politics

June 18 (UPI) — The Obama Presidential Center will open Thursday in Chicago with a long list of celebrities attending.

The grand opening will be livestreamed starting at 11 a.m. CDT Thursday on Obama.org and on the Obama Foundation’s social media accounts. The opening is invitation-only, and there are no more tickets for the Midway Plaisance Park watch party in Chicago.

The center will be open to the public beginning Friday, and it’s expected to see up to 1 million visitors per year. Tickets, which are $30, are sold out through October.

The center is a 19-acre space on the south side of Chicago that features a tall building that includes a museum of the Obamas’ lives. It shows what life was like in the Obama White House.

The campus also has a branch of the Chicago Public Library, an NBA regulation-size basketball court and Women’s Garden dedicated to women leaders in Chicago. It also has an auditorium, a media suite that visitors can use, a Wetland Walk, a fruit and vegetable garden and a playground.

But it’s not a presidential library and doesn’t house the Obama presidential documents. Those are in the mostly digital Barack Obama Presidential Library run by the National Archives, though the center does have some artifacts on display that are on loan.

Some of the celebrities planning to perform are Bruce Springsteen, Christina Aguilera, John Legend, Stevie Wonder, Jennifer Hudson, Marc Anthony, The Roots, Common, Eddie Vedder, Bono and The Edge, Tems and Marsai Martin.

Every living president will be there except President Donald Trump.

CEO of the Obama Foundation Valerie Jarrett has said Trump is welcome to visit the museum, and they’d love to give him a tour. She said he simply was not invited to the dedication.

“I can tell you that this is a celebration for those who helped get President Obama where he is. And this is a gift to them,” Jarrett said. “And so the people who will be here are the people who’ve been helpful along the way.”

The photo is from Workers’ Day in Venezuela, when Delcy Rodríguez, wearing a blue Ronald Acuña baseball jersey, announced a long-awaited minimum income increase after several days touring the country, campaigning for a land of peace and prosperity, free of sanctions.

Us Venezuelans know that chavismo loves a propaganda makeover. They can be good at it too, in all honesty. The aftermath of the capture of one of the world’s most loathed autocrats, and the takeover by his supposedly pragmatic, corporate-like vice president was never going to be an exception when it comes to PR reinvention.

Media outlets have noticed the changes in the Caracas landscape: the image of Nicolás Maduro (and to some extent, that of former First Combatant Cilia Flores) is starting to disappear from view. Large billboards featuring the couple, including the phrase “we want them back” (los queremos de vuelta), are getting withdrawn.

This occurs as there’s serious discomfort inside chavismo about how close the Delcy-Trump relationship has become: from the drastic U-turn in the Alex Saab case to increased “supervision” from the US embassy in Caracas and the joint military operation targeting the Tren de Aragua leader, it looks like Washington’s tutelage keeps expanding and deepening at great speed.

Delcy herself is not the main focus. The idea is to convince Venezuelans that things are improving, to encourage them to imagine how the country could thrive if sanctions are lifted.

The official strategy now seems to put Maduro on the back burner, letting him fade away from short-term memory. Getting rid of his image entirely won’t be easy, of course. After all, his face and personal brand—his Super Mustache, and the tricolor M letter from his 2018 presidential campaign which became an official emblem of sorts—can still be seen on public signs, painted in walls and even in official vehicles.

This mirrors what happened earlier with the visual trademarks of the late Hugo Chávez, like his famous eyes and rabo e’ cochino signature. Maduro had reduced their public use and replaced them with his own iconography, for better or for worse. 

Blue-hued efficiency

This sudden shift in dropping Maduro’s image brings an important question to mind: what will replace it? 

One option would be to have Delcy’s face in huge billboards across avenues and highways. But that has not been the case so far. 

Two elements are noticeable. First, Delcy herself is not the main focus. Instead, the idea is to convince the Venezuelan people that things are improving, and to encourage them to imagine how the country could thrive if (more) US sanctions are lifted.

She has embraced a more traditional “head of state” role, prioritizing highly-publicized formal meetings where she signs letters of understanding (often disguised as actual contracts) with foreign investors as signs that the country is back on track and open for business. That completely aligns with how the Trump administration and POTUS himself sell their role here.

Political advertising from the Delcy Rodríguez government tries to project a nation of diverse, forward-looking citizens, which is a huge departure from the Chávez-era exaltation of the all-red masses. Note the Star of David on the left-hand side of the image above, a nod to both the US and a Jewish community famously insulted by Chávez. 

Even Miraflores Palace got its own new styling for such occasions: the Cabinet Room was stripped of not only anything related to both Chávez and Maduro but also the pictures of the late Argentine President Néstor Kirchner. The room was named in his honor in 2011. In its place there’s now a large, White House-styled logo for Miraflores, which has been in use since 2018.

Then there’ the blatant decision of dropping chavismo’s traditional rojo-rojito red for a dark blue. 

Curiously enough, the Rodrigato has taken advantage of the full visual rebrand of the government launched last year by Maduro, which dropped the term Gobierno Bolivariano and related symbols used since the mid 2000s. 

The national flag and formal country name are front and center. The use of a broader institutional look is another stark contrast with the more personalized presentation from the Maduro years.

Delcy has used social media and trips both inside and outside the country in order to compensate for her brand-new stateswoman persona. But she doesn’t go as far as doing an Aló Presidente-style TV show or starting her own podcast like Maduro did with Con Maduro + (where Delcy was once a guest).

Delcy probably knows she is not exactly the most marketable presidential candidate. This rebrand is also an attempt to push her image in that direction while her aides and consultants still have time to sketch something viable.

So far, Delcy´s deeper involvement in mass events this year happened in late April, during the so-called “Great National Pilgrimage for a Venezuela Free of Sanctions,” better known for its shorter slogan Venezuela vuela libre (Venezuela flies free). At its core, it looks like an early balloon trial for what her campaign could look like in a snap election. On the surface, it seemed like an appropriation of the religious frenzy around the canonization of two Venezuelan saints—several months after that event, when Maduro was not in Brooklyn—and of the symbols and rituals of the Machado campaign: rosaries, people embracing a politician’s caravan across a village, blue and white clothes.

This particular change didn’t go unnoticed by former state television host Mario Silva, a longtime supporter of the revolución who has become Delcy’s most outspoken critic within chavismo. Silva recently told the Wall Street Journal: “Red used to mean combat… The pale blue is to put the masses to sleep.” The campaign itself became part of a heated debate between Silva and other figures related to the chavismo’s media ecosystem, such as Indira Urbaneja and the Argentine influencer known as Michelo last month.

Its launch was linked with the grand minimum wage announcement on May 1^st after a four-year wait. It wasn’t really the real wage increase that teachers, healthcare workers and public officials were hoping for. Since January 3rd, Jorge Rodríguez regularly takes over for her sister in public events. By the looks of the recent lack of activity in the official YouTube channel, it’s currently not at the same level of the spring period. The amount of related outdoor ads and street banners seemingly will do heavy lifting this summer.

Presidential disguise

Uncertainty hangs over Venezuela’s political future for the second half of 2026, but Delcy Rodríguez is clearly capitalizing on her position, using every resource at her disposal without facing any pushback from Washington. Yet, when it comes to the raw talent of a traditional politician, her shortcomings are no secret. Her speeches tend to be quite brief and dry. She has sounded nervous when caught off guard. She lacks the charismatic oratory of Chávez and the brazen rhetoric of her brother or her predecessor. She probably knows she is not exactly the most marketable presidential candidate. This rebrand is an attempt to push her image in that direction while her aides and consultants still have time to sketch something viable.

Coming back to Maduro, the little sympathy he had outside the most hardcore chavista supporters won’t improve. People are not missing him, never mind care that Delcy is shedding his old propaganda. Ordinary Venezuelans are generally too busy, dealing with their everyday problems, to pay attention to the politics of chavista PR.

In the end, this stealth attempt to erase Maduro’s image isn’t as simple as turning the page and moving on. Delcy needs to build a whole new persona that fits both the mainstream chavismo she wants to rally (and that still represents her voter base), and the one Donald Trump can be happy with.

She may not be able to deliver the rousing speeches of Chávez in his prime, or pull off the theatrical antics that Maduro leaned on for years, but playing the dignified role of “the President” may just work for her. At least for the foreseeable future.

The Democratic Socialist has vowed aggressive response to Trump, who has said he could ‘take back’ DC if she wins.

Washington, DC – Janeese Lewis George, a Democratic Socialist who has promised an aggressive approach to United States President Donald Trump, is on track to become the next mayor of Washington, DC.

Lewis George already had a commanding lead after Tuesday’s Democratic primary. Her top competitor, Kenyan McDuffie, conceded on Thursday, all but assuring her victory.

Washington, DC, trends heavily Democratic, with the primary winner likely to win the general election in November. There is no Republican challenger for the post, although independent and third-party candidates can mount challenges.

Lewis George, a council member and former prosecutor, had garnered labour groups’ support as she vowed to set clear boundaries with the Trump administration, including ending cooperation between local police and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Her victory would make her the first member of the Democratic Socialists of America, to which NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Congressmember Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also belong, to lead Washington, DC.

Her competitor, McDuffie, a former councilmember, had gained support among DC’s business community and pitched himself as a moderate. His style hewed close to that of current Mayor Muriel Bowser, who has walked a careful line between criticism and cooperation with Trump.

For his part, the US president has made his preference clear, floating that he might “take back Washington and run it on the federal basis” if Lewis George became mayor.

Washington, DC, is a federal district, giving the White House and Congress outsized influence. However, under a 1973 law, the district has so-called “home-rule”, allowing residents to elect the mayor, council members and neighbourhood commissioners to run daily affairs.

Advocates have long called for the district, with a population of more than 700,000, to become a state. Both Lewis George and McDuffie support DC statehood.

Since taking office in January of last year, Trump has repeatedly threatened to assert more control over the district.

He briefly federalised the city’s police department in August of last year, claiming a crime emergency, surged federal immigration enforcement in the district, and deployed the National Guard as part of a “beautification” project.

Responding to Trump’s threats ahead of Tuesday’s vote, Lewis George said a strong response was needed.

“We are not going to get ICE off our streets or protect Home Rule by fearing this President,” she said.

“Threatening DC because you do not like how our residents vote is an attack on democracy itself. The people of DC elect the Mayor of DC. And they want someone who will stand up to Trump,” she said.

SACRAMENTO — Compelled into action by recent shootings, the state Assembly on Thursday narrowly approved legislation to ban the manufacture and sale of unsafe handguns in California.

For the first time, handguns made in, sold in or imported into the state would have to meet certain consumer safety standards to ensure that they don’t misfire.

The bill, similar to one vetoed last year by Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, is expected to win swift approval in the Senate and be signed into law by Democratic Gov. Gray Davis.

California would then be the second state in the nation, after Massachusetts, to impose consumer safety measures on gun manufacturers.

“Now, we can say to the people of the state that we’ve kept our promise to get rid of cheap and unsafe handguns. These so-called Saturday night specials are the weapons of choice on the streets of Los Angeles,” said Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa after the vote.

Supporters credited last-minute arm-twisting by the Los Angeles Democrat, along with a strong declaration of support Thursday from Davis, for helping Sen. Richard Polanco (D-Los Angeles), the bill’s author, push the measure through the 80-member lower house on a 43-26 vote. All 43 votes in favor came from Democrats.

Support for the measure was also spurred by a series of violent eruptions, from the Columbine High School shootings in Colorado last spring to last week’s assault on the North Valley Jewish Community Center in Granada Hills. Thursday’s vote came on the heels of other major anti-gun action by the Legislature, including a ban on assault weapons signed into law last month by Davis.

Before Thursday’s Assembly move, Davis described the handgun bill “as a reasonable measure which simply holds guns to a reasonable safety standard. I don’t think that’s asking too much of weapons. We ask it of automobiles and many other products in society. I am going to do my level best to help it pass and sign it into law.”

Opponents, including the National Rifle Assn., said the California measure is ill conceived and will create a massive black market in used guns that fail to meet the new safety protections.

Lawmakers in the past attempted to outlaw handguns based on size or the content of their metal frames. By contrast, Polanco’s bill turns gun safety into a consumer protection issue, requiring gun makers to certify that the concealable weapons they sell are not “unsafe.” The goal of reducing the availability of cheap handguns remains unchanged, although Polanco said that no guns will be confiscated under his bill.

Under the measure, the state attorney general’s office would be required to certify independent laboratories to test the weapons. Three sample guns would be subjected to two tests at the labs.

As outlined by supporters, the first would be a firing test, in which each weapon could misfire no more than six times in 600 rounds. In addition, each gun would have to fire its first 20 rounds without a misfire.

Many low-quality models would fail such tests, gun control advocates say, keeping tens of thousands of guns off the streets.

Next, the lab would be required to drop the same three guns onto a concrete slab from a height of one meter. Each gun would be dropped six times in six different ways. Any gun to go off in any of the drops would fail.

Loopholes Criticized

The measure would exempt guns sold, loaned or otherwise transferred between private parties or through police agencies; curios or relics; and those on consignment with a pawnbroker.

Some county sheriffs, primarily from rural areas, voiced concerns, especially about those loopholes.

For example, Yuba County Sheriff Virginia R. Black was quoted in a Democratic legislative analysis of the measure as saying, “This bill exempts law enforcement agencies from the requirements of the bill, allowing us to provide officers with firearms defined by statute as unsafe. If the firearms are ‘unsafe’ then they should be ‘unsafe’ for anybody–regardless of occupation.”

For hours before the bill was taken up on the Assembly floor, Polanco, vote card in hand, prowled the chamber attempting to cement support, especially from wavering moderate Democrats.

Once the hourlong debate started, perhaps the most charged moment came when first-term Green Party member Audie Bock of Oakland assailed the measure as doing nothing to get rid of guns.

“The emperor has no clothes, colleagues. I’ve never met a Republican who liked a reasonable gun bill. And I’ve never met a Democrat who didn’t like a stupid gun bill,” she said.

“It’s common knowledge around here that in order to get reelected you have to write a gun bill,” she said, contending that members sometimes seek the help of the NRA in drafting legislation.

“Then you go back to the district and say, ‘I defeated the NRA.’ . . . It’s sheer political grandstanding.”

Majority Leader Kevin Shelley of San Francisco scolded Bock, even as he said many Democrats want tougher laws than Polanco’s bill envisions.

“Member Bock, I represent San Francisco. . . . I too would love to see guns banned. I can say that. I can even vote that way and win reelection.”

However, he said, most of his colleagues couldn’t take that political stand. “We’re not there yet, so we vote on measures now that we can support and then we move society along.”

Republicans voiced strong objections to the measure. Assemblyman Jim Battin (R-Palm Desert) called Polanco’s proposal “a boon” for manufacturers because it will be harder to sell older guns, resulting in a boost in new gun sales.

Assemblyman Rod Wright (D-Los Angeles), his voice straining with emotion, declared that the measure “masquerades as a Saturday night special ban.”

“This is a fraud,” he said.

Change of Role for Davis

The governor’s role in pushing the gun legislation represents a change in practice for Davis since taking office. Except during the special session he convened on education earlier in the year, his office has refrained from taking public positions on pending bills.

Davis has acknowledged that his office “fell behind the curve” in its legislative activity because of the challenges of starting a new administration.

He promised to put his muscle behind many more bills in the few weeks that remain in this year’s lawmaking session, particularly those regarding health care reform.

“We are definitely becoming more active,” he told reporters Thursday. “And we will weigh in on many important issues between now and the end of the year.”

Davis also announced Thursday that he has signed an executive order prohibiting state agencies from selling their used firearms and risking the chance that they will be used in future crimes. In the future, state agencies will be required to destroy their weapons or trade them in toward the purchase of new guns.

Since 1992, Davis said, 15 separate state agencies have sold about 6,000 used firearms.

The used gun issue was first raised last fall when the state Department of Corrections reconsidered its policy of selling or trading in old firearms, including assault rifles.

In June, Davis ordered the department to stop selling its used weapons. On Thursday, he extended that ban to all other state agencies.

The governor said the issue was heightened recently when it was reported that the gunman who allegedly shot five people last week at a Jewish community center in Granada Hills and killed a mail carrier in Chatsworth had a weapon formerly owned by a police force in Washington state.

“I’m here to tell you today that is not going to happen in California,” Davis said.

The governor later tempered his remarks by saying it is possible that guns traded in to weapons manufacturers might still end up on the streets.

He said that is less likely than with weapons sold directly from law enforcement to gun dealers. But he also offered to toughen his executive order–so that all weapons from state agencies would be destroyed–if problems continue.

The governor also said he would consider future legislation that might require similar policies for all local government firearms. At this point, however, Davis said most agencies have already restricted the sale of their used guns.

*

Times researcher Patti Williams contributed to this report.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Highlights of Gun Safety Bill

The highlights of Sen. Richard Polanco’s (D-Los Angeles) SB 15 include:

* Making it a misdemeanor, effective Jan. 1, 2001, to manufacture, sell or import an “unsafe handgun.”

* Requiring pistols and revolvers to meet certain consumer safety standards, including passing firing and drop tests to ensure they won’t misfire.

* Mandating that the testing be conducted by an independent laboratory certified by the state Department of Justice.

* Exempting certain firearms, including those sold between private parties, through police agencies, or as curios or relics, from the provisions of the measure.

* Requiring that on Jan. 1, 2002, the Department of Justice publish a list of all “unsafe handguns” capable of being concealed.

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Marco Rubio stood silent and stone-faced behind Donald Trump on Wednesday as the president joked of passing the buck if his deal with Iran, under increasingly withering criticism and scrutiny, ultimately falls apart.

The blame, Trump said, would likely fall on his vice president, JD Vance, who led the negotiations toward a memorandum of understanding with Iran and will sign the agreement this week in Switzerland — a ceremony that will generate indelible images for a politician openly considering a run for the White House.

The controversial diplomatic breakthrough poses a quandary for Vance, whose aides see Rubio as his most viable challenger for the Republican presidential nomination should the secretary choose to run.

“If it works out, I’m going to take the credit,” Trump said of the Iran deal, with Rubio by his side.

“If it doesn’t work out, I’m blaming JD,” he joked. “You better be careful, JD!”

Silent secretary

Rubio, who also serves as the president’s national security advisor, has remained effectively mum since news of a preliminary peace deal was announced by the administration on Sunday.

His absence has drawn notice across foreign policy circles — not only because Rubio has served as chief architect of the administration’s global strategy thus far, but also because he has become one of the president’s most effective communicators, both at home and abroad.

By contrast, Vance, on a scheduled press tour promoting his new book, has emerged as the face of an agreement that appears to be fracturing a Republican Party already divided over America’s role in the world.

The administration’s internal divide over Iran extends beyond the war to broader U.S. support for its historic allies, including Israel in the Middle East, Canada and Mexico in this hemisphere, and Ukraine and Europe against a revanchist Russia.

“Rubio has always been a hawk on Iran, and Vance has always been an appeaser,” said Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, describing the vice president as positioning himself “as Trump without the flaws.”

“Rubio has a harder job because he’s more of a traditional Republican,” she said, adding that a competitive presidential run by the secretary might require him to pitch “a return to normalcy.”

No guarantee of success

Behind closed doors, Rubio advocated against the deal in its current form, citing intelligence reports that found it highly unlikely Tehran would give up its nuclear ambitions, according to two sources familiar with the matter. Rubio’s internal skepticism was first reported by Axios.

The deal kicks down the road highly technical discussions over the mechanics of unwinding Iran’s nuclear program — with no guarantee of success — while granting Tehran immediate relief, lifting a U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports that will allow Iranian imports and exports to resume.

In exchange, Iran has only agreed in principle not to pursue nuclear weapons — a vow it has made multiple times before — and to do its “best” to return commercial shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz back to prewar levels. It commits in the deal to refrain from implementing a toll system in the strait, according to U.S. officials, for a mere 60-day period.

“This agreement is a road map for Iran to become a rising, stronger power in the [Persian] Gulf — stronger than it is even today,” said Robert Pape, a political science professor at the University of Chicago.

“That is going to be an issue for the balance of power with Israel, which before the Iran war was the rising power. Now it’s lost that paradigm,” Pape said. “And this is going to be an issue with the future disposition of American forces in the region, because the [memorandum of understanding] states quite clearly that Iran is expecting those forces to withdraw.”

Positioning by the vice president

Despite mounting skepticism, Vance has embraced his role in ending a war that a powerful faction of Trump’s base aggressively opposed from the start.

“I think there are some people who just want the bombing to continue, regardless of whether it accomplishes anything for Americans,” Vance told CBS News on Wednesday.

“I do think there are people,” he added, “who sometimes confuse the ends with the means.”

Because the preliminary Iran deal leaves key details unresolved, further negotiations virtually ensure the agreement remains in flux through the election season — potentially thrusting the talks into the center of the presidential primary campaign.

“Given the distance between the parties on the core nuclear issues, as well as the Trump administration’s poor track record with coercive diplomacy, I fully expect the 60-day window for talks to be extended, as the [memorandum of understanding] text permits, taking this issue to the heart of the midterms and beyond,” said Reid Pauly, a professor of nuclear security and policy at Brown University.

“There will be a lot of incentive in the administration,” Pauly added, “to distance oneself from this fiasco.”

As a guest on Megyn Kelly’s podcast this week, Vance acknowledged the political realities of Trump’s base splintering over the Iran war, noting that a coalition of isolationists — as well as those advocating what he called a more “aggressive” foreign policy — had together swept Trump back into office.

The war may be breaking that coalition apart, he said.

“We have a constituency right now that is saying, we’re going to send boots on the ground — they want Donald Trump to send hundreds of thousands of ground troops into Iran,” Vance told the former Fox News host.

“Those are Republicans,” Kelly said.

“We need people to be pushing back from inside the tent,” Vance replied.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: He graduated high school with honors. ICE detained him the next day
The deep dive: What we know about two SoCal men arrested in alleged plot to attack White House UFC fight
The L.A. Times Special: L.A. defies the skeptics for a World Cup marked by unity, mutual respect, fearlessness

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

President Trump recently took action that could pave the way for opening many more federal lands to recreational off-road enthusiasts. When I heard about it, I immediately thought of the battle over off-highway vehicle access in California’s Mojave Desert.

Earlier this year, a judge ordered the Bureau of Land Management to close roughly 2,000 miles of off highway vehicle trails in the western Mojave to reduce ongoing harm to the endangered desert tortoise, a keystone species of the local ecosystem whose numbers are in steep decline.

That court decision capped off a decadeslong legal fight led by environmental groups including the Center for Biological Diversity and the Desert Tortoise Council.

Under the ruling, which the BLM has appealed, the agency has roughly three years to redraw the network of Mojave off-road trails.

In the latest action, Trump has rescinded a pair of 1970s executive orders that directed federal land managers to minimize damage to wildlife and natural resources, as well as conflicts between off-roading and other types of recreational land use, when choosing where to locate OHV trails.

He described them as “excessive regulation” that used “ill-defined criteria” to minimize vehicle impacts. “These vague, subjective criteria often result in barriers to energy and timber production and utility maintenance, permit delays, and de facto bans on hiking and other forms of recreation that require accessing remote areas, all while doing little to benefit multiple use of Federal lands,” he wrote.

I called up Lisa Belenky, who’s representing the Center for Biological Diversity in the Mojave proceedings, to ask whether Trump’s order changed anything about the case, or the rules the BLM must follow as it revises the trail network.

The short answer, she said, is no.

Each federal land management agency has its own regulations with criteria for managing off-road vehicle use — for instance, the BLM uses travel management plans to determine where vehicles are allowed on specific pieces of land. Trump’s order rolled back the executive directives that guided those regulations, but the regulations themselves remain in place.

Still, Trump’s order directs federal agencies to reexamine their regulations.

In some cases, such a reexamination appears to be already underway, said Paul Sanford, director of policy analysis at The Wilderness Society. The administration last year signaled its intent to repeal the rule that governs motorized access to Forest Service lands, he noted, the Travel Management Rule.

“The rescission of the executive orders makes that easier,” he said.

The Forest Service said in a statement that the rule is expected to be addressed later this year.

“It’s absolutely irresponsible and stupid,” said Jim Baca of Trump’s order. The former BLM director said it was already hard enough to regulate OHV use when he led the agency from 1993 to 1994. “It was difficult to do anything, especially if oil and gas people, mining people and others wanted to get into an area,” he said. To Ryan “Cal” Callaghan, president and CEO of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, the order reflects “the prioritization of one set of user groups over all others.”

Increasing vehicle access in remote areas can cause erosion, stress animals and transport weeds into the backcountry, where they can outcompete native plants, and there’s a strong correlation between roads and human-caused fires, he said. Plus, there’s no indication that any increase would mean funding for more personnel to handle enforcement and lessen negative consequences, he said.

To the contrary, between the end of 2024 and the end of last year, the BLM lost nearly 20% of its staff, and the Forest Service and National Park Service each lost roughly 16%, according to an analysis of Office of Personnel Management data by Hawk Eye Strategies and Prospect Partners. Together, those three agencies responsible for managing more than half a billion acres of public land — about 23% of the United States — count fewer employees than the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, per the figures provided by the consulting firms.

The staffing cuts and regulatory rollbacks — which also include the recent rescission of the public lands rule that put conservation on equal footing with other uses of BLM land — are part of a strategy to “suffocate” federal land management agencies, said Jora Fogg, public lands policy associate director at the Conservation Lands Foundation.

“There’s an effort to undo regulations and protections on public lands because there is a push for this energy dominance and extractive uses,” she said.

I’ve met plenty of OHV enthusiasts who care deeply for public lands. I’ve also encountered degradation and damage.

Earlier this year, tortoise biologist Ed LaRue told me he could show me a corner of the desert that had been scarred by off-roaders departing from designated routes. In the tawny hills of the Ord Rodman Natural Area, a smattering of legal trails had widened into a thick braid so intertwined that it was difficult to tell which were authorized. And while the area was once among the most densely populated tortoise spots in the western Mojave, on that warm February afternoon, LaRue could find no evidence of them.

Reached by phone last week, he said he found some comfort in the fact that certain restrictions on off-roading still remain in place, and that the public will be given the opportunity to weigh in should agencies seek changes.

Still, he said, it’s not clear whether anyone will listen.

More recent land news

Republicans have introduced an amendment to a federal wildfire bill that would repeal the 2001 Roadless Rule protecting certain national forest lands from logging and roadbuilding, reports Brooke Larsen of the Salt Lake Tribune. That comes nearly a year into the Trump administration’s effort to rescind the rule via the rulemaking process, which has faced public opposition.

The Forest Service has cited cost savings as the impetus for a reorganization that will shutter dozens of research facilities. But much of the agency’s research is already inexpensive, and closing these local facilities could make it less so while encouraging workers to leave, according to Chiara Eisner of NPR.

Why is Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins dead set on saving a failing Northern California dam? Grist’s Jake Bittle and Ayurella Horn-Muller report this tale, which also includes a ranch-animal veterinarian and his daughter, a Riverside County water district and an X post from county Sheriff Chad Bianco.

New proposed grazing rules appear to prohibit Indigenously managed bison from grazing on federal public lands. That has tribes urgently seeking government-to-government talks with Interior Department officials in a bid to win an exemption, according to Blaine Harden of Inside Climate News.

A few last things in climate news

As a historic El Niño supercharges the Pacific Ocean, a crumbling Pacifica pier has become a climate battleground over what to save — and who pays, my colleague Susan Rust reports.

The Times’ Grace Toohey visited Santa Rosa Island to learn how a recent wildfire has affected a piece of North America’s so-called Galapagos. Here’s what she saw.

Clean water advocacy groups say recent changes to California’s “cap-and-invest” climate program could mean less help for hundreds of thousands of people who live with contaminated water, our water reporter Ian James writes.

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

For more land news, follow @phila_lex on X and alex-wigglesworth.bsky.social on Bluesky.

A bill to tighten California’s rules on mental health diversion — a process that allows certain criminal defendants to avoid prison for arrests linked to mental illness — is now on the verge of being signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Assembly Bill 46, authored by Stephanie Nguyen (D-Elk Grove), gives judges much wider discretion to decide whether a defendant should be eligible for diversion. Under the current law, judges must presume mental illness was a factor if a defendant with a legitimate diagnosis seeks diversion. In order to defeat a diversion request, the burden is on prosecutors to prove mental health issues were not a factor in the alleged crime.

The new measure — which moved through the state Senate with no opposition last month and is expected to clear the reconciliation process in the Assembly this week — also gives judges more latitude to block diversion if a defendant poses “a risk of danger to public safety,” as opposed to the higher “unreasonable risk” standard that was passed in 2018. Defendants charged with attempted murder will no longer be eligible for diversion under the new bill.

Proponents of more inclusive diversion policies argue that many people with mental health issues are locked up in California prisons and jails, where they are unable to receive the help they need.

The pending bill’s supporters say its changes are designed to address cases like that of Gilberto Guttierrez, a Los Angeles County man who has been accused of attacking his wife four times over the last 12 years.

In 2014, a misdemeanor domestic violence allegation landed Guttierrez on probation. Three years later, Guttierrez was ordered to take anger management classes after prosecutors brought felony domestic violence charges against him. Last February, prosecutors allege, he carried out a “brutal attack” on his wife with a glass bottle, leaving her with “extensive injuries,” according to a motion filed in his current criminal case. That time, the court filings show, Guttierrez threatened to kill her.

Despite objections from prosecutors and L.A. County probation officials, a judge granted a request to give Guttierrez mental health diversion last July.

A month later, prosecutors allege, he beat his wife until she fell into a coma.

When it passed in 2018, the original mental health diversion law was heralded as a needed off-ramp for defendants suffering from serious psychological issues — offering treatment to those who need it rather than a prison cell. But with voters statewide souring on progressive criminal justice reforms, lawmakers have sought to make it harder for defendants to qualify.

“AB 46 preserves diversion as an important pathway to care while ensuring judges have a clearer and more workable standard when serious public safety concerns are present,” Nguyen said in a statement last month.

Under the existing rules, defendants who successfully argue for pretrial mental health diversion spend two years undergoing a court-appointed treatment plan instead of facing a conviction. Prosecutors must prove the defendant is likely to commit a serious violent crime, a so-called “super strike,” again in order to block diversion.

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman, one of many prosecutors statewide who supported Nguyen’s bill, said that has been a nearly impossible standard to overcome.

“Guttierrez being your example: Judge, if you release him, he’s going to probably beat his wife up again, and if he does this time, he could kill her. But for the grace of God, he hasn’t killed her up until now,” Hochman said.

He added that due to the judge’s decision to grant diversion in Guttierrez’s case, “you have three little kids who likely won’t have their mom for the rest of their life.”

A spokesperson for Newsom did not respond to a request for comment about his plans for the legislation.

A 2020 Rand Corporation study found 61% of the nearly 5,500 mentally ill inmates housed in Los Angeles County at that time were “likely appropriate candidates” for diversion.

But a number of troubling incidents have led to pushback against the existing diversion law.

In a letter supporting Nguyen’s bill, the California District Attorneys Assn. rattled off a list of cases in which prosecutors say the law’s shortcomings had deadly consequences. They pointed to a case in Sacramento where a defendant stabbed a 40-year-old man to death after he was granted diversion in a robbery case. In Santa Clara, the letter said, a woman on mental health diversion for carjacking proceeded to steal another car and slam it into an outside table at a restaurant, leaving one person dead and others injured.

Nikhil Ramnaney, a former federal prosecutor who now works as a defense attorney in Southern California, said thousands of people benefit from mental health diversion every year without reoffending and chastised the bill’s supporters for cherry-picking horrible — but rare — cases to muster support for their proposal.

“This is their most effective strategy because it works. Pick up the most visceral, outrageous anecdotes and then repeat them and amplify them as much as possible,” he said. “That’s how we get bad policy.”

Defense attorney Alexandra Kazarian said California politicians are repeating age-old mistakes of trying to arrest their way out of a mental health crisis.

“Without this option, you throw them into prison for a couple of years, they get out, and nothing changes. I’ve seen real change in my clients who have been granted these and who have just been on horrific mental health breaks and who, two years later, fully have their lives together,” she said. “You’re always going to be able to find an outlier. You’re always going to be able to find somebody who ruins what is a great project or program.”

Hochman said the modified mental health diversion law is a “rebalancing” of the scales in California after years of attempts to lower the state’s overcrowded jail populations affected public safety.

“In the end, I’m not looking for pendulum swings,” he said. “I think we did have a pendulum swing when these laws were being passed and people weren’t really discussing, or at least understanding, the public safety impact of laws that seem on their surface to be very — I wouldn’t even use the word ‘progressive,’ but very helpful to people who are suffering.”

The Senate has confirmed Michelle Steel, a former two-term Korean American congresswoman, as the United States’ ambassador to South Korea.

The upper chamber approved Steel in a 55-39 vote on Wednesday (U.S. time), clearing the way for her to take the ambassadorial post as Seoul and Washington face a series of joint tasks, including “modernizing” their alliance and implementing bilateral security and trade agreements.

In April, U.S. President Donald Trump nominated her for the ambassador post, which has been left vacant since former Ambassador Philip Goldberg left Korea in January last year.

Steel would become the second Korean American to serve as the U.S.’ top envoy to South Korea, following former Ambassador Sung Kim, who served in Seoul as ambassador from 2011-2014.

The South Korean government granted agrement on Thursday, the host country’s prior consent for the appointment of a foreign envoy, for Steel’s appointment, according to Seoul’s foreign ministry.

With administrative procedures on both sides effectively completed, observers say Steel is likely to take up her post no later than next month.

“The exact timing of her arrival will depend on remaining U.S. procedures, including the issuance of her credentials by U.S. President Donald Trump,” a ministry official said. “We expect Steel to contribute to strengthening the alliance between the two countries once she formally assumes her post.”

During her confirmation hearing last month, she vowed to ensure that American companies operating in South Korea are not discriminated against, if she is confirmed.

While in Congress, Steel was active in pushing for legislation to address the issue of Korean Americans who have been separated from their relatives in North Korea in the wake of the 1950-53 Korean War.

She was first elected to the House in 2020 and then reelected in 2022. She lost to her Democratic rival by a small margin in the 2024 general election.

She previously served as a member of the Orange County Board of Supervisors and the California State Board of Equalization.

Her husband is Shawn Steel, an attorney who served as the California Republican Party chairman from 2001 to 2003. He has been the Republican national committeeman from California since 2008.

Born in Seoul in June 1955, Steel grew up and studied in South Korea, Japan and the U.S. She speaks fluent Korean.

She earned a bachelor’s degree from Pepperdine University in Malibu, California, and an MBA from the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

For half a century, a handful of wealthy Western democracies wrote the rules of the global economy.

But the world order is becoming crowded, and even as the Group of Seven (G7) remains one of the world’s most influential clubs, a challenger has emerged.

BRICS has expanded, and says it wants a bigger voice for the Global South. This bloc of nations speaks for nearly half the world’s population – and accounts for a growing share of global output, energy and raw materials.

In the space between the two, a third force is gathering pace: the so-called middle powers, nations too big to ignore and unwilling to pick a side.

A controversial proposal to tax California billionaires to fund healthcare has tenatively qualified for the November ballot, setting the stage for a more intense and expensive battle over whether the state should squeeze the ultra-rich.

Supporters say the proposed tax is crucial to compensate for federal healthcare funding cuts, approved by President Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress, that will harm millions of the state’s most vulnerable residents.

In April, supporters of the billionaire tax submitted nearly 1.6 million signatures, roughly double the number needed to qualify. The California secretary of state’s office on Wednesday declared that enough valid signatures were submitted. The initiative will officially qualify for the Nov. 3 ballot on June 25 unless the proponents withdraw it beforehand.

The initiative would impose a one-time tax of up to 5% on taxpayers and trusts with assets valued at more than $1 billion, with some exceptions, such as property. The levy could be paid over five years. Ninety percent of the revenue would fund healthcare programs, and the remaining funds would be spent on food assistance and education programs. The proposal would cost the state’s richest residents about $100 billion if a majority of voters support it.

Opponents of the measure say the proposal is an ineffective attempt to address the long-term effects of the healthcare cuts and would destroy California’s economy and budget.

The state budget in California is already largely dependent on income taxes paid by its highest earners. Because of that, revenues are prone to volatility, hinging on capital gains from investments, bonuses to executives and windfalls from new stock offerings, and are notoriously difficult for the state to predict.

The proposal already triggered a fierce debate, accentuating the divide between the rich and poor in a state that’s expensive to live in.

The Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West and other supporters of the billionaire tax say that it would raise $100 billion, offsetting federal funding cuts to healthcare as well as funding education and state food assistance.

But supporters face strong opposition from billionaires with deep pockets. Tech executives and other business leaders oppose the idea and have threatened to move to other states. Opponents say taxing billionaires would harm California’s economy while not addressing underlying financial issues.

The proposal also has divided politicians within the Democratic Party. California Gov. Gavin Newsom spoke out against the billionaire tax, expressing fears that billionaires would move out of the state. But U.S. lawmakers such as California Rep. Ro Khanna and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders have backed a billionaire tax, saying the rich should pay their fair share to fund essential services.

Business executives have already poured millions of dollars into groups that oppose the billionaire tax or are promoting alternative solutions to wealth inequality.

Tech executives, venture capitalists and business leaders have donated roughly $118 million to a nonprofit called Building a Better California, according to data on the secretary of state’s website. Most of the funding comes from Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who has given more than $82 million to the group. Executives from DoorDash, Ripple, Stripe and other companies also have contributed.

The group says it supports policies such as expanding access to affordable housing, protecting innovation, requiring government transparency and securing more stable education funding.

PayPal and Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel has contributed $3 million to the California Business Roundtable, which opposes the tax. Former Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt donated $1 million to that group as well.

California would probably collect tens of billions of dollars from the wealth tax if it passed, but it could also lose other tax revenue, a December letter from the state legislative analyst’s office said. The office also mentioned that it’s tough to predict the exact amount the state would collect because of factors that can affect a billionaire’s wealth such as fluctuating stock prices.

California billionaires who were residents of the state as of Jan. 1 would be affected by the ballot measure if it passes. Some wealthy residents announced plans to moves out of state. On Dec. 31, venture capitalist David Sacks announced that he was opening an office in Austin, Texas, the same day Thiel publicized his firm had opened a new office in Miami.

June 17 (UPI) — Georgia Republicans on Wednesday rejected GOP efforts to redraw the state’s congressional and legislative maps amid a wider national push to redraw congressional maps.

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, had last month scheduled the special session for Wednesday to consider redrawing the state’s maps in response to pressure to do so following the Supreme Court‘s April ruling that weakened Voting Rights Act protections for district lines drawn to preserve minority voting power.

The state’s House speaker, Jon Burns, said in a letter Wednesday to Kemp that Georgia’s House and Senate Republicans would not take up his redistricting call, citing more pressing cost-of-living issues and cases pending in court that could affect any alterations they adopt to their maps.

“Changes to Georgia’s maps should take place only when members of the General Assembly and citizens have been given ample opportunity to gather the facts, provide input and engage in meaningful discussion,” Burns said in the letter.

“For this reason, we will not be taking up congressional or legislative redistricting for the 2028 election cycle during this special session.”

Protesters swarmed the Georgia Capitol on Wednesday to demonstrate against redistricting. Videos posted online by the NAACP show supporters within the legislative building chanting “Black voters matter” at the Republican lawmakers who had congregated on the central sweeping staircase for a press conference.

When Senate Pro Tempore Larry Walker III remarked during the press conference that the Supreme Court ruling meant Georgia would need to redraw its maps, he was met with boos from the demonstrators.

“We believe it would be wise to allow the judicial process to develop in other states and see how the courts rule on redistricting maps elsewhere. With this guidance, we are confident that Georgia’s new districts will ultimately withstand legal scrutiny and that Georgia will prevail in defending these maps before the court,” he said.

“Because any changes to our current congressional or legislative districts would not go into effect until 2028, we believe it is prudent to take the appropriate and necessary time to do this important duty the right way and not to rush through it.”

Democrats celebrated the announcement, while arguing state Republicans had little choice but to shelve the effort in the face of opposition.

“State Republicans can see the backlash from voters coming this November, which is why they called off their plan to further rig maps,” Heather Williams, president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, said in a social media statement.

“But let’s be clear: The threat of future GOP gerrymandering looms, which is why building Democratic power in Georgia this year is crucial.”

Several, mostly Southern GOP-led or -aligned states have sought to redraw their maps following the Louisiana Vs. Callais decision, which threw out Louisiana’s 2023 congressional map with two majority-Black districts and cleared the way for the state to use a map with only one. The decision is widely seen as an opening to redraw maps that weaken minority voting power on partisan grounds.

Though any redrawn maps in Georgia wouldn’t take effect until 2028, Kemp called Wednesday’s special session amid a wider President Donald Trump-led effort to have GOP-led states shore up additional red seats ahead of November’s midterm elections.

Trump, who has voiced concern about impeachment proceedings and investigations if Republicans lose the House, has pushed GOP-led and -leaning states to redraw their maps to create new Republican-aligned districts and increase chances of holding onto the lower chamber.

GOP-led Texas became the first state to redraw its map last summer, setting off a gerrymandering arms race with the Democrats seeking to create new blue-leaning districts to neutralize Republican gains.

At least 10 states have completed redistricting efforts according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, which is tracking mid-decade redistricting. Eight of the 10 newly redrawn maps are expected to favor the Republican Party.

June 17 (UPI) — Israel carried out strikes on Lebanon on Wednesday as leaders prepared to sign the Iran-United States cease-fire Friday.

President Donald Trump criticized the attacks at a press conference Wednesday at the G7 Summit in Évian-les-Bains, France.

Israel and Hezbollah have attacked each other since their own cease-fire agreement was signed Sunday.

Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday that the Israeli military would stay in Lebanon “for as long as necessary,” the BBC reported.

On Tuesday, Lebanese media reported that four people were killed in Israeli attacks, and Iran warned Israel that it would deliver a “harsh response” if it didn’t end its “malice” in Lebanon.

Naim Qasem, leader of Hezbollah, said in a televised statement on Wednesday that the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran was a “great victory.” He urged Lebanon to focus on restoring sovereignty with the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the country.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said he would work for an “independent path” when negotiating with Israel, but said he is “in favor of a cease-fire and welcome the support of any country that helps us, including Iran,” the BBC reported.

There has been a dip in violence since the MOU was announced, but attacks have not stopped, Al Jazeera reported.

Reporters on the ground reported that Israeli forces carried out an airstrike near Kfar Tebnit in the Nabatieh district. They also launched raids on the town of Nabatieh al-Fawqa and shelled the Ali al-Taher heights and the outskirts of the town.

Hezbollah launched at least 10 rockets toward Israeli forces near Kfar Tebnit. The Israeli army said ⁠an ⁠explosive Hezbollah drone detonated near ⁠its troops ⁠in southern Lebanon, wounding four of them, Al Jazeera said.

The Israeli army said that minutes later, another drone exploded and injured one more soldier.

On Tuesday, Israeli attacks killed at least four in Nabatieh, including in drone strikes on several vehicles, Al Jazeera said.

Trump’s remarks in France show his frustration with Netanyahu’s unwillingness to stop fighting.

“I think they could do better with respect to Hezbollah. I am not saying they should not protect themselves. I am saying when two drones are shot into the desert and dropped harmlessly, you do not have to knock down buildings in Beirut,” Trump said. “They could behave better and, frankly, they could do a better job.”

June 17 (UPI) — U.S President Donald Trump signed an agreement with Iran at the Palace of Versailles on Wednesday night while in France for the G7 Summit,

The United States sent an image of the signed agreement to the Iranians, officials said. Dan Scavino, White House deputy chief of staff, later posted a video of the signing on social media.

Earlier, the United States government released the text of the agreement, several days after the agreement was reached. The agreement was expected to be signed Friday in Switzerland.

It includes 14 points, including “the immediate and permanent termination of military operation on all fronts” — including Lebanon, where Israel continued to carry out strikes as of earlier Wednesday — provisions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz and measures for easing financial restrictions on Iran. It also offers expectations for addressing Iran’s nuclear program in future talks. CNN reported the text of the agreement, which was read out loud by an official.

Earlier Wednesday at a press conference in France, Trump had said that if Iran doesn’t abide by the memorandum of understanding, the United States may bomb the country.

The press conference lasted more than an hour, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick standing behind him.

Trump made the remark in his opening statement.

“If they don’t honor that, we’ll probably go back to bombing them until they honor it, you know?” he said. “It’s amazing what bombs can do.”

The president called the MOU the “Trump deal,” and said that the deal says Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, and the Strait of Hormuz will reopen.

He also said that if an agreement hadn’t been reached with Iran, the United States could have continued the war.

“If we didn’t do this deal, we could have dropped more bombs for another three weeks, two weeks, four weeks, two years,” Trump said.

The president also defended releasing Iranian frozen assets.

“We have taken a lot of their money,” Trump said. “We have taken their money; it’s not our money, it’s their money, and we froze it at a certain point in time. I guess we’re going to have to give it back.

“As far as sanctions are concerned, at some point, you know, we have sanctions, which will never let them rebuild. They would have no money. They would be in poverty.”

Trump has said the United States won’t give any money to Iran, but he defended allowing Iran access to its own frozen funds.

“We’re not doing anything; we’re not putting up money, only if they’re doing things right. If they’re doing things right, if people want to invest, they can invest, but they had this $300 million fund. It’s only $300 million fund; it’s only if they’re doing things right,” CNN reported Trump said.

A reporter asked if the president would hold anyone in the administration responsible for the bombing of an elementary school for girls in Iran in late February, and he replied that it was under investigation. The strike killed more than 170 people, mostly children.

Trump responded that it was a “strange question” and said, “You’re talking about a long time ago.”

“But nobody did that on purpose,” Trump said. “I guess you’d have to say about them, what about the thousands of soldiers that they blew up when they opened their car door? What about the thousands of people that were killed by Iran? No, mistakes are made, war is nasty, but I know it’s under investigation.”

Trump also offered a rare criticism of Israel, saying it could do better in its conflict with Lebanon.

“I think they could do better with respect to Hezbollah. I am not saying they should not protect themselves. I am saying when two drones are shot into the desert and dropped harmlessly, you do not have to knock down buildings in Beirut,” Trump said.

“They could behave better and, frankly, they could do a better job.”

“On that, I don’t think they’re doing well, and I feel very bad for Lebanon,” he said. “Lebanon’s been, you know, it was a great culture. It was a great, they had the professors, the doctors, the lawyers, it was an incredible culture, maybe the highest in the Middle East for years and years, centuries. And for the last 50 [to] 60 years, they have been just trashed. They have been, they have been living in hell.”

President Donald Trump says it’s ‘unfair’ for Iran to lack ballistic missiles if other regional countries have them. Trump is at the G7 in France where the US-Iran deal has taken centre stage.

An effort to exempt new apartment buildings in Los Angeles from the so-called mansion tax moved forward Wednesday, amid concerns that the tax is suppressing housing construction and making the affordability crisis worse.

In a 9 to 5 vote, the City Council directed the City Attorney to draft a ballot measure that would ask voters to change Measure ULA, which funds subsidized housing construction and homeless prevention efforts by taxing nearly all property sales over $5.3 million.

Once the proposal is drafted, it must come back to council for a final approval to make it onto the November ballot.

Wednesday was the deadline for the council to take the vote and stay on track to make the ballot this fall, said Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, who introduced the proposal along with Councilmember Tim McOsker.

“We should protect what is working and fix what’s not,” Yaroslavsky told colleagues before the vote. “If we fail to act today, that door closes.”

The ULA tax, approved by voters in 2022, is known as the mansion tax but applies a 4% tax to nearly all properties — whether they are mansions or not — if they sell for more than $5.3 million, increasing to 5.5% for sales at or above $10.6 million.

Under the proposed ballot measure, the ULA tax wouldn’t apply to multifamily buildings sold within 10 years of construction. There would also be some more technical changes put before voters, including to allow ULA money to be spent on temporary housing for homeless people.

Since ULA passed, apartment construction in Los Angeles has plummeted. Some studies have found that the additional tax on property sales has played a big role in the drop-off by adding extra costs for developers.

That’s led to fears that the tax, in some ways, is making the affordability crisis worse by suppressing new supply.

A coalition of business groups and pro-development activists have been pushing the council to amend ULA, in part hoping that the effort will blunt another possible measure on November’s ballot that would cancel ULA and other similar taxes altogether.

ULA supporters, however, have fought the exemption for new construction and say that other factors — like high interest rates — are the reasons for the multi-year construction drop-off. They also point to a surge in new building during the first three months of this year to argue that it’s too early to know ULA’s long-term impact.

Also on Wednesday, the council, in a unanimous vote, directed the City Attorney to draft a separate ballot measure that would exempt homeowners impacted by the Palisades fire from paying the ULA tax for five years, retroactive to Jan. 7, 2025.

“ULA has been an impediment to the Palisades recovery, leaving properties sitting empty and people mired in tax and regulatory hell,” City Councilmember Traci Park, who represents Pacific Palisades, told colleagues before the vote. “We need to move forward with this exemption.”

Similar to the broader ULA changes, the Palisades changes must receive a second council approval to make the ballot.

ATLANTA — Georgia’s Republican legislative leaders on Wednesday rejected Gov. Brian Kemp’s call to redraw congressional and legislative districts during a special session, citing concerns about moving too quickly after a U.S. Supreme Court decision weakened federal Voting Rights Act protections for minority voters.

House Speaker Jon Burns sent Kemp a letter hours before a special session was set to begin Wednesday, and he announced the decision as demonstrators filled the Georgia Capitol with chants of “Black voters matter!”

The decision marked a setback for both Kemp and President Trump, who has urged Republican-led states to redraw congressional districts to their advantage. Ten states already have enacted new congressional districts ahead of the November midterm elections. Georgia would have been the first to change districts for the 2028 elections.

Burns said lawmakers want to take their time after the court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which struck down Louisiana’s congressional map as an illegal racial gerrymander and laid the groundwork for other Southern states to redraw their congressional districts. Burns said it was more important for lawmakers to focus on economic matters rather than “partisan games.” He also cited pending litigation over existing Georgia districts and the need for the state to understand the full ramifications for how race can or cannot be used in redistricting.

Republican legislative leaders did not rule out revisiting redistricting later this year.

Minority voting rights are especially salient in Georgia, where the Capitol complex includes a statue of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and sits blocks from where the slain civil rights icon lived, preached and led the movement that yielded the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

Conservative justices gave the green light

Before Callais, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was understood to require maps — for Congress, state legislatures and local legislative bodies — that gave historically marginalized minorities a reasonable chance to select candidates of their choice. Nationally and in Georgia, those so-called “opportunity districts” have disproportionately elected Black and other nonwhite representatives.

For example, about a third of Georgia’s 180 state representatives are Black. Latino, Asian and other minorities bring the total nonwhite share to about 40% — roughly reflecting the state’s overall population. Georgia’s U.S. House delegation has five districts out of 14 total where the electorate is majority or plurality nonwhite. All elected Black Democrats in 2024.

With the Callais ruling, issued in April, a conservative majority of justices concluded that jurisdictions drawn with racial makeup in mind are discriminatory and violate the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause. The justices declared that apportionment should be “race neutral.”

Their stated reasoning did not hinge on party interests, and federal courts have said partisan gerrymandering is constitutionally permissible. But in Southern states, especially, party loyalty dovetails considerably with race and ethnicity. So the decision has allowed Republicans — a party dominated by white people — to redraw maps to goose likely GOP districts by redistributing nonwhite voters who tend to support Democrats.

That, many civil rights activists and experts argue, makes it impossible for Southern legislatures to be genuinely “race neutral” when drawing boundaries.

Emory University professor Carol Anderson compared Callais and the resulting redistricting push to poll taxes and literacy tests imposed by white Southern conservatives — and blessed by the Supreme Court — during the Jim Crow era.

“They used racially neutral language for policies that were clearly racially targeted,” said Anderson, who is also a board member of Fair Fight Action, a group organizing against the Georgia redistricting.

There were risks for Kemp and Republicans

It’s not guaranteed that Georgia Republicans can get what they want from new maps.

Partisan gerrymandering involves redistributing voters — packing certain citizens into fewer districts or dividing them across more districts. Around metro Atlanta, spreading nonwhite, Democratic-leaning voters across more districts could make more seats seem to lean Republican. The risk, however, is that more battleground districts emerge because white metropolitan voters are trending less conservative, which could give Democratic candidates of any race or ethnicity more chances to win.

That’s perhaps not a major factor in the Georgia state Senate, which already is considered gerrymandered for Republicans. But it could be a consideration when drawing state House and U.S. House maps.

Kemp was effectively asking Republicans, especially in metro Atlanta, to redraw their own boundaries and take on new, unfamiliar territory.

Trump started the fight before the Supreme Court decision

Nationally, a partisan redistricting battle started last year when Trump urged Republican-controlled states to redraw congressional boundaries to shore up the GOP’s narrow House majority in Washington this November. Texas answered the call first.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democrats in Sacramento answered with their own gerrymander that voters later approved. A succession of states followed. The outcome would have been close to even had the Virginia Supreme Court, controlled by conservatives, not struck down new Democratic-drawn maps approved by the state’s voters. All told, Republicans think they could gain as many as 16 seats from their redistricting efforts while Democrats think they could gain six seats from new districts in California and Utah.

That still may not be enough for the GOP to hold a congressional majority, given Trump’s lagging approval ratings. But it could mitigate Democratic gains and set Republicans up well for 2028 and beyond.

Barrow writes for The Associated Press.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has warned that the United States should not interfere in his country’s upcoming presidential race, which is being held in October.

Wednesday’s remarks came after both Lula and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, attended the Group of 7 (G7) conference in Evian-les-Bains, France.

During a news conference, Lula said Trump was entitled to continue his relationship with the Bolsonaro family, whose patriarch, Jair Bolsonaro, led Brazil as president from 2019 to 2023.

“As far as I’m concerned, he can continue liking Bolsonaro, the father, the son, the grandson,” Lula said. “There is no problem with that. It’s his problem. There’s no accounting for taste.”

But Lula then proceeded to establish a firm red line: no interference in Brazil’s elections.

“Now, don’t meddle in the Brazilian elections, because the Brazilian elections are a Brazilian problem, just as American elections are their business, not mine,” Lula continued.

“All I want is the same respect for Brazil that I have for the United States. That’s it.”

A race between Lula and Bolsonaro

Lula is currently a leading contender ahead of October’s race. If the left-wing incumbent wins, it will be his fourth term as president of Brazil. He previously served from 2003 to 2011, before being re-elected to a non-consecutive third term in 2022.

But Lula’s top election rival is a member of the Bolsonaro family: Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, Jair’s eldest son. Flavio is running as the candidate for Brazil’s far-right Liberal Party.

Since returning to office for a second term, Trump has been accused of seeking to sway Latin American elections in favour of right-wing candidates.

In Argentina, he threatened to withhold economic support ahead of a key legislative election last October, and in November, he warned he might also suspend aid to Honduras if his preferred candidate did not win.

But in Brazil, questions have swirled as to whether Trump’s actions have already amounted to illegal intervention in the country’s judicial system.

Trump has made little secret of his support for the Bolsonaro family. Last year, after Jair Bolsonaro was charged with seeking to overturn his electoral defeat in 2022, Trump issued a public letter calling the trial a “witch hunt”.

“The way that Brazil has treated former President Bolsonaro, a Highly Respected Leader throughout the World during his Term, including by the United States, is an international disgrace,” Trump wrote. “This Trial should not be taking place.”

He proceeded to impose tariffs on certain Brazilian goods and sanctions on members of Brazil’s justice system, including Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes.

In September, Jair Bolsonaro was nevertheless sentenced to 27 years in prison for plotting an alleged coup and seeking to subvert Brazil’s democracy.

Trump calls Brazil ‘rough’

But the legal fallout has continued for the Bolsonaro family. After Jair’s third son, Eduardo Bolsonaro, lobbied the Trump administration on his father’s behalf, he was accused of orchestrating US interference in Brazil’s justice system.

Just this week, he was sentenced to four years in prison, after Brazil’s Supreme Court ruled his actions amounted to coercion. Eduardo has denied the charges and called the case a conflict of interest for Brazil’s courts.

Speaking at the G7 summit, Trump tried to address Eduardo’s sentence, though he appeared to mix the younger brother up with his older sibling, Flavio, the presidential candidate.

“ I hear they arrested somebody that’s running for office today,” Trump said. “ I heard that they arrested the Bolsonaro junior, who was doing well in the polls.”

Trump also suggested that Brazil had become “dangerous” for right-wing political views, an idea he has expressed before.

“It’s become a little rough country, right? Politically. A little dangerous, politically,” Trump said at one point.

At another, he appeared to compare the US election system to Brazil’s. “ They play pretty tough, but nobody plays tougher than the United States. Look, our elections are totally rigged. We have rigged elections,” he said.

But at Lula’s news conference, which was held separately, the Brazilian president dismissed concerns about the country’s electronic voting machines.

He called paper ballots a technology “of the last century” and offered to show Trump — a critic of electronic vote tabulation — how the machines work.

Reflecting on Trump’s assessment of Brazil, Lula also questioned the US president’s familiarity with the South American nation.

“I think he doesn’t know Brazil very well,” Lula said. “If he knows Brazil only through his relationship with the Bolsonaro family, then he doesn’t really know Brazil.”

Photo: Humberto Villalobos in February 2023, months before the last opposition primaries

While Washington’s focus seems to be shifting toward security and armed groups, Machado’s team keeps its priorities clear, looking beyond the immediate circumstances. The Nobel Peace Prize laureate keeps saying that an election will be the vehicle to channel a transition to democracy—an event where the anti-chavista movement sees itself as the clear winner. Following the 2023 and especially the 2024 elections (where the coalition successfully defended a clear victory for Edmundo González by collecting and publishing 85% of the official tally sheets), it is not far-fetched to say that this is where the Venezuelan opposition’s greatest strengths lie, even under adverse conditions.

At Caracas Chronicles, we sat down with Humberto Villalobos—Vente Venezuela’s electoral chief, who coordinated Machado’s famous defense machinery—to discuss the current gap between ideal electoral conditions and reality, now that the publication of the Panama Manifesto has opened the opposition to negotiating elections with chavismo, naming Machado as the leader (or conductora) of the process.

Machado’s team is proposing changes that, to a large extent, aim to “demolish” the electoral system as we know it. Among other measures, this involves migrating to a hybrid system that would get rid of the ExCle voting machines, (paper ballots would be counted by hand), establishing a CNE in a novel fashion, improving the Venezuelan Electoral Registry so it accurately reflects how the population is scattered both inside and abroad, and implementing a mechanism to legalize political party competition in practice.

Once a new CNE is formed and the electoral calendar is published, Villalobos says this study could contribute to the renewal of the Electoral Registry. Under the proposal, the Registry would be renewed in three months.

This is a baseline proposal that could change in a scenario where Villalobos views the US as the guarantor of an agreement: “Delcy will make proposals, we will too, and in the end, all those things will be considered to yield something reasonable.” He envisions an election that is “simpler to produce,” stripping away the obvious strategic advantages that chavismo has historically claimed for itself during elections. “Under other conditions,” Villalobos says, “none of this would even be on the table. But here they proved to us that they can pass an energy reform in 15 days. You could do something similar to make elections happen, something just as important as pumping oil.”

First: an independent citizen register

Villalobos began by describing the need to produce a rigorous study of the local and migrant populations to understand the country’s actual electoral reality. The opposition would gather information directly from the people to understand who still lives where the Electoral Registry says they do, who left the country, and how many voters would require a change in their polling station. Villalobos calls this empadronamiento: the creation of a citizen residency register. The objective, he notes, is for the majority of voters to update their addresses through a digital platform featuring biometric facial recognition (ABIS) identification mechanisms, or at registration points operated by a network of enumerators or empadronadores

Once a new CNE is established and the electoral calendar is released, this study could assist in overhauling the Electoral Registry, the current state of which Villalobos calls “disastrous.”

“While citizens are changing their voting addresses, they could also support a political party. From that, you would yield parties with validated groups of voters.” 

The digital platform and the network already exist. Vente has started the process with its own members, and all current enumerators hold positions within the party: “We originally thought of it just for Vente, and as we grew, we envisioned it as a solution for all Venezuelans.” They would only need the people’s consent to use their data. Villalobos admits that managing a database of this scale carries an enormous burden of responsibility, but the alternative would mean negotiating while relying exclusively on data managed by the chavista state, which “treats it as its own asset.”

“At the end of the day, we are the only ones ready to do it. The systems being employed are the ones we already used in the 2024 presidential election. We simply added an extra feature that allows for enrollment of this type,” Villalobos asserts. “That feature handled half of the tally sheets we transcribed. And that gives you the certainty that you can handle millions. Furthermore, the guarantee is being provided by María Corina Machado.”

Second: ad hoc CNE, Electoral Registry, and political parties

The proposal rests on the premise that the CNE’s current structure is too flawed to fix simply by appointing a new board of rectors (or “electoral commission,” as Marco Rubio has called it). They propose a new, temporary electoral authority termed ad hoc CNE, an entity created specifically to manage an electoral transition. From that point on, it would only require a new specialized company to carry out the formal overhaul of the Electoral Registry

“More than one company is already preparing its bid under the terms we are working with,” Villalobos says. “That bidding process would have to be run by the new CNE, a natural process that nobody else can handle.”

Data from the independent, citizen register “would serve as a foundation” for the state provider to shorten the process. Villalobos assures that, in this manner, the new Registry could be ready in three months. Meanwhile, political parties that have been suspended or intervened since the last decade would be legalized through groups of voters that endorse these political organizations. “While citizens are changing their voting addresses, they could also support a political party. From that, you would yield parties with validated groups of voters. That would save us a lot of time.” The concept of groups of voters (grupos de electores) exists in Venezuelan legislation, though not necessarily for these purposes. A new statute for the ad hoc CNE, Villalobos suggests, could change that.

The electoral expert noted that one additional provider would be needed to manage the calendar and the elections. Identity verification made possible by the technology first implemented in the independent citizen register would thus help the ad hoc CNE assign party representatives and witnesses.

Third: goodbye to the machines

The most ambitious part of the proposal is to discard the electronic voting system that has been in place in Venezuela throughout this century and move to a mixed system featuring manual counting and automatic transmission.

According to Villalobos, paper ballots would be counted by hand by polling station members in the presence of party representatives. Afterward, a photo and a scan of the voting tally sheet would be taken. The data of all votes would then be transmitted from the polling station to the CNE, the political parties, international institutions linked to the electoral process, universities, and media outlets.

“It works almost like a blockchain, because you will have multiple repositories of the original document, which prevents it from being altered. It isn’t a galactic development like a voting machine that does absolutely everything,” Villalobos says. “It would be a matter of scanning something, transcribing it, and sending it. That fits on a smartphone.”

Villalobos noted they will push to ensure there are no polling stations where it is impossible to deploy a witness.

He maintains that the current system operates like a “black box” where voters are forced to accept the results transmitted by the machines, which he claims can be manipulated by those managing the CNE. But didn’t the physical tally sheets printed by these machines on July 28, 2024—which proved Edmundo González won the election by a 2-to-1 margin—serve to show that the count itself wasn’t manipulated, but rather that the CNE simply fabricated results declaring Maduro the winner? Villalobos insists that the current technology failed because, regardless, opposition witnesses were unable to obtain 15% of the tally sheets. He asserts that without representatives at a polling center, “there are ways they can change your result.”

“The extraordinary concept of having a machine that does everything is not dominant worldwide. In Colombia [referring to the first round of presidential elections where Abelardo de la Espriella secured the majority of votes], where the process was not the fastest, we already had the results of all tally sheets within an hour and a half. All of them, not a single one was missing.”

Finally, Villalobos was emphatic that voting must end strictly at a specific hour (in Venezuela, polling stations commonly close at 6 pm, but voting can be extended if there are still voters in line). He also stressed that the opposition will push to ensure there are no polling stations where it is impossible to deploy a witness. In the 2024 presidential election and previous ones, voting centers were set up inside Misiones Vivienda (state housing complexes), communal council headquarters controlled by the ruling party, and military bases—places where the likelihood of a clean process and of collecting the printed tally sheet is usually much lower.

“Voting systems were created to resolve conflicts. The first step is for all of us to believe we won’t be cheated, because otherwise, we go right back to the same thing,” he concludes. “In any election, they can change the result of a polling center if you don’t have anyone there. That’s why we are going to motivate people to stay at the centers, to have the fiesta right there. So that you walk away from that center knowing it is impossible for them to change the results.”

WASHINGTON — Cameron Hamilton, President Trump’s nominee to lead the Federal Emergency Management Agency, pledged to senators Wednesday to be “fair and reasonable” in assessing requests for disaster aid as he seeks to run an agency roiled by the administration’s threats to dismantle it.

Hamilton appeared before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs at a hearing where lawmakers assessed a group of 10 nominees for administration posts.

“My focus will be to ensure that FEMA is objective, is fair and reasonable, follows the law, and is consistent” in how it reviews disaster declaration requests, Hamilton told Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, the top Democrat on the committee. Peters had asked about partisanship in granting major disaster declarations.

Hamilton had a brief tenure as FEMA’s temporary leader early last year but was ousted after defending the agency’s existence. At a House hearing in May 2025, he said he did not “believe it is in the best interest of the American people to eliminate” FEMA. He was fired the next day.

His nomination comes as the Republican administration has increasingly signaled it is backing away from promises to dismantle an agency that the president has heavily criticized.

If confirmed, he would be FEMA’s first permanent administrator in Trump’s second term. He will need to lead FEMA through what is expected to be a busy summer disaster season, while answering to Trump, who is likely to expect major changes after a council he appointed recommended sweeping moves at the agency that is part of the Department of Homeland Security.

Hamilton distanced himself from some FEMA controversies

Nominees did not give opening statements, but Hamilton received the bulk of lawmakers’ questions while appearing with four others in the first half of the hearing.

His answers suggested a departure from some of the more aggressive policies considered and enacted during Kristi Noem’s turbulent leadership at DHS. FEMA’s workforce has been worn down by mass staff departures, policies that hamstrung operations and a protracted DHS shutdown.

Hamilton expressed faith in the FEMA staff and praised the recent opening of 350 positions to counteract some of the cuts. He said that if confirmed by the Senate, he would do what he could to speed up disaster declaration decisions and reimbursements to states, tribes and territories.

“We owe you answers, I think, much faster,” he told Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo), adding that many FEMA processes needed to be simplified.

Hamilton disavowed a recommendation he included in an April 2025 memo to quadruple the threshold of financial damages a state needed to prove to receive FEMA public assistance. He also noted the importance of resilience funding, despite halting billions in resilience grants during his previous tenure.

Republican and Democratic senators at the hearing expressed support for FEMA’s mission, despite Trump’s early threats to eliminate it. “I think what your agency does is hugely important,” Hawley told Hamilton.

But multiple Democrats echoed Peters’ concern that Trump was approving far more disaster declaration requests from Republican states than Democratic ones.

Of the state disaster declaration requests Trump answered through the end of May, he approved about 82% from states that voted for him in the last election and 44% from states that voted for Democrat Kamala Harris, according to an analysis of public FEMA data by Andrew Rumbach, senior fellow at the nonpartisan think tank Urban Institute.

Hamilton, a former Navy SEAL, has never worked as a state or local emergency manager and has publicly criticized FEMA in the past. He has held positions at DHS and the State Department related to emergency response.

No senator questioned Hamilton’s suitability for the position.

Federal law requires the FEMA administrator to have “a demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security” and at least five years of “executive leadership and management experience.”

Criticism over hearing format

Peters criticized the committee chairman, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), for scheduling so many nominees at once, saying that made it more difficult for senators to properly screen them.

“The lineup today severely limits our ability to have transparency for the American public,” Peters said. He noted that Hamilton was among two nominees whose FBI background investigations were not yet complete, and that two others had not submitted their financial disclosure reports.

Others who appeared included Trump’s pick for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, Hal Duncan, and administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, David Cummins.

Paul said the committee would only vote on the nominees when their financial and background checks were complete.

A former top officer of the Los Angeles Fire Department’s labor union was arrested Wednesday and charged with grand theft and forgery for allegedly stealing more than $82,000 from a charity for injured firefighters.

Prosecutors from the state attorney general’s office announced the charges against Adam Walker, former secretary of the United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, at a news conference.

Walker “abused a position of trust for personal gain,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said alongside Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman.

Walker opened a foundation bank account and transferred funds to his personal accounts, Bonta said, attempting to conceal those transfers with fake reimbursement records and forging receipts to mislead auditors. He used the funds for personal expenses, including online gambling, Bonta said.

Walker has been under scrutiny since 2024, when the local union’s parent organization, the International Assn. of Fire Fighters, suspended him from his union position and accused him of improperly depositing more than $75,000 of the charity’s funds into his personal accounts from December 2022 to January 2024. The IAFF accused him of using $5,000 for personal expenses.

Walker, who continued to work as a firefighter, told The Times last year that those allegations were false. He said the account he drew from was not for the charity, the UFLAC Fire Foundation, but was set up for two golf tournaments to raise money for a disabled former firefighter. He said all of the deposits were reimbursements for his legitimate out-of-pocket expenses for the tournaments.

“Not one penny of the money was foundation money,” he said. He said he understood that the deposits “look bad” but were a reflection of his “poor bookkeeping” and not any wrongdoing.

The Washington D.C.-based IAFF also suspended Walker from his positions as chairman and director of the foundation, which aids injured firefighters and their families, provides scholarships and is helping firefighters who lost their homes in the January fires.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s remodeled Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool with its “American flag blue” bottom has turned chartreuse from an algal bloom that park service workers struggled to address Tuesday just days after its more than $14 million renovation.

The Washington Monument is once again visible in the refilled pool, but Trump’s vision of an azure expanse between the D.C. landmarks has been complicated by the harsh realities of chemistry and biology known to any backyard pool owner. The work has been confounded by the unique challenges posed by the scale of the structure, bigger than 10 Olympic-sized pools — which Trump has called a lake — and the source of its water: the often-fetid Tidal Basin.

Algae has plagued the site since it opened more than 100 years ago, but Trump set his sights on addressing it as part of his aggressive push to beautify Washington as the country approaches its 250th anniversary. Contracts worth at least $14.8 million have been awarded for the project, announced in April by Trump, who said he was inspired by complaints from a friend visiting from Germany who called the pool dark and disgusting.

Teams of National Park Service employees and contractors deployed chemicals and ozone nanobubbles Tuesday in a bid to keep the algae in check, not dissimilar from efforts to clean the pool before Trump’s renovation kicked off.

“What do you expect?” asked Cochise Wanzer II, president of the Pool Service Company in Arlington, Virginia. “You’re basically taking natural, untreated river water, pumping it in and expecting it to do something different from what it would do out in the open.”

And the new coat of paint on the bottom of the pool has added an additional twist to ensuring the cleanliness of one of Washington’s most memorable destinations: “Now that the bottom is nice and dark, it elevates the temperature and the algae grows better,” said Wanzer.

The chemicals and ozone nanobubbles — a water purification treatment used to avoid some harsh chemicals — were one part of the effort underway to clean the Reflecting Pool. Workers used a swimming pool-type vacuum cleaner to suck up algae from the bottom, leaving behind clean patches of American Flag Blue paint adjacent to enormous swaths of green algae in a pattern familiar to anyone who has ever vacuumed a carpet before.

The park service said in a statement it is also using hydrogen peroxide, a milder treatment than chlorine and one used in spas and natural swimming pools. “There are no harmful side effects to marine life or to the environment,” it said.

As the mitigation work continued, a contractor took off his socks and shoes and rolled up his pants to his knees and proceeded to wade into the pool to place an ozone nanobubble tube as tourists and locals milled about on a sunny morning.

Rick and Ariana Pettit, a couple from Las Vegas who are road tripping in their RV across the United States, posed for photos at the iconic site of protests and marches as cleaning continued. Dressed in American flag-themed leggings and a Make America Great Again leotard, Pettit remarked to her husband, attired in an “Veteran for Trump” American flag button-up: “Look, it’s already looking more blue.”

Wanzer was blunt in his assessment of what it would take to maintain the pool as an algae-free space: “They may want to drain it, hose it all down, and start from the beginning with fresh water and treat it as the water comes in.”

Vogel and Martin write for the Associated Press.

Trump says plan to keep controversial acting DNI head, Bill Pulte, in role as he pushes for surveillance, voter ID law.

United States President Donald Trump has delayed the confirmation of his nominee for director of national intelligence (DNI), while calling for lawmakers to pass legislation on surveillance and voter identification requirements.

Trump made the announcement in a Truth Social post on Wednesday, saying he planned to keep acting DNI Bill Pulte in the role and postpone the confirmation of his nominee, Jay Clayton.

Clayton had been scheduled to appear for a Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday afternoon before Trump forced the delay by directing him to not appear.

The president cited his desire to pressure Democrats to pass a controversial surveillance law and a measure requiring voter identification, as well as his wish not to remove Clayton from his post as federal prosecutor until his replacement was confirmed.

“In the meantime, Bill Pulte will remain as the Acting Director of National Intelligence,” Trump said.

The US president’s nomination last week of Clayton had been a welcome relief to many lawmakers, including prominent Republicans, who raised concerns about Pulte and his lack of experience.

A Trump loyalist and housing official, Pulte had never held intelligence or military positions. The DNI oversees Washington’s 18-agency intelligence community.

Clayton, in contrast, currently serves in what is considered one of the Department of Justice’s most prestigious posts: He works as the US attorney for the southern district of New York in Manhattan.

The DNI vacancy emerged after Tulsi Gabbard announced her resignation in May, citing her husband’s cancer treatment.

FISA and voter identification

Clayton’s confirmation was meant to be fast-tracked to win Democrats’ support for a controversial provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is currently up for renewal.

Section 702 of the law allows spy agencies to collect the communications of targeted foreigners located outside the US without first acquiring a warrant. Civil rights advocates have condemned the tool, saying it exposes US citizens to the government indirectly collecting their data.

Democrats had pledged not to renew the provision if Pulte remained in his role.

In his post, Trump maintained that Clayton could be confirmed before the vote on FISA, giving Democrats the opportunity to change their position.

Trump also added another condition, saying he would not approve FISA without lawmakers also passing a law requiring voter IDs in US elections. The legislation has been a key priority for Trump in advance of the midterm elections in November, but he has not been able to overcome a 60-vote threshold in the Senate.

“Therefore, to add a slight bit of intrigue but, for the Good of the Nation, and the People of our Country, I will not approve FISA without THE SAVE AMERICA ACT going along with it,” Trump said in his Truth Social post.

Despite the statements, Republican Senator Tom Cotton, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, initially said he would proceed with Clayton’s confirmation hearing on Wednesday unless Trump withdrew his nomination or ordered him not to appear.

Trump ultimately did direct Clayton to skip the hearing. That, in turn, forced Cotton to postpone the hearing. Afterwards, the senator issued a statement expressing regret at the circumstances.

“It’s regrettable that the president has directed Jay Clayton not to appear at his confirmation hearing today,” Cotton said in a statement.

“Mr. Clayton is a patriot and a highly qualified nominee, as the president has said repeatedly. While today’s hearing is now unfortunately postponed, I look forward to proceeding with his confirmation in the near future.”

Democrats, meanwhile, described the situation as chaotic.

“At every turn, the president has injected more uncertainty into a process that should be focused on one thing: keeping the American people safe,” Senator Mark Warner said in a statement.

“The president’s latest intervention only underscores a simple reality: the biggest obstacle to resolving these issues has not been Senate Democrats or Senate Republicans. It has been the chaos and confusion coming from the White House itself.”