focus point is conscription,” he tells Al Jazeera. “Many students are in opposition to these measures because within the last few years, we feel like we haven’t received anything positive from the state.

“Many young people lost opportunities during the COVID pandemic, the school system in Germany is criminally underfinanced, and now they want to implement conscription to force us to be trained in combat. Many of us feel like our voices are not being listened to.”

History of conscription in Germany

Conscription was first introduced in Germany in the mid-1950s, and suspended only in 2011. Graefrath says the suspension was driven by societal factors as well as government calculations around things such as budgets.

“On the one hand, there was a sense of post-Cold War peace where it seemed inconceivable for another war in Europe to take place, let alone one that would involve Germany, so the conscription framework was seen as a relic of the past,” he said. “On the other hand, it became apparent, especially to young Germans at the time, that if the model was abandoned, they could study, start apprenticeships and enter the workforce, rather than having at least one year of compulsory service. So there was that societal element there.”

While the Bundeswehr says it is optimistic about achieving its targets, only about 500 recruits have been enrolled so far this year. The figures prompted one senior politician earlier this month to say that Germany will have to decide by next July at the latest whether to reintroduce compulsory military service.

Analyst Graefrath said that Germany would need to decide the future of conscription based on its reading of wider geopolitical challenges. “This would be how unreliable the United States is right now and in the foreseeable future, and how big a threat Russia actually poses.”

Meanwhile, the clause for young men to seek permission before shifting abroad remains repealed but only as long as conscription remains voluntary.

Student activist Breitner says the issue doesn’t just affect students, but people from across society, and the campaign group will continue efforts to mobilise wider support.

“I don’t know any Russians, but I believe there are many people in Russia and around the world who have dreams and want to achieve something else with their life other than fighting a war,” he said. “I believe that there are more people who share values such as peace, freedom and the right to choose over what may separate us.”

July 28 (UPI) — The U.S. Senate voted 51-47 along party lines Tuesday evening to confirm Jay Clayton as director of national intelligence, succeeding Bill Pulte.

The vote comes one day after lawmakers voted to advance Clayton’s nomination with no Democrats voting to approve.

After the vote Tuesday, Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that he is skeptical of Clayton in the role.

“I came away from his confirmation process with serious reservations about whether he would be willing to stand up to political pressure when it matters most,” Warner said. “Now that he has been confirmed, I sincerely hope he proves those concerned unfounded, because the intelligence community deserves steadier leadership than it has received in recent months.”

Bill Pulte, the acting director, announced Tuesday on social media that he had executed “a fifth and near-final round of TERMINATIONS” that mark a 30% staff reduction during his time in the office.

On July 15, Democrats in the Senate questioned Clayton, a U.S. attorney, on Trump’s allegations that he won the 2020 election. Clayton wouldn’t say that former President Joe Biden won the election, but would say that he was “certified” as president. Clayton said he is not an election denier.

“You refuse to answer a basic question about who won a presidential election, but you ask to lead America’s intelligence community,” Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., said the confirmation hearing. “Isn’t it humiliating to be unable to answer this question, to have to indulge the president’s delusions?

President Donald Trump announced Clayton as his nominee in June as senators on both sides of the aisle protested the placement of Pulte. Pulte runs the Federal Housing Finance Agency and has referred four of Trump’s perceived enemies for prosecution on allegations of mortgage fraud.

Democrats in the House wouldn’t renew Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a bill that would have extended warrantless spy powers rules, in retaliation for Pulte being named for the position. It’s unclear if the Senate will vote to extend FISA once Clayton is approved.

The House will not be back in session until September.

Tulsi Gabbard resigned from the ODNI in May.

SACRAMENTO — Backers of a November ballot measure that would require Californians to verify their identity when voting sued state officials on Monday, alleging bias in how the ballot’s summary is written.

A group led by California State Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) allege in a 10-page lawsuit filed in Sacramento Superior Court that Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta violated election laws that require the “impartial” labeling of a measure’s purpose.

DeMaio accused Bonta of trying “to rig the vote” against the measure with “a false title claiming it prohibits citizens from voting” in California elections.

He also said the measure, which will appear as Proposition 39 on the November ballot, is “a bipartisan solution to Voter ID and is supported by a supermajority of Democratic, independent, and Republican voters.”

“We take our duty to prepare a title and summary and ballot label seriously, and we are confident the court will agree we have faithfully executed that duty here,” said a spokesperson for Bonta.

Proposition 39 would require voters to present government-issued identification, such as a state driver’s license, every time they vote in person.

Voters who use mail-in ballots — by far the most popular method of voting in California — would be required to write a four-digit number, essentially a PIN, on their ballot envelopes. The PIN would come from ID such as a driver’s license or could be generated from the county.

The measure also requires that the secretary of state and county elections officials to maintain accurate voter registration lists, verify citizenship, and report annually the percentage of each county’s voter roll that have been citizenship-verified.

Under current law, Californians are required to provide identification when registering to vote and must swear under penalty of perjury, a felony, that they are eligible to vote and are U.S. citizens.

They are not required to show or provide identification when casting a ballot in person or by mail.

The lawsuit, filed by Californians for Voter ID, Yes on 39 and Donald DiCostanzo, a registered voter who lives Orange County, argues that the attorney general office’s summary “is not a true and impartial statement of the measure’s purpose” and violates California Elections Code 9051, which requires neutrality.

The suit claims the language used for the summary during the signature-gathering process — a required step to get the measure on the ballot — was “neutral” and named both of the measure’s chief purposes.

The final language omits the measure’s mandate to maintain accurate voter rolls and and verify citizenship, and describes the measure in “prohibitive terms,” according to the suit.

The original language said the measure “establishes additional voters identification and citizenship verification requirements.”

“This measure would amend the California Constitution to further require that voters present government-issued identification at the polls or the last four digits of a government-issued identification number when voting by mail; the State provide voter identification cards on request; and elections officials annually report percentage of each county’s voters whose citizenship they have verified.”

The summary language now states that the measure: “Prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification.”

“Invalidates mail ballots that do not have last four digits of designated government-issued identification number written on envelope. Prohibits in-person voting without presenting government-issued identification.”

Election law expert Fred Woocher said that the law allows the ballot measure summary to be different than the description of the measure in circulation.

UCLA law professor Rick Hasen declined to weigh in on the arguments in the lawsuit, but said that “it’s common practice for the AG to write things in ways that that align with the political interests of the Attorney General.”

Hasen previously called the ballot measure a “disaster,” writing in a blog post that its requirements are vague and it would be costly and difficult for agencies to verify citizenship.

Proponents of an initiative to repeal gas tax increases in California sued then-Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, now a candidate for governor, in 2017 over a state-drafted title and summary which they argued was misleading and negative.

A judge sided with proponents, but an appellate court later rule in Becerra’s favor.

Ross Douthat, a longtime conservative voice on the New York Times op-ed page, has been hired as full-time correspondent on “60 Minutes.”

Douthat is the first full-time correspondent named to the venerable CBS News magazine program since it underwent a massive shake-up last spring.

His hiring was announced Tuesday.

CBS News executives are trying to fill several correspondent roles after veterans Scott Pelley, Sharyn Alfonsi, Cecilia Vega and executive producer Tanya Simon were fired by CBS News editor in chief Bari Weiss.

Anderson Cooper turned down a new deal to continue as a contributing correspondent.

Douthat, 46, is not frequently seen on television.

He hosted a video podcast, “Interesting Times,” for the New York Times opinion section which explored religion and politics.

On “60 Minutes,” he will become the most prominent conservative voice on a broadcast news network.

Douthat has been with the Times opinion page since 2009, when he replaced conservative columnist Bill Kristol.

The Times section is where Weiss first made her name as anti-woke contrarian before she launched the like-minded digital news site the Free Press, which was acquired last year by CBS News parent Paramount.

Weiss was hired as editor in chief of CBS News in October with a mandate from Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison to pull the network more to the political center. The hiring of Douthat addresses that desire.

Nick Bilton, whom Weiss hired as executive producer of “60 Minutes,” also named three contributors to the program.

• Author and filmmaker Sebastian Junger, 64, who wrote “The Perfect Storm” and covered the Afghanistan war for ABC News. He is a Peabody Award winner.
• Gianna Toboni, 39, a former correspondent for Vice News who most recently was a reporter for CNN. She will also be a CBS News national correspondent.
• Trevor Phillips, 72, a British journalist who joined CBS News earler this year as a senior global affairs correspondent. He also worked in British politics.

Several internal names are still being considered for full-time and contributor roles on the program. They include “CBS Sunday Morning” veteran Seth Doane, national correspondent Matt Guttman and foreign correspondent Holly Phillips. “CBS Evening News” anchor Tony Doukopil is also expected be a contributor.

Veteran correspondents Lesley Stahl, Bill Whitaker, Norah O’Donnell and Jon Wertheim are also returning to the program, which begins its 58th season on Sept. 13.

The internal discord at “60 Minutes” followed a highly successful season where its ratings increased by 9% according to Nielsen.

But there was turmoil throughout the season as Weiss fired Alfonsi and Vega — both of whom complained that the executive pushed them to add right-wing talking points to their stories.

In response to the firings, Pelley accused Weiss of “murdering” the program and claimed she was putting “her thumb on the scale” for more favorable coverage of President Trump’s administration.

Pelley was shown the door with cause after confronting management over the firings at a June 1 meeting.

WASHINGTON — President Trump hosted the leaders of Ukraine and Israel — two nations at war — at the White House on Tuesday, as Washington’s role in both conflicts reaches a critical stage.

Trump’s meetings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came as the wars in Ukraine and Iran have recently expanded and overlapped in their footprint.

Over the weekend, Ukraine struck an Iranian cargo ship in the Caspian Sea, an attack condemned by Iranian leaders, who are dealing with their own uncertainty with a broadening war with the United States and Israel.

Both meetings took place in the Oval Office without the presence of reporters, and while few details were disclosed about the discussion, the White House described the sessions as “positive and productive.”

Yet there were signs of discord ahead of Netanyahu’s visit, his eighth during Trump’s second term and the first since the start of the U.S.-Israel war on Iran on Feb. 28.

In an interview with Fox News on Tuesday morning, Trump was asked about reports that Netanyahu planned to present him with intelligence about new activity at Pickaxe Mountain, a suspected underground nuclear site in Iran.

“Well, I don’t need Bibi to tell me that. Bibi is telling me that because he wants me to stay involved,” Trump said, using Netanyahu’s nickname. “We know exactly what is going on.”

Trump seemed frustrated that Netanyahu was putting out that information ahead of the meeting, but added that the United States would “take out Pickaxe if we don’t make a deal.” Netanyahu also came into the meeting with Trump as he pursues campaigns in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, all with the backdrop of intensifying unrest across the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

Following the meeting, however, Netanyahu issued a video statement insisting the two had an “excellent” session.

“It was one of the best conversations I’ve had with our friend, U.S. President Trump,” Netanyahu said, adding that Israel and the U.S. were meeting “with full cooperation, with mutual support, with understanding on the joint goal that Iran won’t have nuclear weapons, and also other goals.”

With Zelensky, there were fewer signs of strain, showing improved relations between the two leaders, at least compared with their first meeting last year, which devolved into a shouting match in the Oval Office in front of television cameras.

In a social media post, Zelensky described his meeting with Trump as “good,” and thanked him for working with him to “protect the lives of Ukrainians and advance peace.”

Zelensky said the two leaders discussed Trump’s pledge to allow Kyiv to produce U.S. Patriot air defense missiles, which are vital in its military efforts against Russia.

“We also spoke about diplomacy,” Zelensky said in an apparent reference to Trump’s interest in helping Ukraine and Russia reach a peace deal.

Trump’s relationship with Zelensky has shown signs of improvement since the start of the Iran war, as Ukraine has helped Americans with drone technology to use in the Middle East conflict.

Following the meetings, all three men attended the funeral of Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who up until his death on July 11 was a staunch supporter of both Ukraine and Israel.

Zelensky was also scheduled to meet with a group of senators at the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday evening to talk about legislation that would impose harsher sanctions on Russia and its trading partners. Graham was an author of the proposed measure.

In recent days, Israeli settlers have ramped up attacks on Palestinian towns and villages, vandalizing properties, commandeering homes and fields, and establishing settlements that are illegal under international law.

At the same time, Israeli soldiers have intensified their incursions across the West Bank, arresting more than 100 Palestinians and demolishing homes.

The escalation followed a clash between settlers and Palestinian residents Friday that turned lethal, killing four Palestinians and two Israelis in what was considered the deadliest single attack in the West Bank this year.

Israeli attacks have also persisted in Gaza despite a ceasefire signed nine months ago. On Tuesday, health authorities in the enclave said 22 Palestinians were injured in Israeli strikes.

The rise in hostilities comes as Israel continues to push the United States to press on with a conflict that experts say carried political risks for the Trump administration with its supporters at home and international allies.

Last week, the U.S. war escalated again as Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen attacked two Saudi Arabian oil tankers in the Red Sea, causing global oil prices to surge. The development prompted fears of yet another vital energy corridor being choked off by the Iran war.

As the November elections approach, Trump has downplayed the economic toll the war has taken on his supporters. On Monday, he told a crowd in Michigan that if they ever question why the United States is at war, it’s because “we’re not going to let lunatics have a nuclear weapon.”

Meanwhile, the cycle of claims and counterclaims by the U.S. and Iran has continued.

On Tuesday, Ebrahim Zolfaqari, a spokesperson for the unified command of Iran’s armed forces, warned any country or company accepting frozen Iranian funds as compensation for damaged vessels — as per Trump’s proposal over the weekend — would be struck.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei also contradicted Trump’s assertions of ongoing discussions between Iran and the U.S. and that Tehran was asking for a meeting.

Negotiations with the U.S. are “not in our DNA,” Baghaei said.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s strike on an Iranian ship has raised the possibility of a growing footprint in that war. Ukraine said the ship was carrying military equipment between Iran and Russia.

Iran condemned the attack, with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi slamming it as a “violation done at Israel’s behest” and the ministry spokesman comparing Zelensky to pre-World War I “anarchists” whose “theatrical yet highly dangerous acts” ignited a Europe-wide conflict.

“There is no guarantee that a dramatic gesture intended to attract attention and assert one’s position in the international arena, where that position is not particularly strong, will remain limited in scope,” Baghaei said during a news conference in Tehran on Monday.

He added: “The consequences, both for Ukraine and for the entire region drawn into this conflict, could be unpredictable.”

Ceballos reported from Washington and Bulos from Beirut.

Hundreds of mourners have paid their respects to the late Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

The Republican lawmaker and key ally of President Donald Trump unexpectedly died on July 11.

Graham was elected to the US Senate in 2002 and was re-elected in 2008, 2014 and 2020. In 1994, he was elected to ⁠the US House of Representatives, the lower house of the US Congress, for South Carolina’s third congressional district. He recently served as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. Graham also served as a member of ‌the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

He was a strong supporter of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq and had long pushed for military action against Iran.

Graham was a longtime backer of Israel and supported Trump’s ongoing war on Iran. In a planned documentary, Graham told the filmmakers he “almost cried” after the US and Israel began strikes on Iran in February.

He also vocally supported Ukraine after Russia invaded the country in 2022.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and several other world leaders attended Graham’s funeral service on Tuesday afternoon at the Washington National Cathedral in Washington, DC.

Trump gave remarks, calling Graham a force in the world and US politics. He called Graham “a beloved friend” and said that he “died doing the work he was born to do”.

“For more than 30 years, nothing of consequence happened in this capital without Lindsey Graham knowing about it. Nothing of significance happened anywhere in the world without Lindsey Graham having a view on it,” Trump said. “And no bill became law in the most exceptional republic in human history without Lindsey Graham having a say in it.”

He added: “He was a man who gave America the full measure of his good and mighty heart until that heart itself just gave out.”

An aide involved in an affair with Gavin Newsom more than 20 years ago, when he was mayor of San Francisco, detailed their relationship and her journey to sobriety in an essay published by Vanity Fair on Tuesday.

Although Ruby Rippey, 54, has spoken previously about her relationship with the now-governor, her first-person essay offers the most intimate description yet of the affair. It comes at a time when Newsom is wrapping up his final year as California governor and considering a presidential run in 2028.

Rippey, who had worked as Newsom’s appointments secretary, was married to Alex Tourk, the then-mayor’s close friend, campaign manager and prior deputy chief of staff, when the affair became public in 2007. Tourk resigned after Rippey told him that she had been sleeping with their boss, she writes.

At the time, Newsom was newly divorced from Kimberly Guilfoyle and he apologized in front of a gaggle of reporters who packed his office for a news conference, admitting “everything you’ve heard and read is true.” Later, he said he was seeking treatment for alcohol abuse.

In the essay, Rippey details that the affair with Newsom happened when she was a new mother and when her drinking, which had been a problem before the relationship, spiraled out of control.

Rippey writes that their relationship began in July 2005 after a wedding at a Napa Valley estate and spanned months, with intermittent sexual encounters until she entered rehab in May 2006.

They met at his penthouse in San Francisco’s Russian Hill neighborhood, at a private back room in a bar in North Beach and at the W Hotel in Los Angeles, she writes.

“We meet and we drink. There is sex, but it isn’t the point. The point is proximity — to power, to being chosen, to feeling newly visible — no longer muted by pregnancy, by new motherhood, by the strain of white-knuckling long stretches of sobriety,” she writes. “It isn’t love. It isn’t romance. It’s intoxication.”

Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for the governor’s office, said on Tuesday that Newsom acknowledged his role and publicly apologized for the affair nearly two decades ago.

“In the time since, he met his wife, started a family and has focused on serving Californians. He addressed this chapter of his life, including in his memoir, and out of respect for everyone involved, does not have anything further to add,” Gardon said.

The affair occurred while Gavin Newsom was mayor of San Francisco.

(San Francisco Chronicle / Hearst Newspapers)

Newsom faced renewed criticism for the affair during the 2018 governor’s race amid a larger reckoning over sexual misconduct in politics, corporate America and Hollywood. But Rippey has said she doesn’t see herself as a victim of a powerful man.

“Yes, I was a subordinate, but I was also a free-thinking, 33-yr old adult married woman & mother. (I also happened to have an unfortunate inclination towards drinking-to-excess & self-destruction.),” she wrote on Facebook at the time.

She still doesn’t place blame on the governor for what happened, but noted in her essay that in the post-#MeToo era she came to realize that her then-boss had a responsibility to “hold the line.”

“That didn’t happen. But I didn’t stumble into the space left open — I saw a possibility and went for it,” she writes. “Both things are true: I am responsible for what I did. Power does not distribute consequences evenly.”

For Newsom, she writes, the affair is merely a “footnote in a longer arc of ascent. For me, it is the fracture that split my life into before and after.”

In his memoir, “Young Man in a Hurry: A Memoir of Discovery,” published this year, Newsom acknowledges the liaison with Rippey, describing it as “the briefest of affairs.”

He also writes that he admitted the betrayal to Tourk, a detail that Rippey takes issue with in her essay. She says she was the one who first broke the devastating news to her husband via email while she was at her parent’s house in Napa and he was home in San Francisco with their young son.

“But resentment is a luxury I can’t afford,” she writes. “Instead, I return to gratitude, not for the affair, not for the pain I caused Alex, but for the totality of what followed. I required something catastrophic to change direction. Something that made the cost of going back — of drinking again — unthinkable.”

After the affair, Rippey and Tourk divorced but continued to co-parent their son, who is now an adult. She’s been sober for 20 years, she writes, remarried and now has a son with her second husband.

“The damage was mine,” she writes at the conclusion of her essay. “But so is the life rebuilt in its wake.”

Times staff writer Taryn Luna contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Sen. Lindsey Graham, the son of pool hall owners who rose to become one of his generation’s more influential U.S. politicians at home and abroad, is being eulogized Tuesday as a “swashbuckling” public servant and “true American original” during memorial services in Washington.

Graham’s remains arrived at the U.S. Capitol, where the Republican served for more than 30 years as an indefatigable dealmaker who talked and laughed and badgered his colleagues into action. His flag-draped casket was carried inside by an armed forces team, in recognition of his military service.

Later, a funeral will be held at Washington National Cathedral with lawmakers and foreign leaders, a testament to his stature on the global stage.

“Lindsey was a towering figure,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, adding there was “no one more capable of cracking up a room.”

“I look forward to the days when you make us all laugh again,” said Thune (R-S.D.), choking back tears.

President Trump is expected to deliver remarks at the cathedral, alongside Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity and other conservative leaders.

Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyplan to be in attendance, a nod to Graham’s role as a foremost believer in the power of the U.S. and its military to intervene in the world’s problems.

It’s the start of two days of services, with burial Wednesday in Graham’s home state of South Carolina. Joint Base Charleston will be renamed in his honor, the White House said.

Graham died suddenly on July 11 at his home in Washington of a likely aortic tear, according to preliminary findings. He had just returned from a whirlwind trip to a NATO summit in Turkey, where he celebrated his birthday, and a visit to Ukraine. He was 71.

A place of honor to ‘say our final goodbyes’

The morning service in the Capitol Rotunda provided a place of tribute where former presidents and military leaders and other prominent Americans have been memorialized.

Vice President JD Vance along with several Cabinet officials and former senators, including Markwayne Mullin, the Homeland Security secretary, were in attendance, as was acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, who faces a rocky Senate confirmation for the job.

Vance described Graham as a “swashbuckling” figure — “who swashbuckled into the Senate” with his suit jacket open — and was impossible not to like.

“A true American original,” Vance said.

First elected to Congress in the 1994 Republican revolt that swept the GOP to power, Graham was part of a new era of conservatives to take their seats in the House — and among the first Republicans from his Southern state since Reconstruction.

Mascaro, Kinnard and Jalonick write for the Associated Press. Associated Press writer Michelle L. Price contributed to this story.

WASHINGTON — President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskymet Tuesday ahead of Sen. Lindsey Graham’s funeral, with the two leaders discussing ways for Ukraine to produce its own powerful weapons and “other ideas that could help” in its ongoing war against Russia.

The sit-down in the Oval Office, which was closed to the media, followed a consequential meeting at the NATO summit earlier this month in Ankara, Turkey, where Trump announced that the U.S. will give Ukraine a license to make Patriot defense systems — a long-running request from Kyiv to counter Russian missile attacks.

In a post on social media after the meeting, Zelenskythanked Trump for the “good meeting” and the Republican administration’s efforts to aid Kyiv in the long-running war, which began more than four years ago when Russia invaded Ukraine.

“The President and I discussed licenses for Patriot interceptor production and several other ideas that could help,” said Zelensky, who also noted that he offered condolences to Trump for the death of Graham, a close ally. “We also spoke about diplomacy — it’s important that the diplomatic process be reinvigorated.”

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment on the meeting.

Trump welcomed Zelenskyto the White House as the Ukrainian leader traveled to Washington to honor Graham, whose final act as a public official was visiting Kyiv and securing an agreement on a package of sanctions that seek to punish countries that purchase Russian oil, gas and other exports.

In a Fox News Channel interview on Tuesday, Trump recalled Graham’s hawkishness and said the Republican South Carolina senator’s support for Ukraine never wavered. Trump said Graham had suggested it was time to make a deal with Iran but had no similar suggestion for the Russia-Ukraine war.

“Ukraine, he’s very militant about,” Trump said on “Fox & Friends.” “I mean, Lindsey liked war, to be honest with you.”

“It’s looking good for Ukraine, right?” Loomer said during an interview with The Associated Press. “Going into this meeting next week at the Oval Office is looking pretty good.”

Kim writes for the Associated Press.