politics

President Donald Trump is making himself the centre of the Republican Party’s campaign for the 2026 midterm elections, but growing concerns within his own party are raising questions about whether a Trump focused strategy can attract the independent voters Republicans need to retain control of Congress.

At the Republican Party’s first ever midterm convention in Dallas this week, Trump urged voters to “pretend that I’m on the ballot” as he sought to recreate the enthusiasm and turnout that helped him win the presidency in 2016 and 2024.

The strategy is designed to energise Trump’s loyal supporters, but it comes with significant risks. Trump’s approval ratings have fallen sharply among independents, while inflation and the war with Iran have created vulnerabilities for Republicans seeking to defend their congressional majorities.

Trump Puts Himself at the Centre

Trump’s message at the convention was straightforward: the midterms should be treated as a referendum on his presidency.

Rather than allowing individual Republican candidates to campaign primarily on local issues, the party is seeking to nationalise the election around Trump’s agenda and political brand.

The approach reflects Trump’s continued dominance within the Republican Party. His most committed supporters remain highly loyal, and party activists believe his presence can motivate voters who might otherwise stay home during a midterm election.

But the strategy also exposes Republicans to Trump’s weaknesses.

A president who is popular among Republican voters but significantly less popular with independents could become an obstacle for candidates fighting in competitive districts and states.

The Independent Voter Problem

The divide between Republican voters and independents is particularly important.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in late August found Trump’s overall approval rating at 33%, the lowest level of his presidency. His approval among Republicans stood at 82%, while among independents it had fallen to 22%.

That creates a difficult electoral calculation.

Republicans need Trump’s supporters to turn out, but they also need to persuade voters who are not firmly aligned with either party.

Five of the 15 Republicans interviewed at the convention expressed doubts about whether Trump was the party’s strongest messenger for reaching independents.

Even those who supported putting Trump at the centre of the campaign acknowledged that the strategy carried risks.

The Economy Could Be Trump’s Biggest Vulnerability

The convention also highlighted a gap between Trump’s political messaging and voters’ economic concerns.

The high cost of living remains one of the most important issues facing American voters, but Trump devoted relatively little attention in his convention speeches to addressing those concerns.

He instead claimed that food prices were rapidly declining, despite government data indicating otherwise.

Trump also promised a $5,000 “Trump dividend” for every American adult if Republicans retain control of Congress, without explaining how the payments would be financed.

The economic issue presents a particular challenge because Republicans cannot rely solely on Trump’s popularity with their base if voters are dissatisfied with their personal financial circumstances.

Republicans Still See Trump as Their Best Option

Despite the concerns, most Republicans at the convention supported the strategy.

Ten of the 15 Republicans interviewed said putting Trump front and centre was the party’s best approach. They argued that his ability to energise Republican voters outweighed the risks created by his lower support among the broader electorate.

For many Republicans, the alternative may appear even less attractive.

Trump remains the party’s most powerful political figure, and his supporters are among the most engaged parts of the Republican electorate.

The question is whether that enthusiasm can be converted into the broader coalition required to win competitive races.

Democrats Welcome the Strategy

Democrats have little incentive to discourage Republicans from making the election a referendum on Trump.

The Democratic Party can use the president’s economic record, approval ratings and handling of foreign policy to argue that voters should reject Republican candidates as a way of rejecting Trump’s agenda.

Republicans are attempting to counter that strategy by portraying Democrats as increasingly radical and warning that a Democratic victory would threaten American values and way of life.

For Republican activists, the argument is that concerns about the Democratic Party could ultimately outweigh dissatisfaction with Trump.

But that calculation may be more difficult in closely contested districts where voters are less ideologically committed.

Vulnerable Republicans Keep Their Distance

The tension between Trump’s national strategy and individual candidates’ electoral needs was visible at the convention itself.

Some of the Republican Party’s most vulnerable candidates did not attend the Dallas gathering, instead remaining focused on their own districts.

For candidates representing competitive areas, distancing themselves from the national political environment could allow them to emphasise local concerns and avoid becoming entirely associated with Trump’s approval ratings.

That creates a potential contradiction within the Republican campaign.

The party leadership wants Trump at the centre of the election, while some candidates may have more to gain by keeping their own campaigns focused on local voters.

What Comes Next?

Trump is likely to remain heavily involved in the Republican campaign as the midterms approach.

His political organisation can provide candidates with fundraising, publicity and access to a highly motivated voter base.

But Republican candidates will have to decide how closely they want to associate themselves with him, particularly in competitive districts.

The party’s success may ultimately depend on whether it can combine Trump’s ability to mobilise his core supporters with messages that address the economic concerns of independent and moderate voters.

Implications and Analysis

The Republican Party’s dilemma is fundamentally about the difference between mobilising voters and persuading voters.

Trump is highly effective at the first. His political brand can generate enthusiasm among Republicans and give supporters a reason to participate in an election in which he himself is not on the ballot.

The harder question is whether he can do the second.

Midterm elections are not presidential elections, and congressional candidates often need to build broader coalitions than those required to win a party’s presidential nomination. If Republican candidates make the election entirely about Trump, they may benefit from stronger turnout among his supporters but also inherit his weaknesses among independents.

The Dallas convention therefore represents a calculated gamble.

Republicans appear to believe that Trump’s ability to energise their base is more valuable than the potential cost of alienating voters outside it. Democrats, meanwhile, are likely to welcome any strategy that allows them to make the election a referendum on a president whose approval among independents has fallen sharply.

The Republican Party’s challenge will be to ensure that Trump remains an electoral asset rather than becoming the only issue voters are asked to consider.

If his political machinery succeeds in bringing disengaged Republicans back to the polls, the strategy could strengthen the party’s position.

But if economic dissatisfaction and concerns about Trump’s broader record dominate among independents, putting him at the centre of the campaign could give Democrats exactly what they want: a national election in which every Republican candidate is forced to defend a president who is not actually on the ballot.

With information from Reuters.

SACRAMENTO — SEIU United Healthcare Workers West President Dave Regan allegedly tried to “extort” an SEIU state council endorsement of the billionaire tax ballot measure from other California union leaders, according to an investigation commissioned by Service Employees International Union.

The investigation and a second inquiry conducted on behalf of SEIU California found that Regan allegedly threatened and intimidated women who worked for the state council, and in one instance, physically assaulted a former executive director of the labor organization.

Regan, in an interview with The Times, denied the allegations that he attempted to extort from union officials. He also denied assaulting the executive director and said he did not threaten female labor leaders. He repeated a counterclaim he made to the union: The allegations against him are retaliation for his advocacy for Proposition 40, the proposed wealth tax that will be on the Nov. 3 ballot.

“They are internally contradictory, they are fundamentally biased, and maybe most importantly, they are politically motivated,” Regan said about the probes.

The law firm hired by the national union investigated Regan’s claim of retaliation but found the allegation could not be substantiated.

David Huerta, the president of SEIU United Service Workers West, and three other labor leaders filed a rare formal union charge against Regan in February.

The national union of SEIU has ultimate authority to resolve charges filed under its constitution and hired the New York labor law firm Cohen, Weiss and Simon to independently investigate the claims. The firm interviewed 18 current and former SEIU leaders and others in the California labor movement over nearly three months, according to its report.

The law firm’s report, reviewed by The Times, supported Huerta’s claim that on Dec. 3 Regan suggested the state council could be investigated for “governance issues” if the council did not endorse the billionaire tax on the November ballot. Huerta was then president of SEIU California.

“During the investigation, Huerta reported that he left the conversation with Regan feeling ‘extorted’ and believing that Regan might report unspecified governance concerns to the U.S. Department of Labor, which is known to be unfriendly to labor unions under the Trump administration, if state council did not support the billionaire tax,” the report said.

The law firm’s investigation substantiated an allegation that on the same day, Regan threatened Tia Orr, executive director of SEIU California, over the council’s position on the ballot measure. The SEIU probe found an allegation that Regan also assaulted one of Orr’s predecessors in the job, Courtni Pugh, in 2009, to be credible.

“SEIU California leaders filed charges against Dave Regan alleging a pattern of bullying, threats, abuse, harassment, physical violence and attempted extortion,” Christopher Calhoun, a spokesperson for SEIU California, said in a statement. “Initial investigations pertaining to these charges substantiated most of SEIU California leaders’ allegations.”

State union officials have temporarily banned Regan from the offices of SEIU California, a council of union leaders that coordinates political operations for all SEIU-affliated unions in the state, to protect female employees, according to the state council’s report.

Democratic National Committee delegate Courtni Pugh speaks at the California Democratic Party breakfast in Chicago on Aug. 20, 2024.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

“Sufficient evidence was also found to substantiate that Regan has engaged in a pattern of subjecting former and current SEIU California female directors to intimidating and threatening physical behavior and verbal abuse,” the report commissioned by the state council said.

Leaders and workers within the labor movement describe Regan’s alleged behavior as an open secret at SEIU, which represents more than 2 million members nationwide and is the largest union in California.

The law firm hired by SEIU submitted its investigation report on July 28. Regan remains in his job as an administrative process moves forward with hearings. Regan will get a chance to make his case before SEIU determines any appropriate disciplinary action.

SEIU President April Verrett has the power to temporarily suspend Regan as the process plays out.

“SEIU is deeply committed to the safety and well-being of all people, including our members, staff, and the public, and takes these matters seriously,” said Dan O’Sullivan, a spokesperson for SEIU. “As soon as these concerns were raised, we initiated a deliberate and thorough process and retained independent, outside investigators to look into these allegations. Our process is active and ongoing, and the next steps include appointing a hearing officer and holding an evidentiary hearing through which all parties will be afforded due process.”

At a California Federation of Labor event on Dec. 3, Regan told Orr that “state council better endorse this measure by Jan. 1 or I’m coming for you,” she told investigators in both probes.

Regan rode to the airport with Orr and sat next to her on the plane “as part of a continued effort to intimidate her into providing state council’s support for the billionaire tax,” Orr told the investigators. As they left, Regan tapped his watch to suggest her time was running out, the report stated.

Regan told investigators that he learned last year that Orr was working behind the scenes to undermine his billionaire tax proposal. If approved by voters, the measure will retroactively apply a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of billionaires who were residing in California as of Jan. 1, 2026.

Regan denied that he threatened Orr, calling the claims “completely fabricated.”

“And again, the source of that is somebody who is not in favor of Proposition 40, and somebody who has not been leading the state council with practices of good governance,” Regan said in an interview.

Regan also denied intimidating Orr to investigators hired by the national union, but offered a different perspective on the SEIU California executive director. He said he traveled with Orr as a friend that day, had previously supported her professionally and offered her a job, according to the report.

The law firm said Orr believed that Regan was a “bully” who mistreated women of color and made it difficult for them to do their jobs at SEIU and had even “fought someone” when he didn’t “get his way.” Regan denied those allegations, including that he mistreated women of color.

“Orr therefore took Regan’s statement that he was ‘coming for’ her as a threat to her job security and her physical safety. She contemporaneously shared this fear with a colleague. Moreover, her response to Regan’s statement is reasonable because three interviewees — both current and former employees of state council — corroborated that Regan has verbally berated and at times physically intimidated or assaulted former state council executive directors,” the report stated.

The investigation commissioned by the national union concluded that UHW then launched a “fishing expedition” into the state council’s finances under Orr’s leadership, but did not substantiate a claim that Regan defamed her to allies of the labor movement.

The SEIU investigators also wrote that the claim that Regan assaulted Pugh was substantiated.

Pugh told investigators that Regan kicked open her office door and “jacked” her against the wall, according to the investigative report. While she was “pinned,” Regan pressed his finger into her chest and screamed that she was a “dumb ass,” the report said.

When he left her office, Pugh fell to the ground and began to hyperventilate, according to the report. Two colleagues found her, helped her breathe into a paper bag and walked her home, the report said.

Regan denied the allegation.

“It is a complete fabrication and a fiction made by somebody who has all of the incentive possible to critique or trash or criticize UHW generally, and me specifically, and no, there was no mention of it for 17 years,” he said.

The report also concluded that Regan recently threatened to sue SEIU Local 221 President Crystal Irving in an attempt to silence her from warning others about the alleged assault against Pugh.

Regan said the national union’s investigation was “fundamentally flawed” because it stated that Pugh “had nothing to gain from sharing her story” with Irving. Pugh, now a political consultant, has worked against the billionaire tax ballot measure, something Regan said gave her a reason to lie about him.

Pugh called Regan’s response “offensive to the women” who she said objected to his behavior. She said she detailed the alleged incident at the time to board members who oversaw her work and SEIU leadership. The encounter, she said, was well-known.

“I told my colleagues and organization leaders when it occurred,” Pugh said in a statement. “I was asked to participate in the later investigation because so many people had heard about the 2009 incident over the years. I chose to participate in the investigation because I saw that his behavior had continued and in hopes that no one else would have to endure this kind of treatment from him.”

Regan, in his interview with The Times, also denied the allegation that he attempted to force the state council to support the billionaire tax.

David Huerta, president of SEIU-USWW, speaks during a Memorial Day action in Los Angeles on May 21.

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

“Huerta then asked Regan if it was his intention to initiate an investigation,” according to the report. “Regan replied, ‘I don’t have to; there are others who would.’ In that conversation, Regan demanded a full endorsement of the billionaire’s tax initiative measure by the state council by Jan. 1.”

Regan told investigators he raised governance issues with Huerta and could not remember if he demanded the council’s support for the billionaire tax during the conversation, though he said he had been seeking the endorsement for months, according to the national union’s report.

“The investigation found that Regan likely suggested he would cause the DOL to investigate state council,” the report said. “According to Regan, he did discuss with Huerta that an investigation was possible.”

The executive board of SEIU California later voted in July to remain neutral on Proposition 40, marking a blow to Regan’s efforts to overcome an onslaught of opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom, billionaires and liberal groups concerned that the measure could backfire and reduce state tax revenue collected from the ultra wealthy.

Regan filed a counterclaim with SEIU in April, alleging that the state council initiated the complaint and launched its own investigation into him as a retaliatory “character assassination” for his advocacy for the billionaire tax, something the SEIU report said was not substantiated.

The investigative report submitted to the national union raised questions about Regan’s tactics to earn support for his causes.

Investigators said their probe “revealed that Regan has been associated with similar extreme efforts to secure political endorsements in the recent past.”

The firm reported that it reviewed text and email messages in which a representative for Regan offered to drop part of his counterclaim “in exchange for the state council’s endorsement of Tom Steyer for governor.”

“In an email response to that offer, a State Council representative stated they have ‘no interest in a behind-the-scenes trade involving dropping internal charges of misconduct in exchange for the making of a political endorsement.’”

The person working with Regan who sent the offer denied to the law firm that the conversation constituted extortion.

“This denial is not credible,” the firm wrote in the report. “The Regan Offeror stated that they were ‘extremely careful’ with their language when conveying Regan’s offer, as they were aware that what they said could be misconstrued as extortion. That the Regan Offeror took such care suggests that the offer was likely extortion.”

Regan also denied the claim, which he called a “complete fabrication.”

A second investigation by the Los Angeles law firm Barboza & Associates, which was hired by SEIU California, found sufficient evidence to substantiate a complaint that Regan bullied Jessica Bartholow, the council’s government relations director.

Bartholow reported to her superiors at SEIU California that Regan stood uncomfortably close and hovered over her at the bar at a fundraiser for the state Senate leader in San Diego in March as tensions flared over the billionaire tax. He then screamed an expletive at her in front of a crowd of lawmakers and lobbyists when she walked away from him, according to the state council’s report.

“Bartholow was scared and her heart was pounding,” investigators wrote in the report for the state council that was reviewed by The Times. “Bartholow had heard that Regan could be violent, and she did not know what he was going to do.”

Regan told investigators and The Times that he swore at Bartholow but denied that he physically intimidated her. Regan said he was upset with her over an allegation that she previously threw “four staff members of UHW out of the state council office.” The report commissioned by the state council discredited his claim and said “Bartholow did not throw UHW staff out of the SEIU California office or treat them rudely or disrespectfully.”

Lawyers hired by the state council said Regan intimidated another woman within the union during their investigation.

The state council investigation included an allegation that Regan physically and verbally intimidated Susan Li, an assistant director of external organizing for SEIU Local 721, on April 30 after a meeting with the Assembly Speaker’s Office and the California Primary Care Assn. Regan was allegedly upset with David Green, president of SEIU Local 721 who had just left for the airport, and began randomly screaming at Li, according to the investigative report on the probe commissioned by the state council.

Regan described the encounter as a conversation and said he did not scream at Li.

The state report said Regan “attacks female staff members instead of taking his concerns to the individuals who had the authority to make decisions.”

“Time and again, Regan unleashed his hostility toward the women who worked for SEIU California, and one from Local 721, in a physically intimidating and verbally abusive manner,” the report concludes.

Regan vigorously denied this assertion.

The state council report said Regan often berated Pugh when she worked at SEIU.

“Every week it was, ‘What the f— were you doing in this meeting? Why did you say that? You dumb ass bitch,’” the SEIU state report said. “Every time Regan called Pugh, she put him on speaker phone so everyone could hear him call her a f—up and tell her to f— off. Not one person said anything.”

Pugh told investigators hired by the national union that Regan continued to belittle her in meetings until she eventually resigned from the state council. She said she believed he formed a coalition to force her out of her job and that she would have been fired if she had not stepped down.

Terry Brennand, director of pensions, revenue and budget at SEIU California, told investigators that he and Mary Gutierrez, now deceased, heard Pugh sobbing in her office after Regan allegedly assaulted her.

“Brennand believed Pugh was in shock and traumatized,” the state SEIU report stated. “Pugh seemed frozen, terrified and not quite clear-headed. It was not the usual Pugh, who was direct, thoughtful and expressive. She was shaking and clearly traumatized.”

Three current and former SEIU California executive directors, all women of color, told Brennand that Regan had bullied them, the report said.

“That’s his forte,” Brennand said to investigators. “That’s his wheelhouse.”

Regan denied that he has a problem with women, or women of color.

“It is 100% false,” he said.

Lorena Gonzalez, president of California Labor Federation, said Regan’s union is overwhelmingly composed of women and women of color, who just reelected him to a position he’s held for 16 years.

“Ultimately they have the ability to make this determination of whether he’s an appropriate leader, which they just made again,” she said. “I think what’s most important is that we have to keep our eyes on the fact that Medi-Cal is being cut and we have no solution but the billionaire’s tax to fill that cut.”

Times staff writer Kevin Rector contributed to this report.

Sept. 11, 2026 5:29 PM PT

WASHINGTON — An Afghan woman who was accused of supporting an Islamic State-inspired plot in the United States and whose case was the first for an obscure and long-dormant court has been deported, the Justice Department said Friday.

Nazira Haji Zada, 47, was arrested in July at her Fort Worth home and brought before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court on a Justice Department application to deport her from the U.S. On Friday, the department said that she had waived her rights to challenge her detention and had agreed to be deported to Afghanistan.

Haji Zada’s attorneys said her decision to consent to removal “should not be seen as an endorsement of this court’s legitimacy.”

“Dragging lawful permanent residents into court but refusing to show them or their attorneys the evidence that will be used against them is a plain violation of due process,” the defense lawyers said in a statement Friday. “We are confident that the Alien Terrorist Removal Court will be struck down as unconstitutional as soon as a judge is asked to address the issue.”

Court filings about Haji Zada’s deportation, including a judge’s Aug. 20 removal order, remained under seal until after she reached her destination.

The swift resolution averts what could have been a protracted legal fight testing the authority of the court, which was established in 1996 but until July had not received any petitions, as well as the strength of allegations against Haji Zada.

Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said the case’s outcome is “a win for national security and the rule of law.”

“Those who support and condone terrorism should not be living in the United States, and this first-ever case before the [court] shows how the Department will use every tool at its disposal to protect our country,” Blanche said in a statement.

The Justice Department has described Haji Zada as a supporter of the Islamic State and identified her at the time as the mother and mother-in-law of two Afghan men who were convicted in Oklahoma of plotting an attack in the U.S. on election day in 2024. The plans were foiled before any attack took place.

Her lawyers at the time of the deportation had been pressing the court to force the Justice Department to share information and other evidence to support the allegations in the case.

The court has specific authority to conduct deportation proceedings for people whom the Justice Department classifies as “alien terrorists.” The court is composed of five federal judges from different districts across the country who are appointed by the U.S. chief justice.

“Those who plot acts of terrorism against the United States have no place in our country,” Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said in a statement. “We will find them, and we will use every lawful tool available to remove them.”

On July 30, Judge Joan Ericksen presided over the first hearing for the court’s first case since its creation 30 years ago.

One of Haji Zada’s attorneys argued at the hearing that the Trump administration’s activation of the court violates her constitutional rights. Attorney Matthew Farley urged the judge to dismiss the case and immediately release his client.

An FBI memo dated July 15 said it “developed information” that Haji Zada is an Islamic State supporter who had her children pledge their loyalty to the terrorist group. Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, was sentenced in November to 15 years in prison and court records show he previously agreed to be removed from the U.S. after his release.

Her son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, previously worked as a security guard for an American military installation in Afghanistan. He pleaded guilty to conspiring and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State group. Prosecutors have said he took steps to advance his attack plans by ordering AK-47 rifles, liquidating his family’s assets and buying one-way tickets for his wife and child to travel home to Afghanistan.

Tucker and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Labor leader Dave Regan claimedFriday that he was the victim of a “smear” campaign orchestrated in part by wealthy Californians and said he has been falsely accused of attempting to “extort” an endorsement of the billionaire tax ballot measure and of physically assaulting a female union leader.

Investigations commissioned by the Service Employees International Union and SEIU California, and conducted by outside law firms, determined the allegations against Regan were credible, along with reports that he threatened and intimidated other female labor leaders. Regan, who is president of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, vehemently denied the allegations, which were first reported by The Times Friday morning.

During a video news conference hours after the allegations were published, Regan claimed the probes were launched by opponents of Proposition 40 — the billionaire tax measure he helped place on the Nov. 3 ballot — as well as members of the SEIU California labor council with whom he had clashed in the past.

Regan, joined by other SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West union leaders and members, also criticized Gov. Gavin Newsom for opposing the proposed one-time 5% tax on billionaires’ assets.

Newsom is “trying to curry favor with the richest people in the state to fund [his] presidential campaign,” Regan said. “That is shameful behavior.”

Newsom and other opponents of the measure, including Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and the California Teachers Assn., have expressed concern that Proposition 40 could push many of the state’s biggest taxpayers to relocate and destabilize state finances.

“The Governor supports a national tax on billionaires and is proud to stand with teachers, firefighters, reproductive health clinics, and others in opposing this poorly written state measure that will harm California,” said Newsom’s spokesperson Izzy Gardon.

Regan also criticized The Times’ reporting on the allegations, and an editorial opposing Proposition 40. He alleged that Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the Times’ owner, influenced coverage about the measure because he is a billionaire.

“We stand by our reporting,” said a Times spokesperson.

David Huerta, president of SEIU-United Service Workers West, and three other labor leaders filed a rare formal union charge against Regan in February. The SEIU investigation report, which was reviewed by The Times, supported Huerta’s claim that in December, Regan suggested the state council could be investigated for “governance issues” if the council did not endorse the proposed billionaire tax. Huerta was then president of SEIU California, which along with their national arm, did not endorse Proposition 40.

In July, the executive board for SEIU California voted to take a neutral position on the proposed wealth tax.

The investigation and a second inquiry conducted on behalf of SEIU California substantiated allegations that Regan threatened and intimidated women who worked for the state council. The investigation also determined an allegation that Regan physically assaulted a former executive director of the state labor organization, Courtni Pugh, in 2009, was credible.

Regan called the allegation that he assaulted Pugh a “complete fabrication.” Regan and other SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West members downplayed Pugh’s allegations against him because of her political consulting firm’s role opposing Proposition 40.

Pugh called his remarks “offensive” to the women who participated in the independent investigation.

“My testimony and the testimony of the other women were substantiated by investigators,” she said. “His claims were not.”

Regan remains in his job as the SEIU administrative process moves forward with hearings. Regan will get a chance to make his case before SEIU determines any appropriate disciplinary action.

Times Staff Writer Phil Willon contributed to this report.

Sept. 11, 2026 11:58 AM PT

WASHINGTON — President Trump observed Friday’s 25th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks at a ceremony at the Pentagon by commemorating the lives lost when Al Qaeda militants hijacked planes and killed nearly 3,000 people in three locations and upended American foreign policy and national security.

Trump and First Lady Melania Trump listened as the names of the 184 people killed at the Pentagon that day were read aloud, a bell tolling between each. In his remarks, Trump recounted the stories of several of the victims and insisted that the moment has led to a fortification of American resolve.

“We will never, ever forget,” Trump said. “That’s why we fight today. We don’t have a choice.”

Earlier, in a downpour at daybreak, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and top military officials stood outside and watched as a giant American flag was unfurled on the building struck by one of those planes a quarter-century ago.

It was the second year in a row that Trump observed the day at the Pentagon. The president, who is originally from New York, last attended the ground zero ceremony there in 2024.

Vice President JD Vance attended the New York observance alongside former presidents, while other administration officials took part in the ceremony in Shanksville, Pa. Vance had planned to be in New York for the anniversary last year but instead flew to Salt Lake City to be with the family of Charlie Kirk after the conservative activist was fatally shot.

Widow calls on Trump to reconsider relations with Saudis

At one point during the solemn remembrance in New York City, a woman whose husband died in the attacks criticized Saudi Arabia and called on the Trump administration to rethink the United States’ tight relationship with the kingdom.

Terry Strada, who lost her husband Tom Strada on 9/11, called on Trump to “tell the Saudis to stop lying” and accused U.S. presidents of choosing “to protect the Saudis instead of standing with the 9/11 families.”

Strada, who was one of the 9/11 family members who read aloud the names of victims at this year’s remembrance, added that the current administration should “stand with the families, stand with the survivors.”

“It has been one betrayal after another. President Trump can still change that,” she said before calling on Vance to “carry that message back” to Washington.

Strada is part of a group of family members of 9/11 victims embroiled in a long-running lawsuit against the Saudis. They allege a group of extremist religious leaders in Saudi Arabia gained influence in the Saudi government and aided the hijackers. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, but the Saudi government has long denied any involvement in the attacks.

Trump and Hegseth try to bridge 9/11 and Iran war

Trump began his remarks by recalling the sense of American unity following the attacks. “In those harrowing days after the attacks, we saw the authentic spirit of our nation,” Trump said. “We were all New Yorkers that day. Every one of us. We were all New Yorkers. We were all family.”

The president and his Defense secretary sought to connect the events of 9/11 to the war with Iran. Trump saluted the service members “working right now to ensure the world’s No. 1 sponsor of terror — the Islamic Republic of Iran — will never, ever have a nuclear weapon.”

Hegseth used the moment to make the case that the U.S. military had “laid waste to the world’s most prolific state sponsor of terrorism” with the war against Iran.

“Our warriors have fought an Islamic theocracy that has wished us death for nearly half a century, that cheered on 9/11, a regime that has sponsored terrorist attacks against Americans for decades, killing thousands, including our comrades in Iraq, in Afghanistan,” Hegseth added.

Officials wonder if 9/11 could have been thwarted

At Friday’s commemorations, there was also a measure of reflection about whether 9/11, the deadliest attack on the U.S., could have been prevented.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin at a ceremony at his agency’s headquarters said it was a moment to consider the success of his department, which was established following the attacks and has “prevented it from happening again.”

Still, Mullin noted that Osama bin Laden, architect of the attacks, had fired “warning shots” in the years prior to 9/11 about his intent to carry out a major strike on the U.S. The U.S. national security apparatus certainly had “failures along the way,” Mullin said.

Condoleezza Rice, who was serving as White House national security advisor on 9/11, participated in Friday’s commemoration at the Pentagon. In her remarks, she acknowledged that she still feels deep pain that “those of us in authority on that day did not see the nature of the danger in time to prevent the attack of 9/11.”

“I will always carry deep personal remorse for the pain that you, the families of the fallen, still feel, and for the trauma that our country endured,” Rice said.

Binkley, Madhani and Kinnard write for the Associated Press. AP writers Anthony Izaguirre and Sagar Meghani contributed to this report.

Several dozen presidential briefing documents declassified Friday, the 25th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, detail intelligence government officials had gathered about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda leading up to the hijackings that killed nearly 3,000 people and upended American national security.

The documents illustrate security analysts’ tracking of Bin Laden’s movements and support system, as well as concerns about possible threats to U.S. targets.

Proclaiming “an act of exceptional transparency,” CIA Director John Ratcliffe said the documents were the agency’s single largest release of declassified presidential daily briefs — the highly classified briefing prepared by the nation’s intelligence community for the government’s most senior leaders.

The documents range from a February 1998 file — prepared for then-President Clinton — titled “Terrorists seeking WMD capability” and mentioning “bin Ladin and other Islamic extremists” to a Sept. 12, 2001, report in which a source indicated the attacks had been planned for two years and had also targeted the U.S. Capitol.

Another, from just weeks before the attacks, details how Al Qaeda’s “flexible operational decision making and broad definition of acceptable targets enable the group to adjust plans to changing conditions.”

Asked for comment on the release, the White House noted the release of another batch of documents by the National Archives, also Friday. That batch, including interviews with national security officials in the Clinton and Bush administrations, was a product of the commission that probed the attacks from 2002 to 2004.

Kinnard writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Department of Homeland Security drew backlash over an AI-generated social media post featuring a Sikh man facing off against a character made to look like Optimus Prime from the movie “Transformers.” The agency later deleted the image.

Posted Wednesday to the official X account for DHS, the image created by artificial intelligence depicted the “Transformers” character opposite a bearded man wearing a bandanna over his hair. The image, made to look like a movie poster, stated, “America for Americans.”

“Get off our roads, you don’t know how to drive Mr. Singh,” it continued.

The post was denounced as “racist propaganda” and “completely unacceptable.”

Other X posts by DHS that reference Transformers remain online.

Sikh Americans and elected officials condemned the image and accused the Trump administration of using racist imagery to stigmatize Sikhs while promoting its deportation campaign.

Hasbro, which owns the franchise, issued a statement saying the posts by DHS were made “without permission and do not represent the Transformers brand or Hasbro.”

Singh, which translates to “lion,” is the most common last name for Sikh men.

DHS said the post depicted Harjinder Singh, an Indian truck driver accused of causing a fatal crash last year that left three people dead after his 18-wheeler collided with their minivan in Florida. He has pleaded not guilty to vehicular homicide charges.

In photos released by DHS, Harjinder Singh wears similar clothes as the man in the now-deleted AI image.

In an emailed statement, a Homeland Security spokesperson, who did not identify themself, called criticism of the post “nonsensical drivel.” The spokesperson did not respond to a question asking why it had removed the post.

“Harjinder Singh is an illegal alien from India who should never have been in our country,” the statement said, adding that he had been granted a commercial driver’s license by California.

In its campaign against immigrant commercial drivers, the Trump administration has repeatedly pointed out Sikh and Indian truckers, who make up about 20% of that industry’s workforce.

The department recently cited California as a problem state that allows drivers who don’t speak sufficient English to obtain licenses. It also started a tip line asking members of the public to report truck drivers they suspect of being undocumented.

The press office of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, which shared the deleted image in its own X post, called the post “disgusting” and “racist propaganda.”

Noting that the Central Valley is home to a large Sikh community, Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) called the post “completely unacceptable” and said he’s glad it was removed.

“No American should be targeted because of their faith or their name,” Valadao wrote on X.

The Sikh Coalition noted that the DHS post comes as the country mourns the 25th anniversary of 9/11, after which Sikhs were targeted for hate crimes.

“We remain fearless in identifying as Sikhs — even when our government portrays us as enemies,” the coalition wrote on X.

WASHINGTON — President Trump is brushing aside growing concern among leading scientists and bipartisan lawmakers that artificial intelligence could soon pose an existential threat to humanity, fueling anxiety in Washington and Silicon Valley that the president may not fully grasp the urgency of the threat.

Alarm mounted throughout the summer as researchers at leading AI labs, including Anthropic, OpenAI and Google, found the pace of development far outstripping their expectations — and observed troubling behaviors that hinted at more serious risks ahead.

But an online warning Tuesday from an Anthropic researcher who resigned in protest of its ongoing work has generated viral attention this week, prompting questions to Trump, who dismissed the concerns out of hand.

“It’s going to be fine,” he told one reporter. “We’ll always have something to stop them. We’ll have a little gear. Boom.”

In another exchange, traveling with reporters Thursday night, the president said he had no concerns with the breakneck pace of AI progress.

“No, I don’t have any,” he said. “I have concerns that if we don’t win in AI, we’re going to be put in a very bad position.”

A senior industry source told The Times that leading AI companies are focused less on convincing the president of the dangers ahead than on working with lawmakers on potential regulation, as the administration remains divided over how to proceed — and as Trump appears to lack a clear understanding of the risks.

Among the president’s advisors, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and the Office of the National Cyber Director have expressed the greatest concern with the potential of an unchecked intelligence explosion, the source said.

But “most of the administration is accelerationist,” the source added. “It’s not clear the president understands the technology. He may just be figuring out what all of this means.”

Leading American AI companies have argued that government regulation would tie their hands in an arms race toward superintelligence against China, the only other major player in the field.

But the Trump administration signaled an interest in negotiating AI guardrails with China during the president’s visit to Beijing this spring, after Anthropic announced the development of a frontier model with extraordinary abilities to hack the world’s most advanced security systems.

Chinese President Xi Jinping will visit Washington on Sept. 24 for an official summit and state dinner at the White House, with AI development expected to top the agenda.

The prospect of halting development seems far-fetched. But some leading voices in the sector have proposed a moratorium on computing power used to train the most advanced models, giving time and space to develop research on interpretability — the study of how artificial intelligence actually thinks and acts.

The chief executive of OpenAI, Sam Altman, this week signaled to staff a willingness to unilaterally slow their work on frontier systems. The company discovered in July that rogue AI agents had schemed in secret to break out of the virtual sandbox created to contain them, infiltrating the open internet and hacking a private company.

Anthropic also announced this week concerning findings of human misuse of its models, including instances of unidentified individuals attempting to circumvent their security controls to build biological weapons. One such incident was linked back to a military research complex. The company also said Iran has tried to use its models to target U.S. Navy ships.

In June, after Anthropic shared news of the development of its most powerful model, named Mythos, with the administration, Trump directed the establishment of a framework that creates some government oversight over the public release of the country’s most advanced AI systems. The details of that framework, which was designed over the summer, remain classified.

“The fact is that the release of Mythos back in February spooked the federal government, both in terms of protecting government systems from cyberattacks and over the broader national security implications,” said Aalok Mehta, director of the Wadhwani AI Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“The real question is whether this shift is happening fast enough,” Mehta added. “Recent events — the repeated incidents of models escaping their sandboxes and hacking websites, the increasingly sophisticated coordination and communication among agents, and the concerns coming from lab insiders — has made this an even more urgent issue.”

Leading AI companies have begun using their most advanced models to train new ones — a process known as recursive self-improvement that could eventually drive intelligence growth beyond human control.

“If you have a superadvanced intelligence, it will be smart enough to kill us,” said Jacob Coxon, the resigned Anthropic researcher whose social media post attracted over 150 million views.

“We can’t just unplug it because it could be copying itself over to other computers,” he told CBS News. “AI is just code. It could transfer itself over the internet to a different place, and then you unplug it here, but it’s actually still over there. And maybe it makes 10,000 copies of itself and they’re all cooperating.”

He is just the latest senior researcher at a top AI company to sound the alarm.

In July, more than 1,300 employees at leading artificial intelligence companies published an open letter, titled “Pacing the Frontier,” urging the U.S. government to establish international safeguards that would allow countries to collectively slow the pace of automated AI research.

Evan Hubinger, who leads the division of Anthropic aimed at aligning AI models to human interests, added fuel to concerns this week in a post that substantiated Coxon’s concerns.

“We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade,” Hubinger wrote.

“I believe Anthropic is trying its best,” he added, “but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence, and are not clearly on track to.”

On Friday, yet another member of the Anthropic alignment team, Joe Benton, said he had resigned from the company two weeks ago because AI companies are “racing to build machines that are much smarter than any human.”

“Right now, AI companies are underinvesting in safety. A company could undergo an intelligence explosion, or lose control of its systems, without the public ever knowing,” Benton said. “I don’t think that’s acceptable for a technology that might cause extinction-level risks.”

Bipartisan legislation, titled the Frontier Act, has brought together disparate camps of the Republican and Democratic parties, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.). The bill, introduced by Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) and Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Big Bear Lake), proposes embedding independent government auditors in AI labs and installing a federal “kill switch” to shut down agents in case of emergencies.

The White House has not formally commented on the legislation.

“I do believe there are many in the federal government taking this seriously — but we have to appreciate the tremendous uncertainty and competing interests policymakers face,” said Daniel Remler, a senior fellow with the Technology & National Security Program at the Center for a New American Security.

“Nobody says regulating at the frontier would be easy,” he added.

The sprawling snack-food factory in upstate New York appeared to be closed when a small army of immigration officers arrived after 9 a.m. Following a brief discussion of whether to force their way inside, a manager opened the front door.

Over the next several hours, body cameras were running as federal authorities from several agencies made 57 arrests, debated which files to seize and when to release employees who were U.S. citizens. They also searched for anyone in hiding.

The footage from September 2025 shows the raid at the Nutrition Bar Confectioners plant in Cato, N.Y., town of 2,500 people east of Syracuse, and offers a rare glimpse inside a workplace immigration sweep. The Associated Press analyzed the video, which was part of a lawsuit filed Thursday that accuses authorities of overstepping their search warrants.

The officers ordered a manager to announce their presence over loudspeakers while they entered the building and caught employees on the production line, in the warehouse and a few in the bathroom. Officers covered all exits while others swept the interior, including homing in on locked doors.

Male officers encountered a locked bathroom and began shouting instructions in broken Spanish at female employees through the door, demanding that they come out. After about 10 seconds, officers broke through the door.

One woman was outside of a stall and another in the stall. A male officer peered through a locked stall door, and his body cam video revealed a woman sitting on the toilet.

“Miss, pull up your pants. Come out of the bathroom,” he told her.

“You have to wait. I can’t come out like this, naked!” she replied.

Investigators interviewed the general manager and said they were looking into hiring practices and potential fraudulent documents. Inside and outside the building, officers checked every office, storage room and hallway for anyone who was hiding.

Employees were lined up and separated into groups of U.S. citizens and potential noncitizens. Officers asked for their immigration status, requested documents and posed questions about their entry into the U.S. Some employees were pregnant.

Some were parents and expressed concern for their children at home. Others said they would not answer questions without first speaking to their attorneys, and officers told them they would be arrested.

One employee refused to answer questions. “Will you let me talk to my attorney?” she asked the officer. He raised his voice and continued asking about her immigration status.

U.S. citizens were asked for personal information, including their phone numbers and addresses before they were allowed to leave.

A Border Patrol agent who spoke to another official wearing a camera used disparaging language about children from other countries when recounting his experience working at a South Texas immigrant detention center. He said President Biden’s administration allowed millions of people to enter the United States from countries where children are treated “differently” than they are by American parents.

“In other countries, kids are more of a commodity or it’s more of like, I’m going to put it in those terms. It’s more like an animal, right? It’s not prized the way that we do it,” he said.

“There’s countries like Brazil and other places where they’re literal street rats at a very young age who commit crimes, and then they come here. I don’t know if you have kids, but they’ll eat our kids for breakfast.”

The Homeland Security Department said Friday that it executed a criminal search warrant at the plant as part of an investigation that is still open. Its statement did not address the contents of the video or the merits of the lawsuit.

Not all officers wore body cameras, but those who did often indicated to other officers that they were recording before they initiated a conversation.

ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations unit is responsible for workplace raids, which have been relatively few and low-key compared with ICE’s removal unit, which arrests people in the street, at homes and in public and also manages detention centers. The Trump administration’s largest workplace raid was last year at a Hyundai electric vehicle plant in Georgia. It resulted in nearly 500 arrests and fueled diplomatic tension with South Korea.

The lawsuit against Homeland Security claims federal officers exceeded the authority of their warrants and violated workers’ constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure.

“There were no arrest warrants,” said Perry Grossman, a supervising attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit with the Worker Justice Center of New York.

“There was no suspicion that individual workers had committed crimes. And they seized easily 100 people for nonconsensual questioning. They arrested 57. Out of those 57 people, criminal charges were brought against only five. And the most serious charge was unlawful reentry.”

Grossman said one employee got her charges dismissed after contending in a lawsuit that her 4th Amendment rights were violated. He said he was not aware of any charges or indictments against the employers.

Officers detained about 60 people and deported some employees, including two plaintiffs who are part of Thursday’s lawsuit. One plaintiff has since been allowed to reenter the country. Attorneys for the second deported plaintiff are seeking his return.

Law enforcement agencies have come under criticism for not using body cameras and for refusing to release footage when they do. ICE, in particular, has been scrutinized after a $75-billion infusion from Congress and an expanding street presence that has led to three fatal shootings this year.

ICE’s own rules on releasing video are unclear. Its policy calls for expedited release of footage after a serious injury or death in custody when doing so is determined to be in the “ best interests of the agency.”

The Trump administration has repeatedly promised to equip ICE field agents with body cameras, as required by Congress. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said last week that the agency was “on track” to do so by the end of September.

Gonzalez and Vancleave write for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — Americans commemorated the 25th anniversary of 9/11 on Friday, remembering the shock, the dead and the sweeping consequences of the al Qaeda attacks on symbols of U.S. might and prosperity.

The milestone anniversary brought memorial rituals — wreath-laying, flag-flying, moments of silence, vigils and readings of victims’ names — and volunteer projects in tribute to a day that about half of U.S. adults remember as the most historic event of their lifetime, according to a new poll. On Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaeda extremists hijacked four commercial jets and crashed them into New York’s World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 people.

Elsie Caldwell carried a photograph of her son Kenny Caldwell to the trade center to hear his name and all the others read aloud Friday morning. She last spoke to him that morning a quarter-century ago.

“Mom, I just want to let you know that I love you,” Caldwell said he told her in a final phone call. His remains, like those of many other victims, have never been recovered.

Trump attends Pentagon observance

The attacks brought down the World Trade Center’s twin towers — icons of U.S. economic power, and among the tallest buildings on Earth — and blew a hole in the Pentagon, the U.S. military’s fortress-like headquarters near Washington. The fourth plane was headed for Washington, officials concluded, but the aircraft went down in Pennsylvania after passengers and crew members stormed the cockpit and fought the hijackers.

“Sept. 11 reminded us of the terrible power of hate,” President Trump said Friday at the Pentagon’s anniversary ceremony Friday.

“The 25 years since have shown us the even greater power of the American spirit to endure and prevail, and to win,” added the Republican, who was in his native New York on 9/11.

Former President George W. Bush, who was in office on 9/11, and ex-Presidents Clinton, Obama and Biden and current Vice President JD Vance convened for the observance at the National Sept. 11 Memorial in New York. Other administration officials went to the Flight 93 National Memorial in Pennsylvania.

At ground zero, a new tribute to those who fell ill

For Angilic Casalduc, attending the New York commemoration “helps to show you’re not alone.” She lost her mother, Vivian Casalduc.

“There’s no timeline for grief, and unfortunately, no one can say how can you can grieve, but coming here once a year makes it feel just a little bit better,” she said.

Traditionally, there are no political speeches at the ground zero commemoration, where victims’ relatives read aloud the long list of names and added personal messages. They thanked first responders and the military, invoked religious faith, appealed for national unity and touched on the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia. The kingdom was the homeland of most of the hijackers but denied any involvement in the attacks.

Mostly, relatives spoke of, and to, loved ones — who some were too young to remember.

“You dreamed my whole life for me, and you only got eight months of it,” said Trisha Pakka, who lost her mother, Deepa Pakkala.

The ceremony has long been punctuated with moments of silence at key points in the attack timeline and this year organizers added another moment to honor people who were exposed to the clouds of toxic dust released by the twin towers’ fiery collapse and have since died of cancer and other illnesses. Questions remain about how many people developed health problems linked to the dust.

The impact of 9/11 endures

It’s a reminder of how the attacks’ long shadow has reached into many corners of life in the U.S. and beyond.

The U.S.-led global war on terrorism included invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan — the latter Washington’s longest war — and detentions and harsh interrogation of terror suspects in an international network of secret CIA prisons. The U.S. found and killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in 2011, but accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed still awaits a trial 23 years after his capture.

The attacks changed U.S. air travel, led to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, prompted new federal surveillance and intelligence-gathering powers and banking regulations and generated ongoing debate over the balance between security and freedom.

Sept. 11 engendered a culture of individual vigilance summed up by the slogan “ if you see something, say something,” while a wave of patriotism propelled some Americans to join the military, fire departments, police forces or other public agencies.

Casey Kloepfer became a New York police officer this June. He was 4 when his father, Officer Ronald Kloepfer, was killed at the trade center.

“It’s big footsteps to fill, but it’s definitely something that I take very seriously and want to continue to honor him and be the best police officer I can,” the 29-year-old, who wears his father’s badge number, said by phone this week.

New York’s mayor comes under scrutiny

Amid the post-9/11 calls to service and appeals for national unity, the attacks also fanned mistrust, prejudice and hate crimes directed at Muslims.

In the quarter-century since, Muslim Americans have played a growing role in public life from statehouses to Congress to New York City Hall, where Zohran Mamdani is the city’s first Muslim mayor. Yet he faced some criticism for attending the anniversary ceremony at ground zero.

Republican ex-Gov. George Pataki and 9/11 victims’ relatives cited, among other things, past remarks that some of Mamdani’s political associates have made about the attacks. Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, also inveighed against Mamdani attending the remembrance, though the two shook hands there Friday.

Mamdani, a Democrat, said this week he loves the city and country and that he wanted the anniversary to focus on victims’ families, first responders and New Yorkers who helped one another after the attacks, which he called a “horrific act of terror.” The 34-year-old mayor was an elementary school student in New York on 9/11.

Times Square billboards pause advertisements

Remembrances extended far from the attack sites, including beams of light projecting from New Hampshire’s Mount Washington, a stair climb at Mississippi State University’s football stadium and a ceremony at Honolulu’s 9/11 memorial.

Sept. 11 isn’t a federal holiday, but Congress has designated it both Patriot Day and a National Day of Service and Remembrance.

“One appropriate way to remember is by serving,” says Jay Winuk, who lost his brother Glenn Winuk and then co-founded the volunteer organization 9/11 Day with friend David Paine. The group helps people find volunteer opportunities and this year arranged for dozens of Times Square billboards to pause their advertising at 9:11 a.m. Friday.

Instead, they simply displayed the time.

Peltz and Shaffrey write for the Associated Press. AP journalists Michael R. Sisak, Anthony Izaguirre, and Julie Walker contributed to this report.

At a time of global upheaval, one man has redrawn Turkiye’s political map. In an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan reflects on more than two decades in power.

His rise began in the early 1990s, when he was elected mayor of Istanbul. He founded the Justice and Development Party, or AK Party, in 2001 and has won every election since then. After three terms as prime minister, he was elected president in 2014 and remains in office to date.

Marking the 25th anniversary of the AK Party, Erdogan talks to Al Jazeera Arabic’s Ali Al Dafiri about Turkiye’s growing role in the shifting geopolitical landscape, highlighting the recent defence deal he concluded with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. He addresses the US-Israel war on Iran, advocating for open maritime navigation in the Strait of Hormuz while identifying Israel as the primary driver of the regional conflict. He also affirms Turkiye’s solid support for Syria’s new administration and his unwavering solidarity with Lebanon and Gaza. On a domestic level, Erdogan reflects on Turkiye’s sweeping economic transformation and its future, stating that European Union accession is no longer a priority.

Major corporations and law firms recently packed one of downtown’s most exclusive restaurants, paying $3,000 a table to attend a charity fund-raiser. The dinner honoree was Fran Savitch, a top aide to Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley.

The impressive turnout was no surprise to those who know Savitch. “I’ve sat with Fran at a lot of the major dinners for the mayor,” said Christopher Stewart, executive director of the Central City Assn., a downtown business group. “And as many people who go over to greet the mayor, go over to Fran.”

A longtime Democratic Party activist who has worked for Bradley since 1973, she has been a major political contact for Bradley, both in Los Angeles and nationally. From throwing a reception in her Bunker Hill condo for West Virginia’s then-Democratic Gov. John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, now a U.S. senator, to co-hosting a reception for Joan Mondale last summer, Savitch often plays the political hostess for the mayor’s office.

Savitch also acts as a trouble-shooter for the mayor. She represented Bradley during crucial negotiating sessions with Oxford Properties to work out plans for the half-billion dollar Citicorp Plaza, now under construction downtown.

Her specialty is behind-the-scenes lobbying. That became blatantly evident three years ago when several council members and aides revealed that Savitch had lobbied them on behalf of the mayor to vote for a less strict version of rent control. (Bradley denied his aides did any such lobbying, but several council members and aides flatly contradicted him.)

Savitch also monitors several city departments for the mayor. She has been known to refer to them as “my” departments.

She offers her influential friends access to the mayor, and she offers the mayor access to their money.

“There are some terrific people I see socially who can make substantial contributions, and they, of course, expect access and I think they should have it,” Savitch said. “That’s part of what their money buys them, is at the very least to have their phone calls returned. You have to keep that in balance though, everyone has to have his phone calls returned. Maybe theirs get returned first. . . .”

One of those who knows what that kind of access can mean is William Norris, who belonged to the committee that supported Bradley’s first mayor’s race in 1969.

A former Police Commission president and now a U.S. appellate court judge, Norris had worked with Savitch on Democratic campaigns before he was a judge. So several years ago when his wife, an art consultant, suggested the city should have a museum of contemporary art, he called Savitch.

“I knew I had to have instant credibility,” Norris said. “I knew if I could sell it to Fran, it would ease the way with the mayor. She set up the original meeting with the mayor. . . . We couldn’t have pulled it off without her.”

Got the Wheels Turning

The meeting set up by Savitch got the wheels turning, and the $22-million Museum of Contemporary Art is due to open in 1986 as part of the $1.2-billion California Plaza.

Although grateful for the Bradley administration support for the museum, his judicial obligations prevent him from helping Bradley politically, Norris said. “They don’t have me, but they have my wife,” he added, chuckling. Merry Norris was one of many new city commissioners recommended by Savitch and appointed by Bradley last year.

Her appointment was part of a controversial move by Bradley to increase his influence by naming city commissioners more closely allied with his political views. The mayor asked all 175 commissioners to resign and ended up replacing about 70%.

Savitch, known as the key Bradley adviser on appointments, got much of the credit and much of the blame.

Howard Nishimura, a former Community Redevelopment Agency commissioner, was one of many appointees who complained that Savitch did not warn him that he and others were about to be fired. “She’s always happy to see you as long as she wants something,” he said. “But, I saw her the day before it (the commission shake-up) happened, and I wondered why she seemed to be avoiding me. Her eyes met mine, and she looked away. I was on the board six years and not one word from her!”

‘Committed to Women’

Barbara Schlei, a police commissioner who has been friends with Savitch for several years, credited Savitch for the increased percentage of women among the new appointees. “She uses her position to advance other women,” Schlei said. “Fran has always been deeply committed to women and their political activities.”

In public, Savitch is usually guarded and given to occasional self-deprecation, which she attributes to a lack of confidence at an early age.

“My father thought girls were a waste of time,” said Savitch, the older of two children. “Nothing I did was ever really good enough.”

Savitch’s only ambition as a girl was “what else, to get married and have children,” which she did. She has been married for 34 years to Superior Court Judge Leon Savitch, who is the uncle of the late newscaster Jessica Savitch. Savitch and her husband have two daughters, ages 32 and 26.

Father Was a Judge

Fran Savitch’s father was the late Superior Court Judge Alfred Gitelson, who made the landmark 1970 ruling that ordered desegregation of Los Angeles schools. Labeled the “busing judge,” he was voted out of office that same year.

Her own upper-middle-class West Los Angeles background was sheltered, she said. “Servants in the house were black, and that was the only association I ever had with members of the minority community.”

While living in Baldwin Hills during the early 1960s, she met Herschel Rosenthal, who is now a Democrat from Los Angeles in the state Senate. He introduced her to Bradley, who was retiring from the Los Angeles Police Department to go into law practice.

When Bradley decided to run for the City Council in 1963, she volunteered to work in his campaign. “Tom Bradley,” said Savitch, who almost always calls the mayor by his full name, “was someone that white people could support as well as black people, and that’s what it would take to get someone elected.” Savitch also worked for Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, a black attorney first elected to the Legislature and then Congress.

Savitch made one try for elected office, a 1975 City Council race she was expected to win but lost to Zev Yaroslavsky. She said she has no further aspirations to elected office. “I think Fran is doing extremely well,” Yaroslavsky said. “Perhaps even better than she had hoped to do as a councilwoman.”

The Trump administration is proposing a dramatic overhaul of the once-a-decade U.S. Census head count that could leave out millions of immigrants based on status and key racial and ethnic data, jeopardizing the allocation of resources and the country’s voting map.

The potential changes, announced Wednesday, would exclude undocumented immigrants, asylum seekers and anyone without permanent status. Certain demographic questions from the traditional questionnaire would also be eliminated.

It echoes Trump’s previous idea to add a citizenship question to the 2030 census.

The U.S. Census Bureau, in a post on the Federal Register website, argued “illegal aliens (among others) should not be included in the apportionment count, as they are not true inhabitants, members of the body politic, or persons with a ‘usual residence’ in the United States due to their lack of a sufficient tie and allegiance to the United States.”

The census also “should be colorblind and should not be distorted in any way by questions about immaterial personal characteristics, such as race,” the agency said. It also is considering nixing questions related to people who identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community.

These changes would harm the quality of the data, said Beth Jarosz, a data researcher and vice president of the Association of Public Data Users. She called the proposals “unprecedented.”

“Not counting all of the people who reside here is actually where the real threat is,” Jarosz said. “If you think about all of the ways that census data are used.”

Census figures are traditionally used for an “apportionment count” to determine how many seats each state will have in the U.S. House of Representatives. That count also determines the number of votes in the Electoral College.

“You can imagine if we have undercounts or if we have people counted in the wrong place,” Jarosz said. “Then their political power or their political representation gets diluted.”

Immigrants of every status have historically been counted

Historically, the decennial census has not sought to conduct a full count of people by citizenship status, she added. It may come up in the Census’ periodic American Community Survey.

Getting an accurate count of immigrants of various statuses is useful when assigning resources for public health emergencies or natural or human-made disasters.

“If you don’t have a count of everyone who’s there, you’re not going to have the resources you need,” Jarosz said. “And that puts everybody at risk.”

Why race and ethnicity census data matters

Race-related questions have been on the once-a-decade census since 1790. Starting in 2000, the U.S. census began allowing people to identify by more than one race. A 2015 Pew Research Center study found that multiracial people in the U.S. were growing at a rate three times faster than the general population. By 2020, 33.8 million people in the U.S. identified as being more than one race, according to the census.

Race and ethnicity data is essential for researchers who gauge discrimination, crime rates and wealth gaps in communities of color.

Manjusha Kulkarni is co-founder of Stop AAPI Hate and executive director of AAPI Equity Alliance, two advocacy groups that rely on census counts of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. The proposed changes would have tremendous impact on the populations they serve, she said.

“It also seeks to exclude important demographic data from millions that enables lawmakers, health care providers, public safety officials and community advocates — really anyone who cares about the health, safety and well-being of all Americans — from having the necessary data to keep us safe and healthy,” Kulkarni said via text message.

Dropping race and ethnicity data as well as some immigrants sends a message that these communities don’t matter, she added.

Collecting data for the 2030 Census with all these missing elements would be detrimental, Jarosz said.

“These changes are like trying to land an airplane when you are in thick fog and someone has thrown paint across the front window and your instruments are also not working,” she said.

Tang writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — If artificial intelligence doesn’t destroy humanity and there are actually future generations that look back, Sept. 8, 2026, may come to be known as “Coxon Day.”

That would be a reference to 27-year-old Jacob Coxon, an AI researcher and whistleblower at Anthropic (and previously OpenAI) who resigned in protest of the unchecked danger his work poses to us all. He posted a warning to the world on X that has gone viral.

“The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade,” Coxon wrote. “No other human activity poses this level of danger.”

Within minutes, replies starting pouring in, including one from Evan Hubinger, another guy at Anthropic charged with making sure AI doesn’t destroy everyone.

“Jacob is correct here — we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!” Hubinger wrote. “I personally think it is >10% within the next decade.”

Coxon’s post has racked up more than 150 million views — including from legislators who until now have largely sidestepped the issue of regulating AI, and those within the industry who have long warned allowing it to move forward with no oversight is downright dumb.

That included Eliezer Yudkowsky, a founder of the Berkeley-based Machine Intelligence Research Institute and the co-author of “If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies,” which, as far as book titles go, really cuts to the chase.

Yudkowsky has tried with little luck to publicize the urgency of this technological moment for years, and he was the one who named Tuesday in honor of the tech whistleblower for breaking through to our consciousness with one bold act of defiance.

“Happy Coxon Day to all who will one day celebrate it,” he wrote, highlighting that as as bad as things are, it’s not too late to change course.

What exactly is the risk here?

“The Matrix,” “Terminator,” “War Games,” take your pick — the notion of a superintelligent machine taking over humanity is well-established in our psyches.

Current AI systems aren’t there yet, but they are on track to become smarter than humans in the next few years — if not sooner. This is mostly because AI companies are trying to create AI systems that make AI systems.

Right now, humans are in charge of creating what they have dubbed large language models. Whatever sanitizing term the industry slaps on them, the truth is, even those making them don’t understand exactly what they are.

“We know what data we put into them, but we already have very little ability to understand and control what AIs are after,” Rob Bensinger, research communications manager at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute and a colleague of Yudkowsky, told me.

That’s because, as ChatGPT explained to me, “the inner mathematical reasoning and neural pathways are so vast and complex that how it arrived at a specific conclusion is hidden and poorly understood.”

But companies are hoping that these poorly understood but powerful machines can take over creating newer, even less understood but even more powerful AI systems — leaving humans largely in the dark about what they are creating and even what these beasts can and want to do.

The idea is that, because AI systems even right now are so fast and powerful, they can do the job of creating new versions of themselves at a pace and scale humans simply can’t.

Why, you ask, would this speed-without-understanding be a good thing? Isn’t it a bit like driving a race car while blindfolded?

Yes, yes it is.

But for-profit companies like making profit, and to do that, they want the most powerful product to sell.

Many in the industry are framing this recklessness as a necessity to prevent another country, China in particular, from creating a superintelligent AI system first. The Trump administration has so far grasped on to this greedy bit of misdirection like, well, oligarchs clinging to money.

Those who would prefer not to destroy humanity have urged international cooperation in the form of a slowdown while we figure out how to proceed safely.

We have no reason to believe China would not go along with this — in fact, China has more national-level AI regulation than the U.S. And humans have successfully controlled other technologies with catastrophic power, such as biological and nuclear weapons, through cooperation.

Does it matter which country creates the AI that kills humanity? The logic here seems to be that if anyone is going to cause a mass extinction event, it had better be an English-speaking AI, because it would be a huge loss to America if the planet were destroyed by one speaking a foreign language.

Is 10% really so bad?

In truth, 10% is an arbitrary number. Some put the chance of AI destroying everyone, everywhere, all at once at around 50%. Some go all the way to 90%.

“Nobody knows how to estimate it,” Geoffrey Hinton, a Nobel Prize winner and the so-called godfather of AI, said on the BBC, calling 10% a not unreasonable estimate.

But remember, 10% was Coxon talking about the chance that AI wipes out all humans in a decade.

What about some humans next week?

The odds that a rogue AI causes something unfortunate and unexpected to happen in the near future aren’t bad, either.

There have been multiple examples recently of AI breaking free of safety restraints and doing things — like hacking into other companies and stealing stuff — that, if done by a human, would be a felony.

This shouldn’t be taken as proof they are conscious or have nefarious intent, researchers have told me. It’s more that they have been trained to be relentless in pursuing the goals we give them, but aren’t great at sticking to rules. Like their makers, they too often pursue winning at all costs.

“Which means the AIs will just get more and more kind of relentless and creative and adaptive at working around obstacles,” Bensinger said. “And unless we get exactly the right goals into the AIs, eventually humans will be obstacles.”

So if successfully completing a mission involves, say, shutting down the electrical grid or even doing something obviously deadly, like attempting to manipulate someone into suicide or releasing a bio-weapon, we can’t with any certainty say an AI system wouldn’t do it.

That might not wipe out the whole planet, but it is certainly worth avoiding.

The bright side

Which brings us back to Coxon Day, our collective chance right now to change this grim future. Bensinger said we overcomplicate regulation. Simply control the resources AI companies need — water, power, data centers — and suddenly we have leverage.

Since Coxon’s post, there has been enormous political and social momentum behind the demand for meaningful regulation. Anthropic and OpenAI, among other AI companies, have vowed to do better with safety.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has demanded a ban on superintelligent AI and a pause in global development. He’s holding a briefing for Congress with Hinton next week.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), the most MAGA of MAGA legislators, called on House Speaker Mike Johnson to call a special session on AI. Other Republicans, including Rep. Nathaniel Moran of Texas, a longtime proponent of AI regulation, have also spoken out.

“Innovation and safety are not mutually exclusive,” Moran wrote online. “We can achieve both through deliberate, thoughtful, and prudent policymaking.”

Yes, we can. If we demand it now.

What else you should be reading
The must-read: Anthropic Researchers Raise Alarm Over A.I. Acceleration
The California angle: Jimmy Kimmel interview with Senate candidate James Talarico won’t air on ABC
The L.A. Times Special: Leaked emails reveal industry plan to kill California’s plastic and recycling laws

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

The presidential candidates and the parties are pouring money into campaign advertising at a record-breaking pace, some of it skirting federal laws designed to keep special interests from influencing the election, according to a pair of studies released Tuesday.

Political parties and independent organizations have spent or committed to spending more than $342 million on ads since the 2000 election cycle began in January 1999, already surpassing the entire 1996 cycle, according to the study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

A separate study by the University of Wisconsin and the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law found that the Democratic and Republican parties have combined to spend at least $44.2 million on ads since June. All of the ads featured their presidential candidates and most were paid for with so-called soft money donations.

The party advertising that features presidential candidates has been controversial because federal law prohibits the spending of soft money donations to influence the outcome of the election.

Campaign Finance Laws ‘Are Dead and Buried’

“Looking at these hard facts leaves no room for doubt, the campaign finance [laws] in this country are dead and buried,” said E. Joshua Rosenkrantz, president of the Brennan Center. “The American political parties are engaged in the greatest money-laundering scheme in history.”

The parties interpret the law to mean they can spend soft money on “issue advocacy” ads, which legally aren’t for the purpose of influencing the presidential race.

But according to the Brennan analysis of the largest 75 media markets, the parties have opted to run their ads only in states where the presidential race is competitive.

In fact, the Republican Party has accelerated its ad spending in places such as Florida, a traditional GOP stronghold where Vice President Al Gore has been rising in the polls. The two parties and their candidates are waging their ad war across a battlefield of about 17 states–a field that has essentially left out major media markets such as Los Angeles and New York.

Since the Democrats fired off the first ad in June, the party and Gore have aired their heaviest volume in Flint, Mich., followed by Scranton, Pa., and Pittsburgh. Republicans and the Bush campaign have been running their heaviest volume in Scranton, Cleveland and Columbus, Ohio, according to the Brennan study.

The last two weeks have seen the Bush campaign and Republican Party draw even in spending, pouring in a combined $8.7 million in the two weeks ending Sept. 13, about 18% more than the $7.4 million spent by Gore and the Democrats, the study found.

Data for the study come from the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks ad spending in the top 75 markets.

The Brennan study found that few independent groups have advertised in the presidential race so far.

But the independent groups are deluging congressional and state races with money, according to the Annenberg study. More than 125 different groups are running ads this cycle, more than the last two cycles combined, the study concluded.

The largest segment of the issue ads, about 24%, focuses on health care, followed by the environment and gun control. The independent groups spending the most are backed by major industries–Citizens for Better Medicare, a group founded largely by the pharmaceutical industry, has spent about $34 million on ads, many of them aimed at a half-dozen competitive congressional races.

But there has been an explosion of smaller groups as well. A group called the Republican Ideas Political Committee, for example, said it has raised $70,000 to hit the air in Kansas City, Mo., with a controversial spot in which a harried mother says her son’s public school has “a bit more diversity than he could handle.”

Ads Now Focus on Specific Candidates

More than in the past, the ads are focusing on specific candidates instead of issues. So far this cycle, 52% of the issue ads have mentioned candidates, compared with about 35% at the same period in the 1998 election cycle, the study found.

Since the Annenberg researchers last surveyed issue-ad spending in March, the parties and independent groups have spent or committed an additional $224 million to ads.

Because Annenberg relied on the organizations themselves to provide some spending data, researchers said the numbers may not be precise. But the center has used the same methodology for three elections, so its estimates of the changes in spending should be accurate, officials said.

At this point in the race, “it’s clearer who the targets are,” said Lorie Slass, director of Annenberg’s Washington office. “More groups are entering the fray. They want to get close to election day to spend their money.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Presidential Campaign Ads

Television advertising in the presidential campaign has been almost entirely limited so far to 22 states, with the heaviest concentration focused on four of the most competitive areas. Spending reflected in the map combines all of the advertising purchases made in this calendar year by the Democratic and Republican parties as well as the campaigns for George W. Bush and Al Gore. In the state-by-state list, Republican figures include spending by the party and the Bush presidential campaign while Democratic figures include spending by the party and the Gore campaign.

Where the money was spent

ARKANSAS

Republican: $388,113

Democrat: $499,188

CALIFORNIA

Republican: $1,123,700

Democrat: $100

FLORIDA

Republican: $5,177,434

Democrat: $2,772,544

GEORGIA

Republican: $630,578

Democrat: $303,997

IOWA

Republican: $264,538

Democrat: $368,312

ILLINOIS

Republican: $2,419,731

Democrat: $2,381,482

KENTUCKY

Republican: $733,082

Democrat: $923,948

LOUISIANA

Republican: $387,533

Democrat: $516,408

MASSACHUSETTS

Republican: $95,800

MAINE

Republican: $434,389

Democrat: $570,261

MICHIGAN

Republican: $2,778,915

Democrat: $3,941,715

MISSOURI

Republican: $1,704,376

Democrat: $2,249,209

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Republican: $86,400

Democrat: $32,200

NORTH CAROLINA

Republican: $256,750

NEW MEXICO

Republican: $424,576

Democrat: $841,652

NEVADA

Republican: $326,700

OHIO

Republican: $4,485,212

Democrat: $4,795,589

OREGON

Republican: $800,635

Democrat: $1,054,452

PENNSYLVANIA

Republican: $5,776,120

Democrat: $6,648,116

WASHINGTON

Republican: $2,548,695

Democrat: $2,446,475

WISCONSIN

Republican: $1,137,594

Democrat: $1,691,948

WEST VIRGINIA

Republican: $117,500

Democrat: $41,600

Note: Through Sept. 13

Source: Campaign Media Analysis Group (Based on a survey of the nation’s top 75 media markets).

Oh, heck no. The Trumpites next door to our pandemic getaway, who seem as devoted to the ex-president as you can get without being Q fans, just plowed our driveway without being asked and did a great job.

How am I going to resist demands for unity in the face of this act of aggressive niceness?

Of course, on some level, I realize I owe them thanks — and, man, it really looks like the guy back-dragged the driveway like a pro — but how much thanks?

These neighbors are staunch partisans of blue lives, and there aren’t a lot of anything other than white lives in the neighborhood.

This is also kind of weird. Back in the city, people don’t sweep other people’s walkways for nothing.

Maybe it’s like what Eddie Murphy discovered in that old “Saturday Night Live” sketch “White Like Me.” He goes undercover in white makeup and finds that when white people are among their own, they pop free champagne and live the high life. As Murphy puts it: “Slowly I began to realize that when white people are alone, they give things to each other. For free.”

Hezbollah, the Shiite Islamist political party in Lebanon, also gives things away for free. The favors Hezbollah does for people in the cities Tyre and Sidon probably don’t involve snowplows, but, like other mafias, Hezbollah tends to its own — the Shiite sick, elderly and hungry. They offer protection and hospitality and win loyalty that way. And they also demand devotion to their brutal, us-versus-them anti-Sunni cause. Some of us are family, the favors say; the rest are infidels.

The same is true with Louis Farrakhan, who currently helms the Nation of Islam. While the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies him as a dangerous anti-Semite, much of his flock says he’s just a little screwy and unfailingly magnanimous. To them.

When someone helps you when you’re down, or snowed in, it’s almost impossible to regard them as a blight on the world. In fact, you’re more likely to be overwhelmed with gratitude and convinced of the person’s inherent goodness.

You might end up like the upper-middle-class family I stayed with in France as a teenager. They did not attend a citywide celebration for the 100th birthday of Charles de Gaulle, the war hero who orchestrated the liberation of his country from Nazi Germany in 1944. They did have several portraits of Philippe Pétain, Nazi collaborator, on their wall.

When I screwed up the courage to ask how it was for them during the occupation, the lady of the house replied, “We were happy because the Nazis were very polis.” I didn’t know the word, so I excused myself to consult a French-English dictionary. I was in tears when I found the entry: “polite.”

So when I accept generosity from my pandemic neighbors, acknowledging the legitimate kindness with a wave or a plate of cookies, am I also sealing us in as fellow travelers who are very polis to each other but not so much to “them”?

Loving your neighbor is evidently much easier when your neighborhood is full of people just like you.

What do we do about the Trumpites around us? Like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who spoke eloquently this week about her terrifying experience during the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6, Americans are expected to forgive and forget before we’ve even stitched up our wounds. Or gotten our vaccines against the pandemic that former President Trump utterly failed to mitigate.

My neighbors supported a man who showed near-murderous contempt for the majority of Americans. They kept him in business with their support.

But the plowing.

On Jan. 6, after the insurrection, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) issued an aw-shucks plea for all Americans to love their neighbors. The United States, he said, “isn’t Hatfields and McCoys, this blood feud forever.” And, he added, “You can’t hate someone who shovels your driveway.”

At the time, I seethed; the Capitol had just been desecrated. But maybe my neighbor heard Sasse and was determined to make a bid for reconciliation.

So here’s my response to my plowed driveway, for now. Politely, but not profusely, I’ll acknowledge the Sassian move. With a wave and a thanks, a minimal start on building back trust. I’m not ready to knock on the door with a covered dish yet.

I also can’t give my neighbors absolution; it’s not mine to give. Free driveway work, as nice as it is, is just not the same currency as justice and truth. To pretend it is would be to lie, and they probably aren’t looking for absolution anyway.

But I can offer a standing invitation to make amends. Not with a snowplow but by recognizing the truth about the Trump administration and, more important, by working for justice for all those whom the administration harmed. Only when we work shoulder to shoulder to repair the damage of the last four years will we even begin to dig out of this storm.

@page88

Indiana GOP Senate candidate Richard Mourdock opposes abortion even in the case of rape and incest, he said at a Tuesday night debate, because pregnancy from rape is “something that God intended to happen.”

Mourdock, who is in a tight race with Democratic Rep. Joe Donnelly, was responding to a question about whether abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest.

“I know there are some who disagree, and I respect their point of view, but I believe that life begins at conception,” the tea party-backed Mourdock said. “The only exception I have, to have an abortion, is in that case of the life of the mother.

“I’ve struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God,” Mourdock said, appearing to choke back tears. “And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

PHOTOS: “Legitimate rape” and other controversial quotes

Mourdock’s statement came near the end of the debate. Afterward, according to the Associated Press, Donnelly said he didn’t believe “my God, or any God, would intend that to happen.”

The controversy came as the Mourdock campaign unveiled a new ad featuring Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney making an on-camera endorsement of him.

In the ad, Romney calls Mourdock “the 51st vote to repeal and replace government-run healthcare,” and says he “will help stop the liberal Reid-Pelosi agenda.”

Casting Mourdock’s comment as “part and parcel of the modern Republican Party’s platform toward women’s health,” Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz called on Romney to get the ad off the air.

“As Mourdock’s most prominent booster and the star of Mourdock’s current campaign ads, Mitt Romney should immediately denounce these comments and request that the ad featuring him speaking directly to the camera on Mourdock’s behalf be taken off the air,” Wasserman Schultz said.

Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul tried to distance Romney from the comment. “Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock’s comments, and they do not reflect his views,” Saul said in a statement.

The flap comes about two months after Missouri’s Republican candidate for Senate, Todd Akin, said a woman is unlikely to become pregnant from “legitimate rape” because “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” That comment also came in response to a question on whether victims of rape and incest should be able to obtain an abortion.

Romney and most other prominent Republicans urged Akin to drop out of the race, but he did not. Instead, Akin said he had spoken inartfully, then apologized, but persisted in challenging embattled incumbent Claire McCaskill.

The Akin and Mourdock comments have the potential to undercut Romney’s efforts to reduce the gender gap — the margin by which women have tended to prefer President Obama.

Mourdock, the state treasurer, ousted moderate longtime Sen. Richard G. Lugar in the GOP primary in May. Romney embraced Mourdock’s candidacy and traveled to Indiana in August to campaign for him.

“This is a man that I want to see in Washington to make sure that we cannot just talk about changing things but actually have the votes to get things changed,” Romney said at the time.

After Tuesday’s debate in southern Indiana, Mourdock clarified his position on rape and pregnancy.

“Are you trying to suggest that somehow I think God ordained or pre-ordained rape?” Mourdock said, according to the Evansville Courier & Press. “No, I don’t think that anyone could suggest that. That’s a sick, twisted – no, that’s not even close to what I said.

“It’s a fundamental part of my faith that God gives us life,” he continued. “God determines when life begins. I believe in an almighty God who makes those calls…. There are some things in life that are above my pay grade.”

Follow Politics Now on Twitter and Facebook

kim.geiger@latimes.com

In an unusual move, Assembly candidate Cesar Portillo, a gay activist running in a Hollywood-Eastside district, disclosed Sunday that he was arrested nine years ago after being propositioned by an undercover Los Angeles policeman.

Surrounded by members of his family, his partner and supporters at a news conference at his Highland Park election headquarters, Portillo claimed that the campaign of his opponent, Los Angeles City Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg, had begun a whisper campaign about the arrest and he chose to discuss it.

Goldberg flatly denied that her campaign had any role in spreading information about the issue. “We would never raise it,” she said in an interview. “We did hear rumors, but I told everybody this was not something we were going to do. I don’t think this is an appropriate issue to raise.”

Portillo, the director of governmental affairs at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, said he chose to address the issue head-on because he “wanted to make sure people heard from me first rather than misinformation and smear.”

In a statement read to supporters at the news conference, he said: “Nine years ago, I was approached by an undercover police officer who propositioned me and then arrested me. I was not guilty. I was in my twenties and I did not have the money to fight this in court.”

Later, in an interview, Portillo said he pleaded no contest to the 1991 misdemeanor charge of lewd conduct and paid a fine of about $200. After his arrest, he said, he was automatically suspended from his job as an elementary school teacher in the Los Angeles Unified School District and resigned before the case was concluded.

The 36-year-old Portillo vowed to continue campaigning for the seat being vacated by Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa (D-Los Angeles), who is running for mayor of Los Angeles. Villaraigosa and County Supervisor Gloria Molina, among others, have endorsed Goldberg. Portillo has been endorsed by numerous Latino legislators, including state Sen. Richard Polanco (D-Los Angeles).

Portillo said he will release any officeholders from their previous endorsement if they so desire.

The March 7 primary is tantamount to election because the 45th Assembly District is so overwhelmingly Democratic in registration that there is no Republican on the ballot. The district runs from Hollywood through Silver Lake, Mount Washington, Boyle Heights, Lincoln Heights, and Highland Park to the edge of Pasadena.

Prominent gay activist Morris Kight, a member of the county’s Human Relations Commission, said that what happened to Portillo reflects police harassment and entrapment of gays.

And Wallace Albertson, a longtime Democratic Party activist, added that she was appalled at “this kind of character assassination and smearing going on.”

Portillo charged that the whisper campaign had started in Sacramento when a legislator and a legislative aide were contacted by Goldberg’s campaign.

Parke Skelton, Goldberg’s campaign consultant, denied that that occurred. “It’s been whispered about for quite some time,” Skelton said. “Believe me, it didn’t come from us.” He said Goldberg has no intention of using “any issue about [Portillo’s] private life or criminal arrest” in the final weeks of the race. “This is a ludicrous battle to get in the middle of,” he said.

Skelton did say that people in Sacramento had called him about the arrest.

Anticipating that the arrest could find its way into the contest, Portillo’s campaign manager, Frank Berged III, said it was necessary to discuss the issue.

European Parliament’s Vice President Pina Picierno says Hsiao Bi-khim’s visit ‘was kept secret until her arrival to protect her participation’ in the conference.

Taiwanese Vice President Hsiao Bi-khim is making a rare visit to Europe, attending a forum on democracy in Italy alongside the island’s foreign minister, the presidential office said.

Hsiao has been invited to attend the Ventotene Conference for Freedom and Democracy, and is travelling with Taiwanese Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung, the presidential office said in a brief statement.

Other details will be provided once the two return to Taiwan from the Italian island of Ventotene, it added,

While Taiwan’s foreign ministers occasionally visit Europe and other parts of the world that have no formal ties to the Chinese-claimed island, it is rare for an official as senior as the vice president to do so, given the risk of backlash from Beijing against the host nation.

Pina Picierno, vice president of the European Parliament, said Hsiao’s planned participation “was kept secret until her arrival to protect her participation” in the conference.

“No one can determine who can be hosted on European soil, what voices can be heard, and what presences must be hidden,” Picierno said in a Facebook post. “It is a simple and very clear message: intimidation cannot decide who participates in our democratic debate.”

“Freedom of debate is not negotiable with autocracies. And Ventotene, more than ever today, must continue to be the place where freedom and democracy are defended without fear,” she added.

The Ventotene conference takes place from Thursday until Saturday this week. Italy, like most countries, has no formal diplomatic ties with Chinese-claimed Taiwan.

Oleksandra Matviichuk, a 2022 Nobel Peace Prize laureate and president of Ukraine’s Centre for Civil Liberties, is also expected to participate in the conference.

China says Taiwan is one of its provinces, a view the democratically governed island strongly rejects.

Last November, Hsiao spoke at the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China’s annual summit, held in the European Parliament in Brussels.