Politics

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

There is no shortage of budget-busting costs facing Los Angeles County, Supervisor Lindsey Horvath recently told guests at this week’s Los Angeles Current Affairs Forum luncheon.

There’s the costly fire recovery effort. And the deep cuts from the federal government. And a continuing homeless crisis.

As Horvath wrapped up her remarks, Emma Schafer, the host of the clubby luncheon, asked about yet another expenditure: What was up with that $2-million settlement to the county’s chief executive officer Fesia Davenport?

“We were faced with two bad options,” Horvath told the crowd dining on skewered shrimp.

Horvath said she disagreed with Davenport’s demand for $2 million, but also believed “that we have to focus on a functional county government and saving taxpayer money.”

Three months ago, all five supervisors quietly voted behind closed doors to pay Davenport $2 million, after she sought damages due to professional fallout from Measure G, the voter-approved ballot measure that will eventually eliminate her job.

Measure G, which voters passed in November, reshaped the government, in part, turning the county’s chief executive into an elected position — not one selected by the board. The elected county executive, who would manage the county government and oversee its budget, will be in place by 2028. Davenport, a longtime county employee, had been in her post since 2021.

Davenport, as part of her financial demand, said Measure G caused her “reputational harm, embarrassment, and physical, emotional and mental distress.”

Critics contend unpleasant job changes happen all the time — and without the employee securing a multimillion dollar payout.

“Los Angeles County residents should be outraged,” said Morgan Miller, who worked on the Measure G campaign and called the board’s decision a “blatant misuse of public money.”

Horvath, who crafted Measure G, promised during the campaign it would not cost taxpayers additional money. More recently, she voiced dissatisfaction with Davenport’s settlement, saying the agreement should have had additional language to avoid “future risk.”

Horvath said in a statement she considered having the settlement agreement include language to have Davenport and the county part ways — to avoid the risk of litigating additional claims down the road.

Supervisor Janice Hahn, who pushed for Measure G alongside Horvath, said she voted for the settlement based on the advice of county lawyers.

“In the years I worked to expand the board and create an elected county executive, I never disparaged our current CEO in any way,” she said in a statement. “I always envisioned the CEO team working alongside the new elected county executive.”

Davenport has been on medical leave since earlier this month and did not return a request for comment. She has told the staff she plans to return at the start of next year.

It’s not unusual for county department heads to get large payouts. But they usually get them when they’re on their way out.

Bobby Cagle, the former Department of Children and Family Services head who resigned in 2021, received $175,301. Former county counsel Rodrigo Castro-Silva got $213,199. Adolfo Gonzales, the former probation head, took in $172,521. Mary Wickham, the former county counsel, received $449,577.

The county said those severance payments, all of which were obtained through a records request by The Times, were outlined in the department heads’ contracts and therefore did not need to be voted on by the board.

Sachi Hamai, Davenport’s predecessor, also received $1.5 million after saying she faced “unrelenting and brutal” harassment from former Sheriff Alex Villanueva.

Davenport’s settlement was voted on, but not made public, until an inquiry from LAist, which first reported on the settlement.

David Loy, legal director for the First Amendment Coalition, says the county is required under the Brown Act to immediately report out a vote taken on a settlement if the deal is finalized and all parties have approved it. But if it’s not, he says, they don’t need to publicly report it — they just need to provide information when asked.

“You don’t have to proactively report it out in that meeting. You still have to disclose it on request,” said Loy. “ I don’t think that’s a good thing — don’t get me wrong. I’m telling you what the Brown Act says.”

State of play

— DEMANDING DOCUMENTS: Two U.S. senators intensified their investigation into the Palisades fire this week, asking the city for an enormous trove of records on Fire Department staffing, reservoir repairs and other issues. In their letter to Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) showed much less interest in the Eaton fire, which devastated Altadena but did not burn in the city of Los Angeles. An aide to County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who represents Altadena, said neither she nor other county offices had received such a document request.

— BUMPY BEGINNING: The campaign of City Council candidate Jose Ugarte is off to a rocky start. Ugarte, who is backed by his boss, Councilmember Curren Price, recently agreed to pay a $17,500 fine from the Ethics Commission for failing to mention his outside consulting work on his financial disclosure forms, But on Wednesday, two ethics commissioners blocked the deal, saying they think his fine should be bigger. (Ugarte has called the violation “an unintentional clerical error.”) Stay tuned!

— A NEW CHIEF: Mayor Karen Bass announced Friday that she has selected Jaime Moore, a 30-year LAFD veteran, to serve as the city’s newest fire chief. He comes to the department as it grapples with the continuing fallout over the city’s response to Palisades fire.

— LAWSUIT EN ROUTE: Meanwhile, the head of the city’s firefighter union has accused Bass of retaliating against him after he publicly voiced alarm over department staffing during the January fires. Freddy Escobar, president of United Firefighters of Los Angeles City Local 112, said he’s preparing a lawsuit against the city. Escobar was suspended from his union position earlier this year, after an audit found that more than 70% of the transactions he made on his union credit card had no supporting documentation.

— HE’S BACK! (KINDA): Former Mayor Eric Garcetti returned to City Hall for the first time since leaving office in 2022, appearing alongside Councilmember Nithya Raman in the council chamber for a celebration of Diwali, the Hindu Festival of Lights. Garcetti, a former U.S. ambassador to India, described Diwali as a “reawakening,” saying it may be “the longest continuous human holiday on earth.”

— GENERATIONS OF GALPIN: The San Fernando Valley auto dealership known as Galpin Motors has had a long history with the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners, the civilian oversight panel at the LAPD. On Wednesday, the council approved the nomination of Galpin vice president Jeffrey Skobin, to serve on the commission — making him the third executive with the dealership to serve over the past 40 years.

— AIRPORT OVERHAUL: Los Angeles World Airports is temporarily closing Terminal 5 at Los Angeles International Airport, carrying out a “complete demolition” and renovation of the space in the run-up to the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games. During construction, JetBlue will be operating out of Terminal 1, Spirit shifts to Terminal 2 and American Airlines lands in Terminal 4, the airport agency said.

— OUT THE DOOR: Two of the five citizen commissioners who oversee the Department of Water and Power have submitted their resignations. DWP Commissioner George McGraw, appointed by Bass two years ago, told The Times he’d been laying the groundwork for a departure for six months. McGraw said he found he could no longer balance the needs of the commission, where he sometimes put in 30 to 40 hours per week, with the other parts of his life. “I needed extra capacity,” he said.

— NO MORE MIA: DWP Commissioner Mia Lehrer was a little more blunt, telling Bass in her Sept. 29 resignation letter that her stint on the board was negatively affecting her work at Studio-MLA, her L.A.-based design studio. Lehrer said the firm has been disqualified from city projects based on “misinterpretations” of her role on the commission.

“As a result, I am experiencing unanticipated limitations on my professional opportunities that were neither expected nor justified under existing ethical frameworks,” she wrote. “These constraints not only affect my own business endeavors but also carry significant consequences for the forty-five professional and their families who rely on the continued success of our work.”

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to address homelessness went to Cotner Avenue near the 405 Freeway in Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky’s Westside district.
• On the docket next week: The board votes Tuesday on an $828-million payout to victims who say they were sexually abused in county facilities as children. The vote comes months after agreeing to the largest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history.

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

WASHINGTON — The Republican snarled that his opponent was a big-spending liberal. The Democrat huffed about the Republican’s loyalty to an incumbent President. The Republican tried against the odds to attract black and Latino voters. The Democrat sought to lasso conservative Democrats tempted to stray over the political line.

This is not George Bush vs. Michael S. Dukakis, 1988. It was George Bush vs. Lloyd Bentsen, 1970, battling for a U.S. Senate seat in Texas, in a race that helps explain why Bentsen was tapped as Dukakis’ vice presidential nominee 18 years later.

For one thing, Bentsen won. For another, he fought off appeals by Republican Bush to curry favor with conservative swing Democrats, the same sort who are expected to make the difference this time around.

Tweedledum and Tweedledee

Those who look at the 1970 race as a key to the candidates’ likely behavior this year will find few surprises. It was, the wags said, a face-off between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The candidates themselves, neither a master of charisma, projected remarkably similar positions on the issues.

“They’re not too different,” said Robert Mosbacher, Bush’s current national finance chairman, who held the corresponding position in the Senate campaign.

Pressed as the 1970 race began to come up with one difference between him and Bush, Bentsen found one: “I am a Democrat and he’s a Republican.”

But there were some distinguishing quirks: Bentsen, worried that he would lose some conservatives to Bush, gained some ground by convincing voters that he was actually more conservative than the pre-Reaganite Bush.

And while the race was nominally between Bentsen and Bush, it seemed at times to be a battle of presidents. On Bentsen’s side was Texas native Lyndon B. Johnson, in the second year of his retirement. On Bush’s was Richard M. Nixon, in the middle of his first term, unspoiled as yet by the ravages of Watergate.

Not a Vitriolic Battle

Surprisingly, given the lack of discord on issues, the race did not degenerate into a sassy or vitriolic personal battle.

“It was really competitive, but there wasn’t any dirty politics or name-calling,” Mosbacher said.

That was reserved for the Democratic primary, a bitter, divisive affair in which Bentsen upset the incumbent, liberal Democrat Ralph W. Yarborough. The primary gave Bentsen a boost of publicity and was the beginning of the end for Bush, who had entered the race assuming he would battle an ideological opposite in the general election.

When he came face-to-face with Bentsen, “it was a whole new ballgame,” said Peter Roussell, Bush’s 1970 press spokesman.

Bush told voters that he, as a Republican senator under the Nixon Administration, could deliver more for Texas, and he accused Bentsen of being the “machine” candidate, groomed by Texas’ powerful Democratic hierarchy.

In a line that would be resurrected in 1988, Bush warned voters against the “big spenders” in Congress, who “recklessly spend the taxpayers’ hard-earned money.” He called for programs to battle air pollution and made forays into the traditionally Democratic Latino and black neighborhoods to corral votes.

Had Better Firepower

But Bentsen was armed with more piercing ammunition.

He criticized Bush’s support of a Nixon Administration welfare proposal, calling the package a “guaranteed annual income.” He also attacked Bush’s support of a 1968 gun-control measure that required dealers to keep records of the sale of guns and ammunition. He called the measure “the first step toward registration of law-abiding citizens’ guns,” a conscience-tweaking issue in Texas. Bush countered that he had voted against every floor amendment that dealt with gun registration.

Johnson entered the fray and told voters that he would vote for Bush for senator–if he lived in Connecticut, the state in which Bush was reared. Added former Texas Gov. John B. Connally–now a Republican–”Texas doesn’t need a Connecticut Yankee like Bush, just a good sound conservative boy like Lloyd.”

Even Bentsen’s campaign slogan–”A courageous Texan with fresh ideas”–reinforced the notion of carpetbagging, although Bush had by then lived in Texas for 22 years. Bush countered with the vague, “He can do more.”

Amid Bentsen’s criticism of the incumbent Administration, Bush stayed loyal to Nixon, calling him “stronger than horseradish in Texas.” The President paid back the favor by flying in for one campaign swing and sending then-Vice President Spiro T. Agnew in for another. But the trips only exaggerated the sense of Bush as an outsider.

GOP Heavily Outnumbered

Ultimately, according to a 1970 aide, Bush was simply unable to persuade Texas Democrats to switch. And a switch was mandatory–in the primaries those years, only 110,000 people voted Republican, while 1.5 million cast Democratic ballots.

Oct. 24 (UPI) — Former special counsel Jack Smith wants to testify in open hearings before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees about his investigations of President Donald Trump.

On Thursday, Smith’s lawyers sent letters to Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, who lead the chambers’ panels. Trump was indicted in two cases: attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and possession of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida.

On Oct. 14, Jordan demanded that he testify behind closed doors with a transcript available, writing “your testimony is necessary to understand the full extent to which the Biden-Harris Justice Department weaponized federal law enforcement.” Jordan accused him of prosecutorial overreach and evidence manipulation.

But Smith, who resigned from his position before Trump returned to office in January, wants the hearings in public.

“Given the many mischaracterizations of Mr. Smith’s investigation into President Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents and role in attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election, Mr. Smith respectfully requests the opportunity to testify in open hearings before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees,” his attorneys, Lanny Breuer and Peter Koski, wrote.

Smith will need approval from the Justice Department, where he was employed when Joe Biden was president.

Smith’s attorneys said he will need guidance so he won’t violate rules to guard jury testimony.

“He is prepared to answer questions about the Special Counsel’s investigation and prosecution, but requires assurance from the Department of Justice that he will not be punished for doing so,” the letter said.

Smith’s lawyers also asked for “access to the Special Counsel files, which he no longer has the ability to access.”

“Jack Smith certainly has a lot of answering to do, but first, Congress needs to have all the facts at its disposal,” Grassley told CNN in a statement. “Hearings should follow once the investigative foundation has been firmly set, which is why I’m actively working with the DOJ and FBI to collect all relevant records that Mr. Smith had years to become familiar with.”

Smith issued reports on both cases but the one on Trump’s handling of sensitive documents found at Mar-a-Lago hasn’t been released. Attorney General Merrick Garland, before leaving office, said he wouldn’t release the report because of a criminal case involving two of Trump’s co-defendants was ongoing. But when Trump was elected president again, both cases were dropped.

The president and Republicans in Congress have accused Smith of pursuing politically motivated cases against Trump in an effort to undermine his candidacy for a second term.

But Smith “steadfastly adhered to established legal standards and Department of Justice guidelines, consistent with his approach throughout his career as a dedicated public servant,” while leading the investigations, the letter said.

Rep. Jamie Raskkin, a Democrat serving a district in Maryland, told The Hill that Smith’s offer should be accepted.

“Mr. Smith has made clear that he is prepared to address those allegations publicly, and I can think of no reason to deny the American people the opportunity to hear his testimony, under oath and with questioning from Members of both parties, and to let all Americans judge for themselves the integrity of Mr. Smith’s investigations,” Raskin wrote Thursday.

“There is no reason his appearance should be in the shadows of a backroom and subject to the usual tiresome partisan tactics of leak-and-distort.”

This week, it was reported Trump is pressing for his Justice Department to pay roughly $230 million as a settlement for two investigations. One involved the documents case and the other was ties of his 2016 campaign to the Russian government, which was investigated by another special counsel, Robert Mueller. No charges in the latter were made because of the ability to indict a sitting president.

Smith hadn’t spoken much publicly about his office’s investigations or through case failings.

On Oct. 8, he was interviewed by Andrew Weissman at University College London. Weissman was part of Mueller’s investigations and is now an MSNBC analyst.

“The idea that politics played a role in who worked on that case, or who got chosen, is ludicrous,” Smith told Weissmann.

“The people on my team were similar to what I saw throughout the [Department of Justice] throughout my career,” he said. “Apolitical people who wanted to do the right thing and do public service.”

BECKLEY, W.VA. — At a somber memorial for 29 coal miners Sunday, President Obama said it was a moral imperative for the U.S. to prevent the sort of underground explosion that triggered the worst mine disaster in four decades.

The president said he had been flooded with messages since the April 5 tragedy at West Virginia’s Upper Big Branch mine, with people imploring him, “Don’t let this happen again.”

“How can we fail them?” Obama told about 2,800 mourners at the Beckley-Raleigh County Convention Center. “How can a nation that relies on its miners not do everything in its power to protect them? How can we let anyone in this country put their lives at risk by simply showing up to work, by simply pursuing the American dream?”

He added: “Our task, here on Earth, is to save lives from being lost in another such tragedy. To do what we must do, individually and collectively, to assure safe conditions underground. To treat our miners like they treat each other, like a family. Because we are all family and we are all Americans.”

Obama’s eulogy came toward the end of a service that was an emotional testament to the human toll of unsafe mining conditions. The cause of the blast that killed the miners is under investigation, but high levels of methane are suspected. The explosive gas had to be vented from the mine and neutralized with nitrogen to allow rescue and recovery teams to enter.

At Sunday’s memorial, speakers described the fallen miners as NASCAR fans, hunters, fishermen, motorcycle enthusiasts – and football fans.

Vice President Joe Biden, who spoke before Obama, said, “They hated the way [college football] Coach [Rick] Rodriguez left West Virginia for Michigan.”

The service opened with a video tribute to the dead. Gayle Manchin, wife of West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin III, read the name of each victim, whose picture was displayed for a full minute on a pair of oversized screens. The audience stood and clapped as each name was called.

At the base of the stage was a row of 29 crosses. Outside the hall, posters of each man were arranged in a corridor. Attached were small cards penned by family and friends.

Carl Acord, 52, was shown proudly displaying a fish he had caught. Others were pictured standing and smiling, relaxing in chairs or on beds, or posing in their best suits.

A card written for Edward Dean Jones, 50, read, “I am a coal miner’s daughter and granddaughter, and I love all miners for their work.”

Another for Joe Marcum, 57: “I love you more than words can express. Our whole world and lives have been changed and will never be the same.”

Those who attended cited a long, sad history of mining tragedies and called upon Obama to prevent more loss of life.

“I went to school with that boy right there,” Teresa Perdue, 51, said before the service, pointing to a picture of James “Eddie” Mooney. Perdue said she had family who worked in the mines. When she got word of the explosion, she said, she nervously made calls to see whether her relatives were among the casualties.

“I’m sorry, this should not have happened,” she said.

Asked about Obama’s presence, Perdue said: “It means a lot, and I think he’ll be the one who does something. I really do. I hope he does.”

Sitting in the audience was Don L. Blankenship, head of Massey Energy Co., which owns the Upper Big Branch mine. The White House said the president did not speak with him Sunday but did meet privately with family members of the victims.

Massey has been cited repeatedly over the mine. In 2009 alone, the Mine Safety and Health Administration issued 48 orders that workers be removed from parts of the mine for “repeated significant and substantial violations” constituting a hazard.

Two weeks ago, after Obama received a scathing report about the mine, he described Massey as a safety violator that should be held accountable. The report said the mine’s rate for such violations was nearly 19 times the national rate.

Massey, the nation’s sixth-largest coal mining firm, says it has a better-than-average safety record and has received safety awards during Obama’s tenure.

On Sunday, Biden said in his eulogy that the service wasn’t the right moment to talk about how to improve mine safety. But he promised that day would come.

“Certainly, nobody should have to sacrifice their life for their livelihood,” Biden said. “But as the governor and Sen. [Jay] Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said, we’ll have that conversation later.”

For now, Obama wanted to celebrate “lives lived,” not lost. He described the gritty reality of a miner’s work.

“Most days, they would emerge from the dark mine squinting at the light. Most days, they would emerge sweaty and dirty and dusted with coal. Most days, they would come home,” he said. “But not that day.”

—

[email protected]

DES MOINES — Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee was a guest Wednesday on “The Tonight Show With Jay Leno” — though he seemed earlier in the day not to know that he would be crossing a picket line to appear.

Huckabee flew from Iowa to make the appearance, a day before the state’s first-in-the- nation caucuses. The candidate made no mention of the Writers Guild strike during his appearance and instead joked about having lived in a “triple-wide” trailer when he was governor of Arkansas. The amateur musician also played his guitar in Leno’s band.

Strike supporters outside the NBC studios carried signs calling Huckabee a scab. One read: “Huckabee you can’t deny this cross.”

The Leno show is among those being struck by the Writers Guild of America.

Until Wednesday, the show had been off the air since the strike began in November.

“ ‘The Tonight Show’ continues to be a stop on the campaign trail,” NBC spokeswoman Tracy St. Pierre said in a statement.

Separately, Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton made a brief taped appearance on David Letterman’s show. But Letterman, who owns his own production company, broke from other producers and reached an accord with writers last week. There is no such deal with Leno’s show.

Writers Guild strike coordinator Jeff Hermanson said there was “no doubt about it” that Huckabee would be crossing a picket line by appearing on Leno’s show, which is not part of any settlement.

Democratic candidates have vowed to honor the writers’ picket line.

Earlier Wednesday, Huckabee, while campaigning in Iowa, said he did not believe he would be crossing a picket line to appear with Leno because he thought writers had settled their differences with the late-night shows.

“My understanding is that there was a special arrangement made for the late-night shows, and the writers have made this agreement to let the late-night shows to come back on, so I don’t anticipate that it’s crossing a picket line,” Huckabee told journalists.

When reporters noted that the writers settled with only Letterman’s show, Huckabee protested: “But my understanding is there’s a sort of dispensation given to the late-night shows, is that right?”

Huckabee added that he supports the writers, “unequivocally, absolutely.”

“They’re dead right on this one,” he said.

On the show Leno asked Huckabee to explain his recent surge in the political polls.

“People are looking for a presidential candidate who reminds them more of the guy they work with rather than the guy that laid them off,” Huckabee said.

“I think that’s part of what’s going on right now.”

—

[email protected]

Times staff writer Phil Willon in Riverside, photographer Jay L. Clendenin in Iowa and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Consumer confidence is dropping. The national debt is $38 trillion and climbing like the yodeling mountain climber in that “The Price is Right” game. Donald Trump’s approval ratings are falling and the U.S. is getting more and more restless as 2025 comes to a close.

What’s a wannabe strongman to do to prop up his regime?

Attack Latin America, of course!

U.S. war planes have bombed small ships in international waters off the coast of Venezuela and Colombia since September with extrajudicial zeal. The Trump administration has claimed those vessels were packed with drugs manned by “narco-terrorists” and have released videos for each of the 10 boats-and-counting it has incinerated to make the actions seem as normal as a mission in “Call of Duty.”

“Narco-terrorists intending to bring poison to our shores, will find no safe harbor anywhere in our hemisphere,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted on social media and who just ordered an aircraft carrier currently stationed in the Mediterranean to set up shop in the Caribbean. It’ll meet up with 10,000 troops stationed there as part of one of the area’s biggest U.S. deployments in decades, all in the name of stopping a drug epidemic that has ravaged red America for the past quarter century.

This week, Trump authorized covert CIA actions in Venezuela and revealed he wants to launch strikes against land targets where his people say Latin American cartels operate. Who cares whether the host countries will give permission? Who cares about American laws that state only Congress — not the president — can declare war against our enemies?

It’s Latin America, after all.

The military buildup, bombing and threat of more in the name of liberty is one of the oldest moves in the American foreign policy playbook. For more than two centuries, the United States has treated Latin America as its personal piñata, bashing it silly for goods and not caring about the ugly aftermath.

“It is known to all that we derive [our blessings] from the excellence of our institutions,” James Monroe concluded in the 1823 speech that set forth what became known as the Monroe Doctrine, which essentially told the rest of the world to leave the Western Hemisphere to us. “Ought we not, then, to adopt every measure which may be necessary to perpetuate them?”

Our 19th century wars of expansion, official and not, won us territories where Latin Americans lived — Panamanians, Puerto Ricans, but especially Mexicans — that we ended up treating as little better than serfs. We have occupied nations for years and imposed sanctions on others. We have propped up puppets and despots and taken down democratically elected governments with the regularity of the seasons.

The culmination of all these actions were the mass migrations from Latin America that forever altered the demographics of the United States. And when those people — like my parents — came here, they were immediately subjected to a racism hard-wired into the American psyche, which then justified a Latin American foreign policy bent on domination, not friendship.

Nothing rallies this country historically like sticking it to Latinos, whether in their ancestral countries or here. We’re this country’s perpetual scapegoats and eternal invaders, with harming gringos — whether by stealing their jobs, moving into their neighborhoods, marrying their daughters or smuggling drugs — supposedly the only thing on our mind.

That’s why when Trump ran on an isolationist platform last year, he never meant the region — of course not. The border between the U.S. and Latin America has never been the fence that divides the U.S. from Mexico or our shores. It’s wherever the hell we say it is.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro Urrego addresses the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 23 at U.N. headquarters.

(Pamela Smith / Associated Press)

That’s why the Trump administration is banking on the idea that it can get away with its boat bombings and is salivating to escalate. To them, the 43 people American missile strikes have slaughtered on the open sea so far aren’t humans — and anyone who might have an iota of sympathy or doubt deserves aggression as well.

That’s why when Colombian President Gustavo Petro accused the U.S. of murder because one of the strikes killed a Colombian fisherman with no ties to cartels, Trump went on social media to lambaste Petro’s “fresh mouth,” accuse him of being a “drug leader” and warn the head of a longtime American ally he “better close up these killing fields [cartel bases] immediately, or the United States will close them up for him, and it won’t be done nicely.”

The only person who can turn down the proverbial temperature on this issue is Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who should know all the bad that American imperialism has wrought on Latin America. The U.S. treated his parents’ homeland of Cuba like a playground for decades, propping up one dictator after another until Cubans revolted and Fidel Castro took power. A decades-long embargo that Trump tightened upon assuming office the second time has done nothing to free the Cuban people and instead made things worse.

Instead, Rubio is the instigator. He’s pushing for regime change in Venezuela, chumming it up with self-proclaimed “world’s coolest dictator” Nayib Bukele of El Salvador and cheering on Trump’s missile attacks.

“Bottom line, these are drug boats,” Rubio told reporters recently with Trump by his side. “If people want to stop seeing drug boats blow up, stop sending drugs to the United States.”

You might ask: Who cares? Cartels are bad, drugs are bad, aren’t they? Of course. But every American should oppose every time a suspected drug boat launching from Latin America is destroyed with no questions asked and no proof offered. Because every time Trump violates yet another law or norm in the name of defending the U.S. and no one stops him, democracy erodes just a little bit more.

This is a president, after all, who seems to dream of treating his enemies, including American cities, like drug boats.

Few will care, alas. It’s Latin America, after all.

If the United States federal government shutdown continues, millions of low-income Americans could lose access to a monthly benefit that pays for food.

About 42 million people receive money through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), sometimes called food stamps. The Department of Agriculture told states in an October 10 letter that if the shutdown continues, the programme would run out of money to pay for benefits in November.

President Donald Trump’s Republican administration is blaming the Democrats with Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins repeating a false healthcare talking point on October 16 on X: “Democrats are putting free health care for illegal aliens and their political agenda ahead of food security for American families. Shameful.”

The government shutdown stems from disagreements between Democrats – who want Congress, as part of approving federal funding, to extend expiring enhanced subsidies for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), through which uninsured Americans can buy health insurance – and Republicans, who want to extend federal funding first before negotiating over whether or how to extend the ACA subsidies.

SNAP is a federal programme operated by state agencies. Participants receive an average individual monthly benefit of about $190 or $356 per household. Recipients may use the benefits to buy fruit, vegetables, meat, dairy products, bread and other foods. The majority of SNAP households live in poverty.

Lawmakers and social media users have made several statements about SNAP with varying degrees of accuracy about the shutdown and the Republican tax and spending law that Trump signed in July. Here’s a closer look:

Social media posts say food stamps will disappear on November 1

Many social media posts have said food stamps are going away as soon as November 1.

“Let that sink in – just in time for the cold season and the month of giving thanks,” one Instagram post said.

That could happen for millions of people. But it might not happen for all of them, and it could happen throughout the month of November because the monthly date when people receive their benefits varies by state.

The Trump administration could use SNAP’s contingency fund to pay for nearly two-thirds of a full month of benefits, or it could transfer other Agriculture Department funds, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank. The administration has said it has found funding to continue the Women, Infants and Children programme, another food programme for low-income families.

According to an Agriculture Department funding lapse plan, SNAP “shall continue operations during a lapse in appropriations, subject to the availability of funding”.

An Agriculture Department letter told states to hold off on steps that would lead to people receiving their November benefits. Federal regulations require that reductions be made in a way that higher-income recipients lose more benefits than the lowest-income recipients.

We asked administration officials for more detail but received no response to our questions.

Many state officials – including in Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin – said that if the shutdown continues, participants might not or will not receive benefits in November. A spokesperson for the Florida Department of Children and Families told PolitiFact that if the shutdown continues into November, benefits will not be issued.

California Governor Gavin Newsom said on Wednesday that he will deploy the National Guard and California Volunteers, a state agency, to support food banks and provide $80m in state money.

“Empty cupboards and stomachs are not abstract outcomes,” Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers told Rollins in a Wednesday letter. “They are the very real and near consequences of the dysfunction in Washington. These are also consequences you can prevent today.”

Meanwhile, food banks across the country have taken a hit from other Trump administration policies. ProPublica reported on October 3 that earlier in the year, the administration cut $500m in deliveries through the Emergency Food Assistance Program, which provides food to state distribution agencies.

So what have key lawmakers said on this issue and how true are their claims?

‘We are not cutting’ SNAP

– Mike Johnson, speaker of the US House of Representatives, on the TV programme Face the Nation on May 25

This is false.

Johnson spoke after the House passed a Republican-backed bill known at the time as the One Big Beautiful Bill, which included many of Trump’s policy priorities.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the nonpartisan number-crunching arm of Congress, estimated in May that 3.2 million fewer people per month on average would receive SNAP benefits over the next nine years based on the bill’s changes to work requirements and restrictions on states’ ability to waive the work requirements in areas with high unemployment.

A more recent August CBO analysis estimated the changes would reduce participation in SNAP by roughly 2.4 million people.

‘Nearly 25 cents of every $1 spent via SNAP goes to farmers and ranchers’

– Wisconsin state Representative Francesca Hong in a June 12 X post

This is true.

In a series of X posts, Hong said it wouldn’t be only families receiving food aid that would be hurt by the legislation.

A chart published this year by the Agriculture Department’s Economic Research Service showed that in 2023, farm establishments made 24.3 cents of every dollar spent on food at home, including at grocery stores and supermarkets.

‘About 20 percent of households with veterans rely upon’ SNAP

– House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries at a May 8 news conference

This is mostly false.

An April 2 study found that 8 percent of veterans rely on SNAP benefits. No state had a share higher than 14 percent. Studies with data from a few years earlier showed rates from 4.9 percent to 6.6 percent.

Louis Jacobson, Staff Writer Loreben Tuquero and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter Madeline Heim contributed to this article.

Oct. 24 (UPI) — The Department of Justice filed a motion Friday to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Liberia, a country to which he has no ties.

The Department of Homeland Security has received “diplomatic assurances regarding the treatment of third-country individuals removed to Liberia from the United States and are making the final necessary arrangements for [Abrego Garcia’s] removal,” the filing said.

DHS expects “to be able to effectuate removal as soon as Oct. 31.”

Abrego Garcia, a Baltimore resident, is a native of El Salvador. He was accidentally deported to a Salvadoran prison in March against a court order. In recent months, DHS has been looking for a new place to send him. It’s tried Uganda, Eswatini and Ghana, but those countries refused.

But an immigration judge ordered that Abrego Garcia not be removed from the United States.

Abrego Garcia’s attorney said the government “has chosen yet another path that feels designed to inflict maximum hardship.”

“Having struck out with Uganda, Eswatini and Ghana, ICE now seeks to deport our client Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Liberia — a country with which he has no connection, thousands of miles from his family and home in Maryland,” Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg told ABC News. “Costa Rica has agreed to accept him as a refugee, and remains a viable and lawful option.”

The DOJ said Liberia is “a thriving democracy” and is “committed to the humane treatment of refugees.”

Abrego Garcia has been accused of being a gang member and of human trafficking, stemming from a 2002 traffic stop in Tennessee. Police stopped the vehicle in Tennessee and found several Latino men with no identification. Charges for that case were filed this year. He still awaits trial.

On Oct. 4, a federal judge in Tennessee granted a motion by Abrego Garcia’s defense team that seeks a hearing for vindictive prosecution.

“The timing of Abrego’s indictment suggests a realistic likelihood that senior DOJ and [Homeland Security] officials may have induced Acting U.S. Attorney [Robert] McGuire (albeit unknowingly) to criminally charge Abrego in retaliation for his Maryland lawsuit,” U.S. District Court for Middle Tennessee Judge Waverly Crenshaw Jr. wrote.

The Maryland lawsuit was Garcia’s successful legal challenge in a federal court in which he showed DHS made a mistake when it deported him to El Salvador.

Federal officials also contend Abrego Garcia was a member of the Salvadoran MS-13 gang, though he and his family deny it. They argue that Abrego Garcia fled El Salvador because of gang violence.

Oct. 24 (UPI) — The U.S. Department of Justice announced Friday that it will monitor some polling sites in California and New Jersey “to ensure transparency.”

Both states are having elections on Nov. 4.

“Transparency at the polls translates into faith in the electoral process, and this Department of Justice is committed to upholding the highest standards of election integrity,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi in a press release. “We will commit the resources necessary to ensure the American people get the fair, free, and transparent elections they deserve.”

The California counties where the department plans to monitor the polls are: Kern, Riverside, Fresno, Orange and Los Angeles. It will also monitor polls in Passaic County, N.J.

While election monitoring is not unusual, the two states listed are Democratic strongholds.

The effort will be overseen by the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and will be led by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon.

“The Department of Justice will do everything necessary to protect the votes of eligible American citizens, ensuring our elections are safe and secure,” Dhillon said in a statement. “Transparent election processes and election monitoring are critical tools for safeguarding our elections and ensuring public trust in the integrity of our elections.”

Civil Rights Division personnel will be available to take questions and complaints from the public on possible violations of federal voting rights laws, the release said.

The emotional speech against Islamophobia from the NYC mayoral race frontrunner comes a day before early voting begins.

New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani gave an emotional speech addressing “racist, baseless attacks” from his opponents, a day before early voting begins in the race he is projected to win.

Speaking outside a mosque in the Bronx on Friday, Mamdani criticised his opponents for bringing “hatred to the forefront”, noting that their Islamophobia not only affects him as the Democratic nominee for mayor but also close to one million Muslims living in New York.

“To be Muslim in New York is to expect indignity, but indignity does not make us distinct. There are many New Yorkers who face it. It is the tolerance of that indignity that does,” Mamdani said in his speech, less than two weeks ahead of the November 4 general election.

Mamdani, who is currently a member of the New York State Assembly, said that while he had tried to focus his election campaign on his core message of affordability, his opponents in recent days had shown that “Islamophobia has emerged as one of the few areas of agreement”.

His speech also came a day after his top opponent, former New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo, laughed after radio host Sid Rosenberg said that Mamdani “would be cheering” if another September 11 attack occurred.

Cuomo, who is a member of the Democratic Party but lost the Democratic primary election to Mamdani in June, responded in agreement with Rosenberg: “That’s another problem.”

Basim Elkarra, the executive director of Muslim advocacy group CAIR Action, described Cuomo’s appearance on the radio programme as “despicable, dangerous, and disqualifying”.

“By agreeing with a racist radio host who suggested a Muslim elected official would ‘cheer’ another 9/11, Cuomo has crossed a moral line,” Elkarra said.

“Cuomo’s willingness to engage in this kind of hate speech, on this kind of platform, shows exactly the kind of leader he is: someone who would rather stoke fear than bring people together,” he said.

Speaking on Friday, Mamdani said he had also been “slandered” by Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa on the debate stage, “when he claimed that I support global jihad”, and faced advertisements from Super Political Action Committees that “imply that I am a terrorist, or mock the way I eat”.

He also shared his memories of his “aunt who stopped taking the subway after September 11 because she did not feel safe in her hijab”, and a staff member who had the “word terrorist spray painted” on their garage, as well as the advice he had received that he “did not have to tell people” he was Muslim, if he wanted to win elections.

Top Democrat endorses Mamdani on eve of early voting

Earlier on Friday, Mamdani received a long-anticipated endorsement from Hakeem Jeffries, the leader of the Democratic Party in the US House of Representatives and the representative of New York’s eighth congressional district, which includes the Brooklyn neighbourhoods of East Flatbush, Coney Island and Brownsville.

While Mamdani has earned endorsements from top Democrats, including New York Governor Kathy Hochul, New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and independent Senator Bernie Sanders, the vocally pro-Palestinian candidate has struggled to win over other top New York Democrats, such as Senator Chuck Schumer.

Despite the reluctance of some establishment figures within the Democratic Party, Mamdani resoundingly won the party’s primary election to choose its candidate for the general election back in June.

Current NYC Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat who did not contest the primary after facing corruption allegations, endorsed Cuomo this week after withdrawing from the race, although his name will still appear on the ballot.

A recently published poll from AARP and Gotham Polling and Analytics shows Mamdani well ahead of his opponents with the support of 43.2 percent of voters.

He is followed by Cuomo with 28.9 percent and Sliwa with 19.4 percent, while 8.4 percent said they were undecided or preferred another candidate.

Cost of living was the main issue for nearly two-thirds of voters, with public safety and housing affordability also areas of concern, in the same poll.

NEW YORK — Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, pledged Friday to further embrace his Muslim identity in response to growing attacks by former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his surrogates that he characterized as “racist and baseless.”

Encircled by faith leaders outside a Bronx mosque, Mamdani spoke in emotional terms about the “indignities” long faced by the city’s Muslim population, choking back tears as he described his aunt’s decision not to ride the subway after the Sept. 11 attacks because she didn’t feel safe being seen in a religious head covering.

He recounted how, when he first entered politics, an uncle gently suggested he keep his faith to himself.

“These are lessons that so many Muslim New Yorkers have been taught,” Mamdani said. “And over these last few days, these lessons have become the closing messages of Andrew Cuomo, Curtis Sliwa and Eric Adams.”

At a news conference later Friday, Cuomo accused Mamdani of “playing the victim” for political purposes and denied that Islamophobia existed on a wide scale in New York.

Throughout the race, Mamdani, a democratic socialist, has been criticized by Cuomo and others over his criticism of Israel’s government, which he had accused of committing genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

But the tone of those attacks have amped up in recent days, drawing allegations from some Democrats that Cuomo’s campaign is leaning into Islamophobia in the final stretch of the campaign.

Appearing on a conservative radio station Thursday, Cuomo appeared to laugh along at host Sid Rosenberg’s suggestion that Mamdani would “be cheering” another 9/11 attack. “That’s another problem,” Cuomo replied.

A Cuomo social media account posted, then removed, a video depicting Mamdani eating rice with his hands and describing his supporters as criminals. A campaign spokesperson said the video was posted in error.

At an event endorsing the former governor, Mayor Eric Adams invoked the possibility of terrorist attacks in New York City, seeming to suggest — without explanation — they would be more likely under a Mamdani administration.

“New York can’t be Europe. I don’t know what is wrong with people,” Adams said, standing alongside Cuomo. “You see what’s playing out in other countries because of Islamic extremism.”

At a debate earlier this week, Sliwa, the Republican nominee, falsely smeared Mamdani as a supporter of “global jihad.”

Asked about Rosenberg’s comments, Cuomo said he “didn’t take the remarks seriously at the time.”

“Of course I think it’s an offensive comment. But it did not come out of my mouth,” he added.

Messages left with Adams’ and Sliwa’s campaign were not immediately returned.

In his speech Friday, Mamdani said he was aiming his remarks not at political opponents but at his fellow Muslim New Yorkers.

“The dream of every Muslim is simply to be treated the same as any other New Yorker,” he said. “And yet for too long we have been told to ask for less than that, and to be satisfied with whatever little we receive.”

“No more,” he said.

To that end, Mamdani said he would further embrace his Muslim identity, a decision he said he consciously avoided at the start of his campaign.

“I thought that if I behaved well enough, or bit my tongue enough in the face of racist, baseless attacks, all while returning back to my central message, it would allow me to be more than just my faith,” Mamdani said. “I was wrong. No amount of redirection is ever enough.”

He continued: “I will not change who I am, how I eat, for the faith that I’m proud to call my own. But there is one thing that I will change. I will no longer look for myself in the shadows. I will find myself in the light.”

Mamdani, who won the primary in stunning fashion, has faced skepticism from some in the Democratic establishment, particularly over his criticism of Israel. On Friday, Mamdani earned the endorsement of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.).

Cuomo told reporters that Mamdani’s criticism of Israel had made Jewish people afraid to leave their homes.

He also rejected Mamdani’s claim that Muslim New Yorkers have been made to feel uncomfortable in their own city.

“Don’t tell me New Yorkers are Islamophobic. They’re not,” Cuomo said.

“What he is doing is the oldest, dirtiest political trick in the book: divide people,” Cuomo said.

Offenhartz writes for the Associated Press.

MEXICO CITY — The United States slapped sanctions on Colombian President Gustavo Petro on Friday and said it was sending a massive aircraft carrier to the waters off South America, a new escalation of what the White House has described as a war against drug traffickers in the region. Also Friday, the U.S. military conducted its 10th strike on a suspected drug-running boat, killing six people in the Caribbean Sea.

The Treasury Department said it was sanctioning Petro, his wife, his son and a political associate for failing to stop the flow of cocaine to the United States, noting that cocaine production in Colombia has risen in recent years. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent accused Petro of “poisoning Americans.”

Petro denied those claims in a statement on X, saying he has fought to combat drug trafficking for decades. He said it was “quite a paradox” to be sanctioned by a country with high rates of cocaine consumption.

The sanctions put Petro in the same category as the leaders of Russia and North Korea and limit his ability to travel to the United States. They mark a new low for relations between Colombia and the United States, which until recently were strong allies, sharing military intelligence, a robust trade relationship and a multibillion-dollar fight against drug trafficking.

Elizabeth Dickinson, a senior analyst for the Andes region at the International Crisis Group, a think tank, said that while Petro and the U.S. government have had disagreements over how to tackle trafficking — with the Americans more interested in eradicating coca fields and Colombians focused on cocaine seizures — the two countries have been working for decades toward the same goal.

“To suggest that Colombia is not trying is false and disingenuous,” Dickinson said. “If the U.S. has a partner in counternarcotics in Latin America, it’s Colombia. Colombian forces have been working hand in hand with the Americans for literally four decades. They are the best, most capable and frankly most willing partner the U.S. has in the region.

“If the U.S. were to cut this relationship, it would really be the U.S. shooting themselves in the foot.”

Many viewed the sanctions as punishment for Petro’s criticism of Trump. In recent days, Petro has accused the U.S. of murder, saying American strikes on alleged drug boats lack legal justification and have killed civilians. He has also accused the U.S. of building up its military in South America in an attempt to topple Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

The quickened pace of U.S. airstrikes in the region and the unusually large buildup of military force in the Caribbean Sea have fueled those speculations.

On Friday, a Pentagon official said the U.S. ordered the USS Gerald R. Ford and its strike group to deploy to U.S. Southern Command to “bolster U.S. capacity to detect, monitor, and disrupt illicit actors and activities that compromise the safety and prosperity of the United States.”

The USS Ford is currently deployed to the Mediterranean Sea along with three destroyers. It would probably take several days for the ships to make the journey to South America.

The White House has increasingly drawn a direct comparison between the war on terrorism that the U.S. declared after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the Trump administration’s crackdown on drug traffickers.

Trump this month declared drug cartels to be unlawful combatants and said the U.S. was in an “armed conflict” with them, relying on the same legal authority used by the Bush administration after 9/11.

When reporters asked Trump on Thursday whether he would request that Congress issue a declaration of war against the cartels, he said that wasn’t the plan.

“I think we’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country, OK? We’re going to kill them, you know? They’re going to be like, dead,” Trump said during a roundtable at the White House with Homeland Security officials.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

A planned increase in federal immigration enforcement in the Bay Area is now on pause throughout the region and in major East Bay cities, not just in San Francisco, Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee said Friday.

Lee said in a statement that Alameda County Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez had “confirmed through her communications” with federal immigration officials that the planned operations were “cancelled for the greater Bay Area — which includes Oakland — at this time.”

The announcement followed lingering concerns about ramped up immigration enforcement among East Bay leaders after President Trump and San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie announced Thursday that a planned “surge” had been called off in San Francisco.

Trump and Lurie had very specifically addressed San Francisco, even as additional Border Patrol agents were being staged across the bay on Coast Guard Island, which is in the waters between Alameda and Oakland.

At a press conference following Trump’s annoucement about San Francisco, Lee had said the situation remained “fluid,” that she had received no such assurances about the East Bay and that Oakland was continuing to prepare for enhanced immigration enforcement in the region.

Alameda County Dist. Atty. Ursula Jones Dickson had previously warned that the announced stand down in San Francisco could be a sign the administration was looking to focus on Oakland instead — and make an example of it.

“We know that they’re baiting Oakland, and that’s why San Francisco, all of a sudden, is off the table,” Jones Dickson said Thursday morning. “So I’m not going to be quiet about what we know is coming. We know that their expectation is that Oakland is going to do something to cause them to make us the example.”

The White House on Friday directed questions about the scope of the pause in operations and whether it applied to the East Bay to the Department of Homeland Security, which referred The Times back to Trump’s statement about San Francisco on Friday — despite its making no mention of the East Bay or Oakland.

In that statement, posted to his Truth Social platform, Trump had written that a “surge” had been planned for San Francisco starting Saturday, but that he had called it off after speaking to Lurie.

Trump said Lurie had asked “very nicely” that Trump “give him a chance to see if he can turn it around” in the city, and that business leaders — including Jensen Huang of Nvidia and Marc Benioff of Salesforce — had expressed confidence in Lurie.

Trump said he told Lurie that it would be “easier” to make San Francisco safer if federal forces were sent in, but told him, “let’s see how you do.”

Lurie in recent days has touted falling crime rates and numbers of homeless encampments in the city, and said in his own announcement of the stand down that he had told Trump that San Francisco was “on the rise” and that “having the military and militarized immigration enforcement in our city will hinder our recovery.”

In California and elsewhere, the Trump administration has aggressively sought to expand the reach and authority of the Border Patrol and federal immigration agents. Last month, the DOJ fired its top prosecutor in Sacramento after she told Gregory Bovino, chief of the Border Patrol’s El Centro Sector, that he could not carry out indiscriminate immigration raids around Sacramento this summer.

In Oakland on Thursday, the planned surge in enforcement had sparked protests near the entrance to Coast Guard Island, and drew widespread condemnation from local liberal officials and immigrant advocacy organizations.

On Thursday night, security officers at the base opened fire on the driver of a U-Haul truck who was reversing the truck toward them, wounding the driver and a civilian nearby. The FBI is investigating that incident.

Some liberal officials had warned that federal agents who violated the rights of Californians could face consequences — even possible arrest — from local law enforcement, which drew condemnation from federal officials.

Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche responded with a scathing letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom and others on Thursday in which he wrote that any attempt by local law enforcement to arrest federal officers doing their jobs would be viewed by the Justice Department as “both illegal and futile” and as part of a “criminal conspiracy.”

Blanche wrote that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution precludes any federal law enforcement official to be “held on a state criminal charge where the alleged crime arose during the performance of his federal duties,” and that the Justice Department would pursue legal action against any state officials who advocate for such enforcement.

“In the meantime, federal agents and officers will continue to enforce federal law and will not be deterred by the threat of arrest by California authorities who have abdicated their duty to protect their constituents,” Blanche wrote.

The threat of arrest for federal officers had originated in part with San Francisco Dist. Atty. Brooke Jenkins, who had written on social media that if federal agents “come to San Francisco and illegally harass our residents … I will not hesitate to do my job and hold you accountable just like I do other violators of the law every single day.”

Oct. 23 (UPI) — President Donald Trump late Thursday terminated all trade negotiations with Canada over an ad campaign using a speech on tariffs by former U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

In the statement on his Truth Social media platform, Trump said, “TARIFFS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY, AND ECONOMY, OF THE U.S.A. Based on their egregious behavior, ALL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA ARE HEREBY TERMINATED.”

In the 1-minute ad, excerpts of Reagan’s April 25, 1987, radio address are heard.

“When someone says, ‘Let’s impose tariffs on foreign imports,’ it looks like they’re doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs,” Reagan is heard saying in the commercial over scenes of people working on farms and in cities.

“And sometimes it looks like it works, but only for a short time. But over the long run, such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer.”

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute took exception to the commercial and said the Ontario government did not seek permission to use and edit the former Republican president’s remarks.

Editing omitted the context of Reagan’s comments, which was to defend tariffs that he placed on Japanese imports, according to CNBC.

“The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute is reviewing its legal options in this matter,” it said in a statement.

CNBC published transcripts of the ad and Reagan’s original comments in their entirety for comparison.

In unveiling the reportedly $53.5 million ad campaign, Ontario Premier Doug Ford said, “Using every tool we have, we’ll never stop making the case against American tariffs on Canada. The way to prosperity is by working together.”

Ford on Friday morning took to social media to quell the controversy.

“Canada and the United States are friends, neighbors and allies,” Ford said in a post on X.

“President Ronald Reagan knew that we are stronger together,” he continued. “God bless Canada and God bless the United States.”

Relations between the close trade allies have been greatly strained under the Trump administration over the president’s tariffs as well as remarks about making Canada the 51st state.

Trade tensions between the two have intensified, with the trade negotiations that Trump severed intended to bring stability and calm to their partnership.

Last week, the government of Ontario, Canada’s most populated province and home to its largest city, Toronto, unveiled a new ad campaign that uses Reagan’s words to criticize Trump’s tariffs.

Move to close Vilnius, Kaunas airports and border comes after helium balloons drifted into the country’s territory.

NATO member Lithuania has closed its two biggest airports and shut crossings on its border with Belarus after helium weather balloons drifted into its territory, the third such incident in the Baltic nation this month.

European aviation has repeatedly been thrown into chaos in recent weeks by drone sightings and other air incursions, including at airports in Copenhagen, Munich and the Baltic region.

The Vilnius and Kaunas airports were closed on Friday for safety reasons until 2am (23:00 GMT), while the Belarus border crossings will remain shut until midday on Sunday, authorities said.

Lithuania has said balloons are sent by smugglers transporting contraband cigarettes, but it also blames Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko, a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, for not stopping the practice.

“The National Security Commission will meet next week to assess … what can be done short-term that would be painful to the smugglers and to Lukashenko’s regime, which allows them to thrive,” Lithuania’s Prime Minister Inga Ruginiene said in a statement.

Lithuania’s National Crisis Management Centre said “tens of balloons” had been detected by radar on Friday.

Vilnius airport also closed on Tuesday of this week and on October 5, when smuggler balloons entered the capital city’s airspace, authorities said.

The incident comes after two Russian military aircraft briefly entered Lithuania’s airspace in what appeared to be a new provocation from Moscow.

Lithuania’s armed forces said in a statement that the two aircraft may have been conducting refuelling exercises in the neighbouring Russian exclave of Kaliningrad when they flew 700 metres (0.43 miles) into the country at 6pm local time (15:00 GMT) on Thursday.

“This is a blatant breach of international law and territorial integrity of Lithuania,” Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda said on X in response to that incursion, adding that his country would summon Russian embassy representatives to protest against reckless and dangerous behaviour.

Russia’s Ministry of Defence, however, denied the incursion had taken place.

It said the flights were conducted “in strict compliance” with rules and “did not deviate from their route and did not violate the borders of other states”.

Russian aircraft and drones have reportedly also violated airspace in Estonia and Poland in recent weeks.

The events have heightened anxiety that Russia’s Putin might be testing NATO’s defensive reflexes.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is set to rule for the first time on whether the president has the power to deploy troops in American cities over the objections of local and state officials.

A decision could come at any time.

And even a one-line order siding with President Trump would send the message that he is free to use the military to carry out his orders — and in particular, in Democratic-controlled cities and states.

Trump administration lawyers filed an emergency appeal last week asking the court to reverse judges in Chicago who blocked the deployment of the National Guard there.

The Chicago-based judges said Trump exaggerated the threat faced by federal immigration agents and had equated “protests with riots.”

Trump administration lawyers, however, said these judges had no authority to second-guess the president. The power to deploy the National Guard “is committed to his exclusive discretion by law,” they asserted in their appeal in Trump vs. Illinois.

That broad claim of executive power might win favor with the court’s conservatives.

Administration lawyers told the court that the National Guard would “defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence” in response to aggressive immigration enforcement, but it would not carry out ordinary policing.

Yet Trump has repeatedly threatened to send U.S. troops to San Francisco and other Democratic-led cities to carry out ordinary law enforcement.

When he sent 4,000 Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in June, their mission was to protect federal buildings from protesters. But state officials said troops went beyond that and were used to carry out a show in force in MacArthur Park in July.

Newsom, Bonta warn of dangers

That’s why legal experts and Democratic officials are sounding an alarm.

“Trump v. Illinois is a make-or-break moment for this court,” said Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck, a frequent critic of the court’s pro-Trump emergency orders. “For the Supreme Court to issue a ruling that allows the president to send troops into our cities based upon contrived (or even government-provoked) facts … would be a terrible precedent for the court to set not just for what it would allow President Trump to do now but for even more grossly tyrannical conduct.”

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Gov. Gavin Newsom filed a brief in the Chicago case warning of the danger ahead.

“On June 7, for the first time in our nation’s history, the President invoked [the Militia Act of 1903] to federalize a State’s National Guard over the objections of the State’s Governor. Since that time, it has become clear that the federal government’s actions in Southern California earlier this summer were just the opening salvo in an effort to transform the role of the military in American society,” their brief said.

“At no prior point in our history has the President used the military this way: as his own personal police force, to be deployed for whatever law enforcement missions he deems appropriate. … What the federal government seeks is a standing army, drawn from state militias, deployed at the direction of the President on a nationwide basis, for civilian law enforcement purposes, for an indefinite period of time.”

Conservatives cite civil rights examples

Conservatives counter that Trump is seeking to enforce federal law in the face of strong resistance and non-cooperation at times from local officials.

“Portland and Chicago have seen violent protests outside of federal buildings, attacks on ICE and DHS agents, and organized efforts to block the enforcement of immigration law,” said UC Berkeley law professor John Yoo. “Although local officials have raised cries of a federal ‘occupation’ and ‘dictatorship,’ the Constitution places on the president the duty to ‘take care that the laws are faithfully executed.’”

He noted that presidents in the past “used these same authorities to desegregate southern schools in the 1950s after Brown v. Board of Education and to protect civil rights protesters in the 1960s. Those who cheer those interventions cannot now deny the same constitutional authority when it is exercised by a president they oppose,” he said.

The legal battle so far has sidestepped Trump’s broadest claims of unchecked power, but focused instead on whether he is acting in line with the laws adopted by Congress.

The Constitution gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions.”

Beginning in 1903, Congress said that “the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary” if he faces “danger of invasion by a foreign nation … danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States or the president is unable to execute the laws of the United States.”

While Trump administration lawyers claim he faces a “rebellion,” the legal dispute has focused on whether he is “unable to execute the laws.”

Lower courts have blocked deployments

Federal district judges in Portland and Chicago blocked Trump’s deployments after ruling that protesters had not prevented U.S. immigration agents from doing their jobs.

Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, described the administration’s description of “war-ravaged” Portland as “untethered to the facts.”

In Chicago, Judge April Perry, a Biden appointee, said that “political opposition is not rebellion.”

But the two appeals courts — the 9th Circuit in San Francisco and the 7th Circuit in Chicago — handed down opposite decisions.

A panel of the 9th Circuit said judges must defer to the president’s assessment of the danger faced by immigration agents. Applying that standard, the appeals court by a 2-1 vote said the National Guard deployment in Portland may proceed.

But a panel of the 7th Circuit in Chicago agreed with Perry.

“The facts do not justify the President’s actions in Illinois, even giving substantial deference to his assertions,” they said in a 3-0 ruling last week. “Federal facilities, including the processing facility in Broadview, have remained open despite regular demonstrations against the administration’s immigration policies. And though federal officers have encountered sporadic disruptions, they have been quickly contained by local, state, and federal authorities.”

Attorneys for Illinois and Chicago agreed and urged the court to turn down Trump’s appeal.

“There is no basis for claiming the President is ‘unable’ to ‘execute’ federal law in Illinois,” they said. “Federal facilities in Illinois remain open, the individuals who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested, and enforcement of immigration law in Illinois has only increased in recent weeks.”

U.S. Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, shown at his confirmation hearing in February, said the federal judges in Chicago had no legal or factual basis to block the Trump administration’s deployment of troops.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer presented a dramatically different account in his appeal.

“On October 4, the President determined that the situation in Chicago had become unsustainably dangerous for federal agents, who now risk their lives to carry out basic law enforcement functions,” he wrote. “The President deployed the federalized Guardsmen to Illinois to protect federal officers and federal property.”

He disputed the idea that agents faced just peaceful protests.

“On multiple occasions, federal officers have also been hit and punched by protestors at the Broadview facility. The physical altercations became more significant and the clashes more violent as the size of the crowds swelled throughout September,” Sauer wrote. “Rioters have targeted federal officers with fireworks and have thrown bottles, rocks, and tear gas at them. More than 30 [DHS] officers have been injured during the assaults on federal law enforcement at the Broadview facility alone, resulting in multiple hospitalizations.”

He said the judges in Chicago had no legal or factual basis to block the deployment, and he urged the court to cast aside their rulings.

Oct. 24 (UPI) — U.S. House Democratic Party leader Hakeem Jeffries on Friday endorsed Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani for New York City mayor, 11 days before the Nov. 4 election.

Jeffries hasn’t issued a public statement but his endorsement was confirmed in a statement to The New York Times, with sources telling USA Today and Politico about the House minority leader’s plans.

Early voting begins Saturday.

Mamdani, who was born in India and raised in Uganda, is attempting to become the city’s first Muslim mayor.

Jeffries, who serves Brooklyn in New York, had held off endorsing Mamdani, who is a state assembly member serving Queens since 2020.

The state’s two U.S. senators, Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer, the minority leader, haven’t endorsed Mamdani.

Mamdani has been endorsed by New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letita James.

Also, he has been backed by New York Reps. Jerry Nadler, Adriano Espaillat and Yvette Clarke. Two other House members, Ritchie Torres and Dan Goldman, have said they don’t plan to endorse in the election.

And New York Democratic Party Chairman Jay Jacobs said he doesn’t plan to endorse him.

In the June 24 primary, Mamdani, 34, defeated former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, 67, and Mayor Eric Adams, 65. His opponents then chose to run as independents, but Adams dropped out on Sept. 28 and endorsed Cuomo on Thursday.

Mamdani is favored to defeat Cuomo and Republican Curtis Sliwa, 71, a Guardian Angels founder and radio show host. President Donald Trump has pressured Sliwa to drop out to give a better chance for Cuomo over Mamdani, whom he has labeled as a Communist.

Jeffries told The New York Times said they have had “areas of principled disagreement,” including Israel’s war in Gaza, but agreed on other matters, such as the desire to retain New York Police Department Commissioner Jessica Tisch.

“Zohran Mamdani has relentlessly focused on addressing the affordability crisis and explicitly committed to being a mayor for all New Yorkers, including those who do not support his candidacy,” Jeffries wrote.

“In that spirit, I support him and the entire citywide Democratic ticket in the general election.”

Jeffries first met with Mamdani in July in Brooklyn before the primary. They met again in August.

Jeffries had said he was focused on the federal government shutdown rather than the New York City race.

“Stay tuned,” he told reporters this week in Washington. “I have not refused to endorse. I have refused to articulate my position, and I will momentarily, at some point, in advance of early voting.”

Jeffries has questioned how Mamdani would implement his policies and combat antisemitism and gentrification.

“We’ve got to figure out moving forward how we turn proposals into actual plans so that he is successful if he becomes the next mayor, because we need the city to be successful,” Jeffries told CNN last month.

Jeffries noted that his district, which includes historically Black communities, has “been subjected to gentrification and housing displacement.”

Mamdani has sharply criticized Israel and the war in Gaza, which Mamdani describes as genocide.

During Wednesday’s debate, he said: “I look forward to being a mayor for every single person that calls the city home. All 8.5 million New Yorkers, and that includes Jewish New Yorkers who may have concerns or opposition to the positions that I’ve shared about Israel and Palestine.”

Hundreds of rabbis had signed a letter criticizing him.

And powerful real estate and finance industries have donated millions of dollars to political action committees opposing his candidacy.

The U.S. Department of Justice will monitor polling sites in five California counties as voters decide on Proposition 50 on Nov. 4, it said Friday, after being asked to do so by state GOP officials.

Monitoring, which is routinely conducted by the Justice Department, will occur across Southern California and in the Central Valley, in Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside counties, the Justice Department said.

Proposition 50 — one of November’s most hotly-watched electoral issues, with national political implications — asks California voters whether the state should redraw its congressional districts to better favor Democrats. It is a response to President Trump’s pressure campaign on Texas and other red states to redraw their lines in favor of Republicans, and is considered a must-pass measure if Democrats hope to regain control of the House in next year’s midterms.

The Justice Department said its monitors would work to “ensure transparency, ballot security, and compliance with federal law,” including the Voting Rights Act, National Voter Registration Act, Help America Vote Act, Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, and the Civil Rights Act.

“Transparency at the polls translates into faith in the electoral process, and this Department of Justice is committed to upholding the highest standards of election integrity,” Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said. “We will commit the resources necessary to ensure the American people get the fair, free, and transparent elections they deserve.”

“Our democracy depends on free and fair elections,” said acting U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in the L.A. region, who will be helping to coordinate the monitoring effort. “We will work tirelessly to uphold and protect the integrity of the election process.”

The Justice Department also announced monitors will be stationed in Passaic County, N.J. That state is holding a consequential gubernatorial election.

While federal monitoring is routine, it has been viewed with heightened skepticism from both parties in recent years. When the Justice Department under President Biden announced monitoring in 86 jurisdictions across 27 states during last November’s presidential election, some Republican-led states balked and sought to block the effort.

Democrats have been highly skeptical of the Trump administration’s plans for monitoring elections, in part because of Trump’s relentless denial of past election losses — including his own to Biden in 2020 — and his appointment of fellow election deniers to high-ranking positions in his administration, including in the Justice Department.

Corrin Rankin, chair of the California Republican Party, had specifically asked the Justice Department to send monitors to the five counties in a letter to the Justice Department on Monday.

Rankin wrote that the party had “received reports of irregularities” in each of the counties during recent elections, which they feared could “undermine either the willingness of voters to participate in the election or their confidence in the announced results of the election” this November.

Rankin called Proposition 50 a “politically charged question,” and said it was “imperative to have robust voter participation and public confidence in the results regardless of the outcome.”

Matt Shupe, a spokesperson for the California GOP, declined to comment on the letter Friday.

California officials, including Secretary of State Shirley Weber and California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, have promised safe and fair elections and said their teams will also be out in the field enforcing California’s election laws in November.

“Our election laws provide the backbone for a free and fair election, and as California’s top law enforcement officer, I will do everything in my power to protect your right to vote,” Bonta recently said. “In the lead-up to the election and on Election Day, my office will be on call to provide assistance to the Secretary of State’s Office in enforcing California’s election laws, as needed, through a team of attorneys and administrative staff located across the state.”

Dean Logan, elections chief for Los Angeles County, said in a statement Friday that federal election monitors are welcome to view election activities and that the state has “clear laws and guidelines that support observation and prohibit election interference.”

“The presence of election observers is not unusual and is a standard practice across the country,” Logan said.

Logan didn’t directly address the California GOP’s specific statements about Los Angeles County, but said that the county regularly updates and verifies voter records in coordination with state and federal agencies and protects the integrity of the election process.

“Voters can have confidence their ballot is handled securely and counted accurately,” he said.

This article will be updated.

Oct. 24 (UPI) — Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that diplomats will help American military officers monitor the cease-fire in Israel and Gaza.

Rubio is visiting Israel as part of a series of visits by American officials that have been in Israel this week.

While touring the new Civil-Military Coordination Center in Kiryat Gat Friday, Rubio made the comments.

“There’s going to be ups and downs and twists and turns, but I think we have a lot of reason for healthy optimism about the progress that’s being made,” The New York Times reported that Rubio said.

Steven Fagin, ambassador to Yemen, will lead the effort at the center, the State Department said.

A reporter asked on Friday if Israel would need to apply for permission from the United States to resume fighting. “I wouldn’t phrase it that way,” Rubio responded, The Washington Post reported. “The bottom line is that there’s no nation on Earth that’s contributed more to help Israel and its security.”

Israelis have been increasingly alarmed at the United States’ presence in the cease-fire, wondering how much control America will have over Israel.

The United States is also committed to Israel’s long-term security, including ensuring that Hamas is demilitarized, Rubio said.

There is “no plan B,” he said. “It’s not just the United States. … Over two dozen countries signed onto this, including regional Arab countries … that there would be a demilitarized Gaza and that there would not be a Hamas with the capability to threaten Israel.”

On Thursday, a far-right faction in the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, voted to annex the West Bank, drawing rebuke from President Donald Trump, Rubio and Vice President JD Vance.

Trump, in an interview with Time Magazine, said that he would not allow it.

“We don’t think it’s going to happen,” Trump said. “Because I gave my word to the Arab countries. Israel would lose all of its support from the United States if that happened.”

Earlier this week, Vance arrived in Israel with Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and investor Jared Kushner. They opened the CMCC in Israel, and Vance said the peace plan is “durable.”

Rubio said he plans to join Trump in Qatar to fly to Asia this weekend to attend leadership summits in Malaysia and South Korea, the Post reported. He said he also plans to visit Japan.