politics

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Republican lawmakers in Tennessee forged ahead with a plan Thursday that could carve up a majority-Black congressional district, reshaping it to the GOP’s advantage as part of President Trump’s strategy to try to hold on to a slim House majority in the November midterm elections.

Protesters shouted “No Jim Crow” outside the House and Senate chambers as lawmakers convened to consider the legislation. As the Republican-led House later voted for the new map, Democratic lawmakers locked arms at the front of the chamber while protesters yelled and made noise. A final vote in the Senate would sent the map to Republican Gov. Bill Lee, who called lawmakers into special session.

The redistricting effort in Tennessee is one of several rapidly advancing plans in Southern states as Republicans try to leverage a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that weakened the federal Voting Rights Act.

The court ruled that Louisiana relied too heavily on race when creating a second Black-majority House district as it attempted to comply with the federal law. The high court’s decision altered a decades-old understanding of the law, giving Republicans grounds to try to eliminate majority-Black districts that have elected Democrats.

Louisiana has postponed its congressional primary to give time for state lawmakers to craft a new House map. Legislation awaiting a final vote in Alabama also would upend the state’s congressional primaries if courts allow the state to change its U.S. House districts. In South Carolina, meanwhile, Republican lawmakers urged on by Trump have taken initial steps to add congressional redistricting to their agenda.

The states are the latest to join an already fierce national redistricting battle. Since Trump prodded Texas to redraw its U.S. House districts last year, eight states have adopted new congressional districts. From that, Republicans think they could gain as many as 13 seats while Democrats think they could gain up to 10. But some competitive races mean the parties may not get everything they sought in the November elections.

Tennessee Republicans act despite protests

As a first step to adopting new House districts, Tennessee lawmakers gave final approval Thursday to legislation that would repeal a state law prohibiting mid-decade redistricting. They then passed a bill that would reopen a candidate qualifying until May 15 to allow time for new people to enter the U.S. House primaries and existing candidates to switch districts or drop out.

The proposed House map would break up Tennessee’s lone Democratic-held district, centered on the majority-Black city of Memphis, creating a ripple effect of alterations to districts throughout the western and central parts of the state.

Republican House Speaker Cameron Sexton said the proposed districts were drawn based on population and politics, not racial data.

But Democrats dismissed such assertions.

“These maps are racist tools of white supremacy at the behest of the most powerful white supremacist in the United States of America, Donald J. Trump,” said state Rep. Justin Pearson, a Black Democrat from Memphis who is running for the U.S. House.

State Rep. Torrey Harris, another Black Democrat from Memphis, said he would lose part of his voting power as a result of the congressional districts.

“You cannot celebrate democracy while carving out Black communities,” he said. “We all know it, whether we say it or not, that this map impacts Black people negatively.”

Democrats noted that the state Supreme Court in April 2022 rejected a challenge to the current congressional map, finding it was too close to the election to make changes. This year, there’s even less time before the Aug. 6 primary, raising the potential of confusion for both candidates and voters, Democrats said.

A plan for a new primary advances in Alabama

Protesters watching an Alabama legislative committee Thursday erupted in shouts of “shame” as Republican lawmakers advanced legislation to authorize special congressional primaries if the state can put a new congressional map in place for the November midterms.

In the wake of the Supreme Court decision arising from Louisiana, Alabama is seeking to overturn a court injunction that created a second U.S. House district with a substantial percentage of Black voters. That map led to the 2024 election of Rep. Shomari Figures, a Black Democrat. Republicans want instead to use a 2023 map drawn by state lawmakers that would give the GOP an opportunity to reclaim Figures’ district.

If a court grants Alabama’s request, the legislation under consideration would ignore the May 19 primary results for congressional seats and direct the governor to schedule a new primary under the revised districts.

The House passed the legislation on a party-line vote Thursday after four hours of fiery debate. A final vote in the Senate is expected Friday.

South Carolina may add redistricting to its agenda

The South Carolina Senate could take up a resolution Thursday giving lawmakers permission to return later, after their regular work ends, to redraw congressional districts that could eliminate the state’s only Democratic-held district. The proposal, which passed the House on Wednesday, needs a two-thirds vote in both chambers.

Republican House leaders said after the vote that they plan to introduce a new map Thursday and hold committee meetings on Friday. But during debate Wednesday, Republicans fended off specific questions from Democrats, including why they were willing to stop the June 9 U.S. House primary elections well after candidates filed and how much a rescheduled primary could cost.

Democratic Rep. Justin Bamberg said he felt sorry for Republicans who, he said, were giving up their principles to follow the whims of Trump.

“The president of the United States is a very powerful man. Wields a heavy, heavy thumb — Truth Social, X, Meta, Instagram. To be honest I don’t envy our Republican colleagues,” Bamberg said.

Loller, Chandler, Collins and Lieb write for the Associated Press. Chandler reported from Montgomery, Ala.; Collins from Columbia, S.C.; and Lieb from Jefferson City, Mo. AP reporter Kristin M. Hall contributed to this report.

Talks between Lebanese and Israeli delegations to be held in Washington, DC, next week, the official tells Al Jazeera.

The United States is trying to de-escalate Israel’s actions in Lebanon as it pushes for solidifying an ongoing ceasefire and moving to the next phase of negotiations between the two sides, according to a Lebanese official.

The official, who spoke to Al Jazeera Arabic on condition of anonymity, revealed on Thursday the details of the planned second stage of negotiations between Israel and Lebanon after an initial round in Washington, DC, in mid-April, which led to the current status quo of a ceasefire being declared but attacks continuing.

Delegation-level negotiations will begin on May 17 in the US capital, the official said, adding that the talks will address both security and political tracks to resolve issues of a full Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, borders, prisoners, displaced people and reconstruction.

The Reuters and AFP news agencies, both quoting an unnamed State Department official on Thursday, reported that the upcoming talks are due to be held May 14 and 15.

Israel continued to pound southern Lebanon on Thursday, killing one person and injuring several, according to Lebanese state-run media, a day after it targeted a commander of Hezbollah’s elite Radwan Force in the southern suburbs of Beirut.

The strikes put pressure on the Lebanon ceasefire, which emerged in parallel with a US-Iran truce in the wider war in the Middle East. A halt to Israeli strikes in Lebanon is a key Iranian demand in Tehran’s negotiations with Washington.

No peace agreement: Official

The Lebanese official told Al Jazeera that the country’s presidency has been seeking to discuss a final cessation of hostilities with Israel.

The expected step before May 17 is an extension of the truce and an Israeli commitment to a ceasefire, the official said, adding that the recent attack on Beirut’s southern suburbs was an Israeli message intended to obstruct the negotiation process.

Lebanon is not moving towards signing a peace agreement but towards a nonaggression pact, the official said.

The Lebanon ceasefire, announced on April 16 by US President Donald Trump, has led to a reduction in hostilities. The Beirut area, for example, was not struck by Israel for weeks before Wednesday’s attack.

However, since it went into effect, Israel and Hezbollah have traded accusations of violating the ceasefire in other areas, particularly in southern Lebanon.

More than 2,700 people have been killed in the war in Lebanon since March 2, Lebanon’s Ministry of Public Health said. About 1.2 million people have been driven from their homes in Lebanon, many of them fleeing from southern Lebanon.

Israel has announced 17 soldiers have been killed in southern Lebanon along with two civilians in northern Israel.

VATICAN CITY — The Vatican raised the “need to work tirelessly in favor of peace” in talks Thursday with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who came to Rome on a fence-mending visit after President Trump’s criticisms of Pope Leo XIV over the Iran war.

Both the Vatican and the U.S. State Department stressed that Rubio’s meetings with Leo and the Vatican’s top diplomat underscored strong bilateral ties. Those relations, though, have been strained over Trump’s repeated broadsides about Leo’s calls for peace and dialogue to end the U.S.-Israeli war.

Rubio, a practicing Catholic, has often been called on to tone down or explain Trump’s harsh rhetoric. He had an audience first with Leo, which was complicated at the last minute by Trump’s latest criticism of the Chicago-born pope. During a 2½-hour visit, Rubio then met with the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, who on the eve of his visit had strongly defended Leo and criticized Trump’s attacks.

“Attacking him like that or criticizing what he does seems a bit strange to me, to say the least,” Parolin said Wednesday.

After the meetings, the U.S. State Department said that Rubio and Parolin discussed “ongoing humanitarian efforts in the Western Hemisphere and efforts to achieve a durable peace in the Middle East. The discussion reflected the enduring partnership between the United States and the Holy See in advancing religious freedom.”

In a separate statement about the audience with Leo, U.S. State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott said that the two discussed the situation in the Middle East and the Western Hemisphere. “The meeting underscored the strong relationship between the United States and the Holy See and their shared commitment to promoting peace and human dignity,” he said.

The Vatican, for its part, said that during Rubio’s meetings with both Leo and Parolin, “the shared commitment to fostering good bilateral relations between the Holy See and the United States of America was reaffirmed.”

It said the two sides exchanged views on the current events “with particular attention to countries marked by war, political tensions, and difficult humanitarian situations, as well as on the need to work tirelessly in favor of peace.”

Rubio also has meetings Friday with Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni and Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani. Those meetings might not be much easier for Washington’s top diplomat, given both have strongly defended Leo against Trump’s attacks and have criticized the Iran war as illegal — drawing the president’s ire.

A mission to smooth ties

The tensions began when Trump lashed out at Leo on social media last month, saying the pope was soft on crime and terrorism for comments about the administration’s immigration policies and deportations as well as the Iran war. Leo then said that God doesn’t listen to the prayers of those who wage war.

Later, Trump posted a social media image appearing to liken himself to Jesus Christ, which was deleted after a backlash. He has refused to apologize to Leo and has sought to explain away the post by saying that he thought the image was a representation of him as a doctor.

Rubio said that Trump’s recent criticisms of Leo were rooted in his opposition to Iran potentially obtaining a nuclear weapon, which he said could be used against millions of Catholics and other Christians.

Leo has never said Iran should obtain nuclear weapons and that the Catholic Church “for years has spoken out against all nuclear weapons, so there is no doubt there.”

“The mission of the church is to preach the Gospel, to preach peace. If someone wants to criticize me for announcing the Gospel, let him do it with the truth,” Leo said late Tuesday, after Trump again accused him of being “OK” with Iran having a nuclear weapon.

By Thursday, tensions seemed to have eased.

Rubio gave Leo a small crystal football paperweight. He acknowledged Leo’s known allegiance to the Chicago White Sox, saying “you’re a baseball guy,” but noted that the football had the seal of the State Department on it.

“What to get someone who has everything?” Rubio joked as he gave Leo the paperweight.

Leo, for his part, gave Rubio a pen apparently made of olive wood — “olive being of course the plant of peace,” Leo said — with his coat of arms on it and a picture book of Vatican artworks.

Trump also has criticized Meloni and other NATO allies for a lack of support for the Iran war, recently announcing plans to withdraw thousands of American troops from Germany in the coming months.

Vatican seen as willing to have dialogue

Giampiero Gramaglia, former head of the ANSA news agency and its onetime Washington correspondent, said that he didn’t expect much to come out of Rubio’s visit for Italian or Vatican relations. He, and other Italian commentators, believe Rubio instead was looking to smooth over relations with the pope for his own political ambitions, as well as the upcoming midterm U.S. congressional elections and 2028 presidential race.

“I doubt Rubio has the role of conciliator for Trump,” he told Italy’s Foreign Press Association. “I have the perception that Rubio’s mission is more about himself” and his political ambitions as a prominent Catholic Republican.

The Rev. Antonio Spadaro, undersecretary in the Vatican’s culture office, said that Rubio’s mission wasn’t to “convert” the pope to Trump’s side. Rather, Washington “has come to acknowledge — implicitly but legibly — that (Leo’s) voice carries weight in the world that cannot simply be dismissed.”

“The situation created by President Trump’s remarks required a high-level, direct intervention, conducted in the proper language of diplomacy: a semantic corrective to a narrative of frontal conflict with the church,” he wrote in an essay this week.

Cuba is also on the agenda

Rubio said that topics other than the Iran war were on the agenda for the Vatican visit, including Cuba. The Holy See is particularly concerned about the Trump administration’s threats of potential military action there following its January ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Trump has said frequently that Cuba could be “next,” and even suggested that once the Iran war is over, naval assets deployed in the Middle East could return to the United States by way of Cuba.

Rubio is the son of Cuban immigrants and a longtime Cuba hawk.

“We gave Cuba $6 million of humanitarian aid, but obviously they won’t let us distribute it,” Rubio said. “We distributed it through the church. We’d like to do more.”

Winfield and Lee write for the Associated Press. Lee reported from Washington.

BEIRUT — A dozen U.S. Democratic Senators have called for the U.S. Central Command to answer questions about American coordination with Israel in declaring broad “ evacuation zones ” in Lebanon and Iran, alleging that the practice may violate international law.

The letter underlines how the Democratic Party — both its leaders and the base — has grown increasingly critical of Israel.

Since the beginning of the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran and the latest Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon, the Israeli military has regularly issued maps covering large areas of territory along with warnings telling all residents of the zones to flee. Israel had previously used a similar approach in Gaza.

The senators said the sweeping warnings have “been used to permanently displace people and destroy homes and towns” and that some civilians who refused to leave their homes in the areas have been killed by subsequent strikes.

The 12 senators led by Vermont Sen. Peter Welch, in a letter dated May. 4 to CENTCOM chief Adm. Brad Cooper that was provided to The Associated Press, state that Israel’s practice of unilaterally declaring mass evacuation warnings in Lebanon and Iran “likely contravene international laws the United States has helped develop around humane warfare.”

The other signatories include senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin.

The letter asked the CENTCOM chief whether U.S. forces have coordinated military targets with Israeli forces during the recent war with Iran, whether they provided assistance or intelligence helping Israel’s military to impose the evacuation zones in Lebanon and Iran, and whether CENTCOM signed off on U.S. military support for the targeting of people or infrastructure in the evacuation zones. It also asked whether the U.S. military has reviewed the legality of the practice.

The Israeli military declined to comment when asked about the letter. CENTCOM did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In the past, Israel has said the evacuation maps aim to keep civilians out of harm’s way. It says Hezbollah has positioned fighters, tunnels and weapons in civilian areas across southern Lebanon, from which it has launched hundreds of drones and missiles — without warning — into northern Israel.

A shift in the party stance

Observers said the move is part of a larger shift in the stance of Democratic Party leaders on U.S. military assistance to Israel. Democrats have also been critical of the Trump administration’s entry into the war on Iran alongside Israel.

The letter came nearly three weeks after more than three dozen Democrats supported an effort by Sanders to block arms sales to Israel, signaling a growing discontent in the party with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the wars in Gaza and Iran.

The two resolutions to block U.S. sales of bulldozers and bombs to Israel were opposed by all Republicans and rejected 40-59 and 36-63.

Jon Finer, former deputy national security adviser under President Joe Biden, said the recent steps by Democratic senators reflect a “growing concern about Israeli conduct of various wars that cause civilian harm and U.S. complicity in that” across the spectrum within the Democratic Party.

Asked why the Democratic Party is taking these steps now and not at the time when the war in Gaza and the Israel-Hezbollah war broke out — when the Democratic Biden administration was in power — Finer said: “our operational integration with Israel appears to be growing, which is part of it, but the truth is the Democratic base has been moving in this direction for some time and Washington has been catching up.”

Andrew Miller, a former senior official on Israel and Palestinian Affairs at the State Department, said the letter “represents a shift among congressional Democrats moving from questions of the legality of Israeli military operations to concerns about the complicity of the U.S. military.”

“It demonstrates that Democrats are taking international law very seriously and that is a welcome development,” Miller said.

The evacuation zones

Israel has issued dozens of evacuation warnings in Lebanon since the latest Israel-Hezbollah war began on March 2. Over 1 million people in Lebanon have fled their homes during the war.

Israel has also issued similar warnings for Iranians, both during the 12-day Israel-Iran war last year and during the U.S.-Israeli war launched on Iran on Feb. 28. In one case last year they warned 300,000 people in Tehran, Iran’s capital, to evacuate.

On Wednesday, the Israel military’s Arabic-language spokesperson Avichay Adraee issued an evacuation warning to residents of 12 villages in southern Lebanon saying Hezbollah is using them to launch attacks. The warnings came despite a ceasefire that has been nominally in place since April 17, although Israel and Hezbollah have been carrying daily attacks since then.

The senators said the declaration of evacuation zones does not absolve Israeli and U.S. forces “from the absolute legal responsibility to determine that each individual person or civilian facility targeted by drones, jets, and gunfire is, in fact, a military target.” It said the use of the zones has been linked to “the deaths of thousands of civilians,” describing them as “kill zones.”

In response to questions by the AP last month, the Israeli military said it issues warnings by phone, text, radio broadcast, social media and leaflets dropped from the air, in accordance with the “principles of distinction, proportionality and feasible precautions” under international law.

Mroue writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Julia Frankel contributed to this report from Jerusalem.

Who won the 2020 election?

Was the Capitol attacked on Jan. 6, 2021?

Can Donald Trump be elected to a third term as president?

No brainers, right?

The answers are, of course, “Joe Biden,” “yes” and “no.” Any fact- and reality-based American would say so. But that humongous class of people pointedly doesn’t include the president of the United States. And apparently for that reason, his nominees for federal judgeships — the very jobs in which you’d most want fact-based individuals — hem, haw, stammer and ultimately decline to give direct answers when Democratic senators test them with such easy-peasy questions at confirmation hearings.

One after another, month after month, Trump nominees for district and appeals courts across the land say that the answers to the questions are matters of debate, of “significant political dispute.” Well, they’re in dispute only because Trump says they are, as does every ambitious officeholder and office-seeker desperate to remain in the retributive ruler’s good graces — including, alas, would-be judges.

To watch them squirm and then squirt out the same rehearsed reply, the same legalistic word salad, just like the dozens of nominees before them would be hilarious (see below) if it weren’t so ominous for the rule of law in the nation.

Trump nominees for other high-ranking jobs, likewise prepped for Senate Democrats’ questions by their Trump handlers, give the same rote response. But the fact that candidates for lifetime seats on the federal bench, making decisions of life-changing consequences for millions of Americans, would choose to dodge the truth is most sickening.

In their truth-trolling to keep Trump happy, lest he yank their chance at new black robes, these candidates fail the test of judicial independence. As one Democrat, Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, told four district judge nominees last week at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, their humiliating hedging “on an issue of fact” — Biden won in 2020 — “reflects not only on your honesty but really on your fitness to be a federal judge.”

Indeed. That judicial nominees would curry Trump’s favor bodes ill for future federal jurisprudence in the one branch of government that’s stood up for the rule of law against Trump, repeatedly, when Congress and the Supreme Court have not. To be fair, a number of judges confirmed in Trump’s first term have been among the many who’ve ruled against his and his administration’s second-term abuses of power. Yet just as Trump has populated his Cabinet and executive branch with sycophants, unlike in Trump 1.0, he’s obviously applying new litmus tests to potential judges. One of them, clearly, is playing along with his election lies.

His nominees’ failure to speak truth to Trump’s power should be disqualifying. But they’re not disqualified, because the Senate is run by Republicans who share their fear of him.

That fact is a big reason to hope that Democrats capture the majority in November’s midterm elections and that, under new management, the Senate will finally take seriously its constitutional “advice and consent” responsibility to act as a check on Trump nominees for the final two years of his term — including, perhaps, one for the Supreme Court.

And, yes, this is Trump’s final term, for all of his teasing about “Trump 2028.” The Constitution’s 22nd Amendment says as much in its opening line: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.”

Yet the four wannabe district judges at last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing — Michael J. Hendershot of Ohio; Arthur Roberts Jones and John G.E. Marck, both of Texas; and Jeffrey T. Kuntz of Florida — struggled over that clear language.

All four hesitated when Sen. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat, asked them to describe the amendment. He even read its initial words before querying Marck, “Is President Trump eligible to run for president again in 2028?”

Marck paused, then sputtered: “Senator, with ah, without considering all the facts and looking at everything, depending on what the situation is, this to me strikes as more of a hypothetical of something that could be raised.”

“It’s not a hypothetical,” Coons countered, then asked again whether Trump is “eligible to run for a third term under our Constitution.”

“Um, I would have to, to review the, the actual wording of it,” Marck blabbered.

Coons turned to the others: “Anybody else brave enough to say that the Constitution of the United States prevents President Trump from seeking a third term?” Silence.

“Anybody willing to apply the Constitution by its plain language in the 22nd Amendment?” Coons persisted. Crickets.

His Democratic colleague, Blumenthal, inquired of the foursome, “Who won the 2020 election?” All agreed in turn that Biden “was certified” the winner. None would say he “won” because — as we and they know —Trump insists to this day that he won; he’s turned the power of his “Justice” Department to trying to prove that obvious falsehood. Far be it from these future judges to contradict the president who nominated them.

Here’s Hendershot’s gibberish to Blumenthal’s simple query: “Senator, I want to be mindful of the canons here. I know this question has come up many times in these hearings and it’s become an issue of significant political dispute and debate. So, with, with that, I would say that, that President Biden was certified the winner of the 2020 election.”

After the others replied similarly, Blumenthal turned justifiably scathing: “It’s pretty irrefutable that Joe Biden won the election. But you’re unwilling to use that word because you are afraid. You are afraid. Of what? President Trump? That is exactly what we do not need on the federal bench today. We need jurists who are fearless and strong, not weak and pathetic.”

Apparently unshamed, each similarly demurred when he asked if the Capitol had been attacked. “You’ve seen the videos, have you not?” Blumenthal blurted.

No matter, Senator. These would-be triers of fact apparently won’t believe their eyes. Not when their patron, the president, insists on lies.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

The emails continually fill my inbox: Startups exclaiming they have engineered a solution to protect homes from wildfires.

I’ve been pitched a system that monitors fires via satellite so it can automatically turn on water cannons when fire gets too close. Another offered high-tech speakers that homeowners can place around their home that blasts powerful but silent sound waves designed to disrupt the chemical process of combustion.

One recent one was so outlandish, I couldn’t ignore it:

An entrepreneur together with a former mayor of Malibu were appearing on Shark Tank to pitch a new system to literally lower an entire home into a subterranean vault when a wildfire approaches.

Many fire officials and experts are optimistic we really can find part of the solution to California’s wildfire crisis in the proliferating world of home defense tech. But they also warn these wild ideas are often expensive as well as largely unproven.

Of course I tuned in to Shark Tank.

“I know, this sounds like a magic trick,” entrepreneur Holden Forrest told the Sharks.

“It sounds crazy,” investor and businesswoman Barbara Corcoran interjected.

Nonetheless, Corcoran, who lost her Pacific Palisades home in the 2025 fires, invested $1 million in exchange for a 20% ownership stake in the company — on the condition that its first proof-of-concept home is her own.

If you, like Corcoran, want to put down some serious money for exciting new tech, there are a few things you should know.

This kind of tech is often significantly more expensive than proven, less flashy approaches to reduce the risk of your home burning — such as covering vents with mesh so embers can’t sneak into the home and multipaned windows that are less likely to shatter in the extreme heat, allowing flames and embers to enter.

For example, Forrest expects the retractable homes to cost around $1,000 per square foot. The company hopes to eventually get it down to around $400.

For reference, Palisades fire survivors expect to pay around $800 per square foot to rebuild, while Eaton fire survivors expect to pay just shy of $600. It’s also more than a new series of fire-resilient homes in the Palisades that incorporate both tried-and-true and flashy new tech, sitting around $700.

Fire safety experts also warn that some of this technology can encourage dangerous behavior such as ignoring evacuation orders and staying to defend homes. For example, even when water cannon companies insist their technology can function autonomously, some homeowners nonetheless stay behind to operate them.

Forrest rejected the idea that his technology, HiberTec Homes, would encourage homeowners to disobey evacuation orders — he argued the opposite. The trust that comes with knowing your home will survive actually decreases the likelihood residents will stay behind, he told the Sharks.

Many of the new home protection systems remain unproven, in part because it takes time for researchers to evaluate them. There are three steps to that:

First, scientists head to the lab to see whether the physics behind the tech works as expected in controlled tests.

Second, they investigate individual homes that used the tech in major fires to piece together whether the same physics held together in the chaos and immense power of real-world fires.

Third, they determine whether what they saw in the lab and on the ground translates to a reduced risk at scale. To do this researchers survey thousands of structures that faced wildfires and compare the percentage with the tech that survived with the percentage without the tech that survived.

If you live in a fire-prone area, and you understand the risks and uncertainties of new tech and have money to spare, by all means, build the wildfire bunker of your dreams — just email me an invite to check it out.

Otherwise, Cal Fire maintains a list of the less flashy solutions that have already gone through their scientific paces.

More recent wildfire news

After months of fierce debate between fire officials and residents in fire-prone areas, California released a new “Zone Zero” proposal outlining landscaping restrictions within 5 feet of people’s homes. Unlike previous proposals, many Southern Californians seem to be … OK with this one.

California regulators determined State Farm “delayed, underpaid, and buried policyholders in red tape.” The Department of Insurance may now seek to suspend the company’s license. Meanwhile, the U.S. Justice Department filed a brief supporting 60 fire victims who are suing State Farm and other insurers, my colleague Laurence Darmiento reports.

Survivors of the 2023 Maui fires could start receiving their share of a $4-billion settlement with Hawaiian Electric, the state of Hawaii, Maui County and other defendants as early as June. However, few will break even, reports Stewart Yerton of Honolulu Civil Beat. Lawyers will get a slice for legal fees; the Internal Revenue Service may claw back as much as a third if Congress doesn’t resurrect a tax exemption for such settlements; and insurers who paid out claims will get 10% of the money.

Oh — and this Saturday is Fire Service Day. There’s a good chance your local fire station will hold an open house, complete with fire equipment demos and maybe even free pancakes.

A few last things in climate news

Tom Steyer, a Wall Street prodigy turned billionaire who made a portion of his money off investments in coal-fired power plants, is now trying to use that money to convince Californians he’s the best candidate on climate and energy affordability. Read my colleagues Ben Wieder and Hayley Smith’s full profile here.

The last California-bound oil tanker to pass through the Strait of Hormuz before the Iran war reached the Port of Long Beach, my colleague Blanca Begert reports. After the ship finishes offloading its crude oil, California will have to manage a deficit of roughly 200,000 barrels of oil per day.

The company that produces the widely used weedkiller Roundup promised to “provide a small thanks” to the Environmental Protection Agency administrator after the agency asserted it would not approve a label for the weedkiller warning it causes cancer, reports Sky Chadde of Investigate Midwest. The revelation came at a congressional hearing last week as the company seeks immunity in the Supreme Court.

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

For more wildfire news, follow @nohaggerty on X and @nohaggerty.bsky.social on Bluesky.

May 7 (UPI) — Millions of Britons were headed to the polls on Thursday to vote in local, mayoral and parliamentary elections in England, Scotland and Wales in what is being seen as a ‘mid-term’ referendum on the leadership of Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Voters in Scotland and Wales are electing lawmakers to their parliaments while in England more than 5,000 seats across 136 local councils are up for grabs, including in all 32 of London’s boroughs. Elections for half or a third of the seats are being held in another 73 local voting districts.

Six English municipalities, all but one of them in London, are electing new mayors.

Labour is expected to lose as many as 2,000 seats, mainly to new parties Reform UK and the Green Party, in an historic shift to a multi-party political system from a system dominated for the past century by Labour and the Conservative Party.

Support for both parties is down sharply with Labour polling on about 20%, compared with 35% at the last set of local elections in 2022, and the Conservatives on 18%, down from about 40%.

Labour’s numbers are also sharply down from the time of the 2024 general election that brought the party to power in a landslide; the Conservatives much less so.

The worst case scenario for Labour sees it losing control of many of the 60 councils it is defending in the big cities, the party’s political heartland.

The Conservatives, who are heavily represented in rural areas, are expected to fare a little better but could lose control of a handful of the 32 councils it runs and as many 1,000 seats overall.

That type of result with a general election only two years away would dramatically ramp up pressure on Starmer, potentially triggering an internal challenge to his leadership of the party and premiership.

Starmer is already under fire for his failure to deliver on his main pledges of his “Change” election manifesto to grow the economy, end the churn and chaos of previous Conservative administrations and tackle illegal immigration, along with his botched appointment of Peter Mandelson as British Ambassador to the United States.

Speculation was mounting that he could face a challenge from an Angela Rayner-Andy Burnham ‘ticket’ under which former deputy prime minister Rayner, would step in to deliver the party’s manifesto before standing aside to let Manchester Mayor Burnham fight the next election, which is due to be held by July 2029 at the latest.

An aide to Rayner, who quit as deputy prime minister in September amid a scandal over underpayment of property taxes on a new home purchase, dismissed the rumors as absurd.

Labour veteran Burnham was blocked by the party from running in a by-election for a Manchester parliamentary seat in February to replace a Labour MP who was standing down. Burnham’s request to contest the election was denied by an internal party committee headed by Starmer on grounds he needed to serve out his term as mayor.

Labour went on to lose with the Green Party, beating them into third place with a 4,000-seat majority, and 12 points clear of Reform UK.

In May 2025, a win by Reform UK in an election for the Runcorn and Helsby constituency in northwestern England, another “safe” Labour seat, prompted Reform leader Nigel Farage to declare that Britain’s two-party system was “dead.”

The top candidates in California’s wide-open race for governor took the stage Wednesday night in a Los Angeles debate that began politely but quickly devolved into another raucous clash.

Former Biden Cabinet member Xavier Becerra and billionaire Tom Steyer, both Democratic frontrunners, were primary targets of the political attacks — Becerra for his record as U.S. Health and Human Services secretary and Steyer over his past investments, including in private prisons that housed immigrant detainees.

San José Mayor Matt Mahan started off the debate by lashing out at both Republicans and Democrats.

“We do not need the leadership that MAGA candidates on this stage are offering that’s divisive. We don’t need the leadership of a billionaire who’s now against everything he made his money in, or a career politician who has failed again and again to deliver results,” Mahan said, taking shots at conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, Steyer and Becerra, respectively.

Mahan had good reason to go on the attack. The moderate Democrat has struggled to meet early expectations that he would emerge as a top-tier candidate.

The California Democratic Party’s latest poll, released Monday, showed Hilton and Becerra tied at 18%, and Bianco, a Republican, with 14%. Steyer received the backing of 12%, while support for the other top Democrats in the race — former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, Mahan, former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond — were in the single digits. Thurmond did not meet the polling threshold to qualify for the televised debates this week.

Sanctuary state policy leads to kerfuffle

In a tense exchange on immigration and the state’s sanctuary laws, Porter said, “We ought to enforce our sanctuary laws everywhere so we don’t have crazy cowboys taking the law into their own hands.”

It was a shot at Bianco, who has criticized the law that blocks local law enforcement from assisting federal immigration agents.

“Tell that to the crazy mother who lost her child,” Bianco said, referring to a case in his county involving a 14-year-old who was hit and killed by a driver who he said had two prior DUI arrests and was in the country illegally.

“Sir, I don’t need any lectures from you about being a mother,” Porter, a single mother of three and the only woman on the debate stage, shot back.

“You might,” Bianco said, prompting a nasty look from Porter and groans and boos from the studio audience.

The one-hour clash followed another Wednesday evening debate, among candidates for Los Angeles mayor, part of a doubleheader hosted and broadcast by NBC4 and Telemundo 52 in Los Angeles. Both took place at the Skirball Cultural Center and were moderated by NBC4 News anchor Colleen Williams, chief political reporter Conan Nolan and Telemundo 52 News anchor Enrique Chiabra.

Republicans and Democrats divided on immigration

Democrats were in lockstep on most issues related to immigration, including opposing Immigration & Customs Enforcement raids and supporting the sanctuary law that prohibits police from coordinating with the federal agency.

Republicans said the controversial state law, which was approved in 2017 during President Trump’s first term, has hurt public safety.

“I have someone in my jail right now … he’s convicted of a felony, but the three prior convictions for DUI, he was released from jail,” Bianco said. “He was deported on two of them, [came] back into the country, and then he killed a 14-year-old boy with another DUI. So we have to wait until somebody dies before we deport criminals who are in our jail.”

Villaraigosa countered that the law allows for violent criminals to be deported and that thousands have been by state and local law enforcement agencies.

Hilton, a British national who became a U.S. citizen in 2021, declared himself “the candidate of the legal immigrant community” and said the governor’s job is to enforce laws, whether they agree with them or not.

All the Democrats said they would restore full Medi-Cal coverage for undocumented immigrants, which has been rolled back due to budget constraints, while Republicans said they would not.

Courting Latino voters

One of the many undercurrents of Wednesday’s debate was the ongoing tussle between Becerra and Villaraigosa. Both have been competing for California’s pivotal Latino vote, and the former Los Angeles mayor’s attacks have become increasingly aggressive as Becerra has ascended in the governor’s race.

At about 40% of the state’s population, Latinos are California’s largest ethnic group but also among the groups least likely to vote, casting just 21% of ballots in the 2022 primary election.

Mindy Romero, director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at USC, said Becerra’s surge in momentum could boost Latino turnout, “but I don’t see any evidence right now that actually tells us that will happen. The thing about primaries, unfortunately, is that turnout is always low. Even in a competitive primary like this.”

On Wednesday, Villaraigosa launched a new digital ad highlighting a former member of the Biden administration questioning Becerra’s record as U.S. Health and Human Services secretary.

He highlighted the issue during Wednesday’s debate after the moderates asked the candidates how they would address homelessness in California.

“Mr. Becerra, are you proud that you pushed out 85,000 migrant children? They were, according to the New York Times, they were maimed, they were exploited,” Villaraigosa said. “Some were even killed. You said those are MAGA talking points, it’s a MAGA hoax. Tell that to the children who died.”

“So I’m not sure what that had to do with homelessness, but cálmate, Antonio, cálmate,” Becerra responded, urging his opponent to “calm down.” He accused Villaraigosa of parroting the unfounded attacks that Trump deployed against former Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.

“We protected kids. We did not let them be abused,” Becerra said. “Stop lying.”

Speaking of homelessness

The Democrats and Republicans on stage were sharply divided on the best way to address California’s ongoing homelessness crisis.

People living on the streets are “pawns in the homeless industrial complex,” Bianco said, adding: “This is not and has never been about homes. This is about drug and alcohol addiction.”

Mahan, Villaraigosa and Becerra touted their records building housing and expanding mental health services, saying those will help reduce homelessness. They, along with Porter, also called for more oversight of state homelessness spending.

Hilton said the issue is one of the state’s biggest failures and blamed the Democrats — the party that has controlled state government for the past 16 years.

“Some of these Democrats are on this stage, they talk as if we’re in some parallel universe where Democrats haven’t been running this state for the last 16 years of one-party rule,” he said.

Democratic shift on nuclear plants, high-speed rail

A series of lightning-round questions highlighted some subtle shifts on traditional Democratic policies as candidates aim to make the state more affordable.

Democrats led the charge to decommission nuclear power plants in California over concerns of potential environmental and health catastrophes, but as the state struggles with energy affordability, all the Democrats (and both Republicans) said they would support further extending operations at the state’s only remaining nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon in San Luis Obispo County.

Most of the Democrats also said they support finishing a high-speed rail line from Bakersfield to Modesto, despite the massive cost overruns and delays, but said the project should be done cheaper and more efficiently. Hilton and Bianco want to scuttle the project.

And all Democrats except Steyer said they would vote against a proposed billionaire tax that will likely be on the November ballot mostly to backfill federal cuts to healthcare coverage. Although most of the Democratic candidates aside from Mahan say they support higher taxes on the wealthy, they have raised issues with the details of the proposal, including the fact that it is a one-time tax.

Iran said on Wednesday that it was reviewing a United States peace proposal that sources said would formally end the war, while leaving unresolved the key US demands that Iran suspend its nuclear programme and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson quoted by Iran’s ISNA news agency said on Wednesday that Tehran would convey its response. US President Donald Trump said he believed Iran wanted an agreement.

“They want to make a deal. We’ve had very good talks over the last 24 hours, and it’s very possible that we’ll make a deal,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Wednesday.

A day before, Trump paused “Project Freedom” to reopen the blockaded strait, citing progress in peace talks. The de facto blockade of the waterway threatens to cause a global recession. Iran has been pressing to keep Hormuz under its control, through which a fifth of global oil and gas supply passes.

Here is more about the US proposal to end the war, and how experts think Iran would respond.

What is the latest US proposal to end the Iran war?

US media outlet Axios said the two sides were “getting close” to an agreement on a 14-point document. Under the memorandum, Iran would agree not to develop a nuclear weapon and halt enrichment of uranium for at least 12 years, it said.

The US would lift sanctions and release billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets, and both sides, which have imposed competing blockades in the Strait of Hormuz, would reopen the critical waterway within 30 days of signing.

Iran has been under US sanctions for decades, and the lifting of some sanctions under the 2015 nuclear agreement was reversed after Trump walked out of the landmark deal signed under his predecessor, President Barack Obama. Billions of dollars of Iranian assets remain frozen in foreign banks due to the sanctions.

It is unclear how this memorandum differs from a 14-point plan proposed by Iran last week.

The Reuters news agency reported on Thursday, citing a source briefed on the mediation, that the US negotiations were being led by Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner. If both sides agreed on the preliminary deal, that would start the clock on 30 days of detailed negotiations to reach a full agreement.

The full agreement would end the competing US and Iranian blockades on the strait, lift US sanctions and release frozen Iranian funds. It would also include certain curbs on Iran’s nuclear programme, which was allowed by the United Nations nuclear watchdog.

While the sources said the memorandum would not initially require concessions from either side, they did not mention several key demands Washington has made in the past, which Iran has rejected, such as curbs on Iran’s missile programme and an end to its support for armed proxy groups in the Middle East.

The sources also made no mention of Iran’s existing stockpile of more than 400kg (900lb) of near-weapons-grade uranium.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump’s ally, said on Wednesday the two leaders agreed that all enriched uranium must be removed from Iran to prevent it from developing a nuclear bomb.

The US and Israel bombed Iranian nuclear sites last June during the 12-day war, after which Trump claimed that Tehran’s nuclear programme was obliterated. A significant portion of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile remains buried inside the bombed nuclear sites.

Tehran denies wanting to acquire a nuclear weapon. It insists its programme is for civilian purposes as allowed within its position as a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty.

Could Iran agree to this proposal?

Iran has yet to formally respond to the latest US proposal. However, Iranian leaders have pushed back against it.

Iranian lawmaker Ebrahim Rezaee, a spokesperson for the parliament’s powerful foreign policy and national security committee, described the text as “more of an American wish-list than a reality”.

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf appeared to mock reports that the two sides were close, writing on social media in English that “Operation Trust Me Bro failed.”

Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar Atas, reporting from Tehran, said on Thursday that Iran is still reviewing the US proposal, after which a response is expected to be given to the Pakistani mediators later today.

The Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Thursday that it welcomes the news of a potential agreement between Iran and the US, adding that it will not disclose additional information at this stage.

“As mediators, we will not lose the trust of both parties by revealing details,” it said in a statement quoted by Al Jazeera Arabic.

Atas said, “Iranians are saying that, at this stage, they’re not negotiating their nuclear programme; it’s only about ending the war on all fronts.”

He added that Tehran wants direct guarantees from the UN Security Council, a lifting of sanctions and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

“If that is achieved, in a second phase, they’re ready to discuss their nuclear programme.”

Al Jazeera’s Almigdad Alruhaid reported from Tehran on Tuesday that Iran has set “a very firm red line” on the nuclear file. “The nuclear enrichment programme is non-negotiable,” he said.

According to former US Assistant Secretary of State Mark Kimmitt, Trump’s reported demand that Iran halt all uranium enrichment is unrealistic and unlikely to be accepted by Tehran.

“If there is anything the Iranians are going to insist upon in these negotiations, it is their right to enrich uranium to the 3.67 percent level, which is allowed under nuclear non-proliferation treaties,” he told Al Jazeera.

Kimmitt added that even the 2015 nuclear deal permitted Iran to continue enrichment. Iran boosted its enrichment up to 60 percent after Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018, during his first term.

However, Kimmitt postulated that Trump might want Iran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium outside of Iran. He added that Iran might either agree to move the enriched uranium outside the country or dilute it down to a non-enriched state.

Alruhaid, the Al Jazeera correspondent, however, said Iran is resisting handing over its existing stockpile of enriched uranium.

Iran is believed to have about 440kg (970lb) of uranium enriched to 60 percent. A 90 percent threshold of enriched uranium is needed to produce a nuclear weapon.

Al Jazeera’s Alruhaid said “the sovereignty on the Strait of Hormuz is becoming one of the main issues on the negotiating table.

“We are seeing the Iranians are tightening their control. They are setting new protocol, new mechanism for controlling that strategic chokepoint for each vessel that is to pass through.”

The US allies in the Gulf, who faced the brunt of Iranian retaliatory strikes, have been pushing for the restoration of navigation in the strait without any conditions. Iran carried out attacks on the Gulf nations, mainly targeting US military assets, after the US and Israel launched attacks on it on February 28.

Trump has repeatedly played up the prospect of an agreement that would end the war, so far without success. The two sides remain at odds over a variety of difficult issues, such as Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its control of the Strait of Hormuz.

A Pakistani source and another source briefed on the mediation told Reuters that an agreement was close on a one-page memorandum that would formally end the conflict, the agency reported on Thursday.

This agreement would kick off discussions to unblock shipping through the strait, lift US sanctions on Iran and set curbs on Iran’s nuclear programme, the sources said.

Al Jazeera, however, could not confirm the veracity of the reports.

Democrats have a huge opportunity to make a huge difference. But whether they’ll grab it is a huge question.

In 2020, I wrote that voters were “weary, anxious and looking for salve” after President Trump’s first term. I said then that the experienced, reassuring Joe Biden fit the moment. Now I fear that if Democrats nominate a similar presidential candidate in 2028, one who wins yet doesn’t act with alacrity on democracy preservation and helping Americans live better lives, a fed-up electorate will once again turn them out as ineffectual.

Who can or should lead the party at a time like this?

I’m not alone in hoping for a tough and confrontational 2028 nominee, someone who is aggressive, persistent and, when necessary, as ruthless as the forces on the opposite side. This person also must have the energy to undertake the mammoth task of repairing the institutional wreckage of Trumpism. Which suggests Democrats should be checking out younger nominees.

Fortunately, newer generations of leaders are emerging. Those who “get it,” in my view, include Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut.

Obviously any Democrat will be better than anyone from Trump’s team or orbit, including JD Vance, Donald Trump Jr. or Marco Rubio. The issue facing Democrats is whether moderate or policy wonkish people such as former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear or Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro would be the democracy warriors this moment demands. Repairing a crucial interstate bridge with lightning speed is a great thing and, sometimes, so is outreach to Republicans and Fox News. But would they prioritize thinking big and fighting hard for the fundamental changes we need?

Where would centrist former CIA officer Abigail Spanberger, the new Virginia governor, land on this scale? Even after coming around to supporting new House maps that will net four seats for her party? Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, who began his podcast by inviting MAGA guests, championed a referendum on five new Democratic seats in his state and led his party to a redistricting triumph. Where would he land? Would he prioritize outreach to Republicans or the battle to assure a “no kings” future for America? The need for structural changes in our outdated institutions is glaringly obvious. Who will run to repair this country? Who can be trusted to follow through? Because the solutions are out there, staring us in the face:

Checks on presidential pardon power. A larger, term-limited Supreme Court bound to an enforceable ethics code. A national law requiring independent redistricting commissions or, better yet, multi-member districts with proportional representation. A voting rights law that sets minimum standards for mail voting, early voting and voter IDs. Anti-corruption laws that prevent profiteering by presidents and their allies. Explicit limits on presidential construction and alterations to federal properties. A stronger “impoundment” act with sharp teeth to make sure future presidents spend taxpayer money constitutionally, as Congress intends, instead of any way they want. D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood to start rebalancing a Congress and electoral college that have shortchanged urban America since the late 19th century.

It’s a long list, and there’s no guarantee that today’s Supreme Court would allow any of it. But realizing some of these goals will take decades; we can’t be discouraged by temporary impediments such as the current lineup of justices. The work on all of it should start ASAP — next year in the next Congress if Democrats are running one or both chambers. And at some point, we’ll have a different high court.

I can already hear the protests: What about affordability? That’s the best part: Trump has done so many things to make life more expensive that simply reversing them would have immediate impact. Stop the Iran war; reopen the Strait of Hormuz; aim to restore the Obama-era agreement that kept Iran’s nuclear ambitions in check; end the Trump tariffs; stop shrinking labor forces in agriculture, healthcare, construction and other industries by ending detentions and deportations of noncriminals; reverse last year’s tax breaks for elites and restore the money for Medicaid and health insurance premium subsidies; and kill off the Versailles-level Trump ballroom that he now wants to fund with taxpayer dollars (initially $400 million, now $1 billion).

Then Democrats could revisit some of their own affordability priorities, including the expanded child tax credit that significantly reduced child poverty, new ways to put housing within reach of more people and national paid family leave. They could also crack down on military spending that is pointless in the modern era and refocus on cheap and effective equipment such as drones like Ukraine is using to strike inside Russia.

As it happens, a stark indicator of the political tides came as I was writing this. Maine Gov. Janet Mills suddenly dropped out of the Democratic Senate primary race against Graham Platner. It was a lightning bolt, given her establishment support after being recruited by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. But in a way it was inevitable.

Mills is 78. If she had gone on to win the primary and defeat GOP Sen. Susan Collins, she would have been sworn in at age 79. Platner is 41, an oyster farmer and military veteran with a compelling, relatable persona. Though he has a controversial past, Mills’ negative ads did nothing to dent his appeal. Polls showed him winning the primary vote against Mills, sometimes by 2 to 1, and with a consistent general-election edge against Collins as well.

Platner told Jon Stewart last week that the party leadership establishment had largely ignored him. His message to them? “You should be curious, because I’m polling 40 points ahead.” By the next morning, Mills was out, and the establishment — Schumer and New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, chair of the Senate campaign committee — said they’d work with Platner to flip the seat.

The midterm races are sending Democrats clues. They should take them seriously.

Jill Lawrence is a journalist and the author of “The Art of the Political Deal: How Congress Beat the Odds and Broke Through Gridlock.” Bluesky: @jilldlawrence

May 7 (UPI) — As Washington and Hanoi enter a dense stretch of trade diplomacy, the coming weeks will test whether one of the Indo-Pacific’s most pragmatic economic partnerships can sustain its momentum or become entangled in the very frictions it has worked to avoid.

A series of meetings — including Section 301 hearings on industrial capacity from Tuesday to Friday this week, forced labor discussions April 28 to May 1 and bilateral consultations next Monday and Tuesday, arrives at a pivotal juncture.

They will help determine whether the United States and Vietnam can preserve a trade relationship that has become central to supply chain resilience, U.S. business interests and Vietnam’s continued economic ascent.

At its core, the U.S.-Vietnam Comprehensive Strategic Partnership is grounded not in diplomacy alone, but also in economic logic.

Partnership built on complementarity

Over the past decade, Vietnam has emerged as one of the fastest-growing U.S. trading partners, driven by a convergence of structural interests. As American firms diversify production beyond China, Vietnam has become a preferred destination, offering cost competitiveness, political stability and deepening integration into global value chains.

U.S. data show Vietnam ran a $123.5 billion trade surplus with the United States last year — the fourth-largest imbalance after China, the European Union and Mexico. It is a figure that has drawn increasing scrutiny in Washington even as it reflects the depth of bilateral trade integration.

From electronics to apparel and consumer goods, Vietnam-based production is often embedded within supply chains designed and financed by U.S. and allied firms. American companies benefit from lower production costs and diversified risk, while Vietnamese exports sustain growth and employment at home.

Disrupting this ecosystem through blunt trade measures risks undermining the very businesses Washington seeks to protect.

Hanoi has consistently signaled a willingness to engage. It has approached trade tensions not with confrontation, but with negotiation — a posture that stands in contrast to more adversarial economic relationships. The upcoming consultations should reinforce that cooperative trajectory, not derail it.

Rethinking “overcapacity”

The debate over “overcapacity” has become a central issue in U.S. trade discussions, with concerns that the term is being applied broadly across different economic models.

In Vietnam’s case, officials and industry observers note that production growth is largely driven by market-based investment and global supply chain shifts rather than state-directed industrial surpluses.

“Vietnam’s overcapacity is much different from China’s,” said Murray Hiebert, head of research for Bower Group Asia. “China’s factories are producing huge surpluses that it dumps onto the world’s markets below market prices. Instead, Vietnam relies on foreign investment companies to produce for export.”

He noted that Vietnam’s export engine is overwhelmingly foreign-driven, with multinational firms, particularly from the United States and South Korea, accounting for roughly 80% of outbound shipments, while domestic producers contribute only about one-fifth.

“Vietnam’s economy is largely a manufacturing platform for foreign companies,” Hiebert said. “U.S. policymakers need to understand Vietnam did not create overcapacity by subsidizing manufacturing, but by courting foreign investors who used Vietnam as a low-cost base to serve global markets.”

Vietnam’s manufacturing expansion has been shaped by global supply chain realignment, accelerated by U.S.-China trade tensions and pandemic-era disruptions, rather than by state-led efforts to flood international markets. Many of the factories operating in Vietnam were relocated or expanded by multinational firms seeking to maintain access to U.S. consumers.

To conflate this model with subsidy-driven overproduction risks misdiagnosing the issue and penalizing a partner that has facilitated, rather than distorted, market outcomes.

Labor reforms and supply chain progress

Concerns over labor practices and supply chain integrity remain part of the policy conversation, particularly in the context of ongoing forced labor discussions. But these concerns should be weighed against Vietnam’s steady, if incremental, progress.

In recent years, Hanoi has undertaken significant labor reforms aligned with the International Labor Organization, including updates to its labor code, expanded worker representation rights and enhanced compliance mechanisms.

Vietnam has also prioritized traceability and transparency across key export sectors. From fisheries to manufacturing, authorities have invested in monitoring systems, strengthened inspections and improved regulatory oversight — steps aimed at meeting the expectations of international partners and markets.

This is an evolving process, not a completed one. But the trajectory is clear: Vietnam is moving toward higher standards, not retreating from them.

The case for market economy recognition

Another unresolved issue, Vietnam’s designation as a non-market economy under U.S. trade law, has become increasingly difficult to justify.

Vietnam operates within the framework of the World Trade Organization and has been recognized as a market economy by more than 70 countries. Its private sector has expanded rapidly, its regulatory environment continues to evolve and its integration into global markets is deepening.

Maintaining Vietnam’s current non-market economy designation under U.S. trade law has raised concerns among policymakers and business groups, who say it could affect the application of trade remedies and investor confidence. The issue comes as Washington seeks to expand economic partnerships across the Indo-Pacific.

Avoiding unintended consequences

Intellectual property has emerged as a new point of tension in U.S.-Vietnam trade relations. Ambassador Jamieson Greer, the U.S. trade representative, has designated Vietnam as a “Priority Foreign Country” — its most serious classification — in its latest intellectual property rights report, opening the door to a potential Section 301 investigation within 30 days.

The designation, the first of its kind in more than a decade, reflects ongoing U.S. concerns over Vietnam’s intellectual property protections and could affect the trajectory of current trade negotiations.

Sweeping trade measures designed to address structural concerns could disrupt supply chains, raise costs for American businesses and consumers, and weaken a partnership that has delivered measurable benefits. In an already fragile global economy, such outcomes would be counterproductive.

Vietnam’s own incentives align with stability. Its growth depends on open markets, foreign investment and compliance with international standards. That alignment should be viewed as a strategic asset.

Washington should avoid applying a China-centric lens to Vietnam’s trade profile, said Dan Harris, a partner at the law firm Harris Sliwoski. Treating Vietnam as an “overcapacity” case without clear evidence risks penalizing U.S. firms that relocated production there in line with Washington’s own push to reduce reliance on China and strengthen supply chain resilience.

“We will end up punishing the companies that did what we asked,” Harris warned.

He added that the broader strategic context matters: Vietnam’s long history of conflict and mistrust with China sets it apart from Beijing, even as it emerges as an increasingly important U.S. partner in the Indo-Pacific.

But the implications of Washington’s trade posture toward Hanoi extend far beyond economics. Vietnam’s export-driven growth, fueled primarily by multinational investment rather than state subsidies, has quietly elevated the country into a strategic linchpin in the Indo-Pacific.

A stable and prosperous Vietnam not only supports supply chain diversification, but also reinforces the rules-based order in the South China Sea.

Economic resilience in Vietnam is not peripheral to U.S. strategy. It is foundational to maintaining balance in contested Indo-Pacific waters. Trade policy cannot be divorced from strategic reality: A weakened Vietnamese economy would do more than disrupt production flows. It could undercut one of the region’s most important counterweights to China’s expanding maritime presence.

Balancing trade and security alignments

Rising risks of policy missteps could carry strategic costs. Analysts warn that overly punitive U.S. trade measures, particularly those misreading Vietnam’s market-driven model, may push Hanoi toward alternative economic alignments, reshaping regional supply chains and weakening U.S. influence in an increasingly competitive Indo-Pacific.

U.S. policymakers are weighing more targeted, cooperative measures in managing trade concerns with Vietnam, including a bilateral supply chain monitoring mechanism, expanded data-sharing on industrial capacity and the potential creation of a standing U.S.-Vietnam trade and standards working group.

The approach aims to address regulatory and transparency issues while maintaining stability in the broader economic partnership.

The challenge for Washington is alignment – translating economic logic into strategic necessity. That means recognizing Vietnam not as a trade problem to be managed, but rather as a partner whose economic trajectory is increasingly central to the region’s stability and security.

Beyond trade flows and investment figures, the U.S.-Vietnam economic relationship carries broader strategic significance. It reinforces a rules-based framework in the Indo-Pacific and supports cooperation across sectors ranging from technology to maritime security.

Any escalation in trade tensions between the United States and Vietnam could disrupt commercial ties and place broader strategic cooperation at risk, as both sides seek to sustain recent gains in economic and security engagement.

James Borton is a non-resident senior fellow at Johns Hopkins SAIS Foreign Policy Institute and the author of Harvesting the Waves: How Blue Parks Shape Policy, Politics, and Peacebuilding in the South China Sea. Borton is the editor-in-chief of the South China Sea NewsWire. The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

WASHINGTON — When the U.S. Supreme Court sharply curtailed a key provision of the Voting Rights Act last week, Democrats in Washington had a message: The rules of redistricting have changed, and California — the nation’s biggest blue bastion — may have a further role to play.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Democrats should “play by the same set of rules” as Republicans. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) vowed to fight in “the Deep South and all over the country.” And Rep. Terri Sewell, an Alabama Democrat, was blunt: “I’ll take 52 seats from California, I sure would. And 17 seats from Illinois.”

The calls for action came as Republican governors in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississipppi and Tennessee called special legislative sessions to redraw congressional maps ahead of this year’s midterm elections. Florida has also approved new maps that could give the GOP four more seats in the House, and President Trump urged other Republican states to follow suit.

The Republican response has intensified the pressure on Democrats to act, including those in California — where the ruling could upend not just congressional maps, but also legislative and local races.

“We can’t allow this national gerrymandering effort of Republicans to go unanswered,” said Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach). “If Republicans go for it, I think we have to leave all options on the table.”

For now, California’s response is far from settled.

Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles) cautioned against “accelerating a race to the bottom.”

(J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press)

The chair of the California Democratic Party said there are no current plans to redraw maps — just months after voters approved a constitutional amendment authorizing a mid-decade redistricting backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The Democratic consultant who drew the state’s current congressional district boundaries says an all-blue map, while possible to create, would probably hurt Democrats more than help them in the long run. And some of the state’s congressional Democrats are worried the impulse to match Republican partisan efforts would be bad for the American electorate.

“Rather than accelerating a race to the bottom, the next step is to dial it down because you can reach a point of no return,” said Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles), one of the state’s most prominent Black lawmakers. “And that’s where we’re headed.”

What California decides — and when — will matter at the national level. With 52 congressional seats, no state has more to offer Democrats in a redistricting war. But experts, lawmakers and party officials say the path forward is more complicated than the calls from Washington suggest.

California could see 48 blue seats, out of 52

That’s in part because California already acted. In 2025, voters approved Proposition 50, which drew new congressional district lines designed to favor Democrats for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections. The new maps, which could yield as many as 48 Democratic seats out of 52, are already in effect, and voters have begun receiving their mail-in ballots.

Going farther is not currently on the table — at least not yet.

“We have yet to fully win the seats in the map that was drawn in 2025. It seems a step too far to say we’re going to go back to the drawing board and redraw the map,” said Rusty Hicks, the chair of the California Democratic Party.

Hicks said it doesn’t mean the issue could not become part of a future discussion, but he said Democrats in other states should not look past what California has already done.

“We’re trying to pick up 48 of them. How much more do you want us to pick up? You want us to make it 52 blue? Well, you all should get into the fight,” Hicks said. “You all should pick up some seats. Let’s all do this together, because California cannot do it alone, it will take the rest of the country.”

Others are not convinced the most aggressive option makes the strategic sense in California.

Paul Mitchell, the Democratic redistricting consultant who drew California’s Proposition 50 congressional maps, said the push for a 52-0 delegation reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how a partisan map would perform in the state over time.

“A 52-to-zero map would have the potential of backfiring,” Mitchell said. “In 2026, we could pick up 52 seats. But then in 2028 or 2030 — a bad year for Democrats, let’s say — Democrats lose 11 of those seats. You’ve drawn these districts so demonically to a Democratic advantage in a good year that in a bad Democratic year, they don’t have the ability to withstand the challenge.”

Ruling could jeopardize state’s voting rights law

The political debate over congressional maps has so far dominated the conversation in Washington. But legal scholars and redistricting experts say the ruling could also have consequences in California’s city hall, school board and county supervisor races.

The justices’ ruling, decided by the court’s conservative majority, says states cannot consider race to create majority-minority electoral districts while allowing them take partisan interests into account.

“A purely partisan map is actually more defensible now than one drawn with racial considerations,” said Rick Hasen, an election law professor at UCLA. “It turns the world on its head.”

The ruling now puts at risk any district drawn at any level of government that relied on the Voting Rights Act to justify its boundaries, Hasen said.

And in California, that uncertainty extends to districts drawn under the state Voting Rights Act, which extends protections for minority voters beyond the federal law, he said. The state law was not directly at issue in the Supreme Court ruling, but Hasen argues the court’s reasoning could provide new legal grounds to challenge the state law as potentially unconstitutional.

Cities including Santa Monica and Palmdale have faced lawsuits alleging their at-large City Council elections diluted the Latino vote. Palmdale settled its case and agreed to switch to district-based elections; Santa Monica’s case is ongoing. Hasen argued that the cities, as well as other bodies, such as school boards, could now return to court to challenge whether district maps drawn as a result of the California Voting Rights Act are unconstitutional.

“That has not been tested yet,” he said, but he fears the same arguments made to challenge the federal Voting Rights Act could be made against the state law.

At the state level, Republican strategist Matt Rexroad sees the ruling affecting the California Legislature as well. He argues the boundaries drawn for the state Assembly and Senate districts are racial gerrymanders.

“Those legislative lines, I would argue, are unconstitutional,” Rexroad said. “And those lines are probably going to change by 2028.”

But Rexroad’s biggest concern goes beyond any single set of maps: It is the future of California’s independent redistricting commission, the nonpartisan body he has spent years defending.

A threat to independent redistricting

Rexroad sees a scenario in which the national political environment gives California Democrats little incentive to return the map-making power to the commission. If Republican states continue to aggressively redraw maps, Democrats will have another justification to keep power in the Legislature’s hands, the same argument made to pass Proposition 50, he said.

“I don’t think the California redistricting commission has ever been in greater jeopardy than it is right now,” he said.

J. Morgan Kousser, a historian who has testified as an expert witness in voting rights cases for 47 years, said California’s commitment to the commission may depend on how aggressive Republican states act in redistricting.

“If we go back to an all-white South in Congress, California may not go back to a fairness standard,” Kousser said. “It may not disarm. It may rearm.”

Mitchell, the redistricting consultant, said that he hopes California and other states choose the path of disarmament and that there is a national push for independent commissions in every state.

“This isn’t good for anybody,” he said. “This was all basically a nerd war over lines that didn’t actually improve any districts anywhere.”

U.S. Rep. Xavier Becerra’s mayoral campaign not only produced a scandalous telephone ad in the Los Angeles mayoral race but later erased the message after it had prompted an investigation, Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley said Wednesday.

Although the actions did not constitute a crime, the district attorney’s report could spell political trouble for both Becerra and Los Angeles Councilman Nick Pacheco, a Becerra supporter connected to the telephone bank that issued the calls.

In the prerecorded telephone calls made days before the April 10 election, a woman posing as county Supervisor Gloria Molina attacked former Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa and his record on crime.

Although Becerra said he had no involvement in the calls, Molina said Wednesday that she felt “personally abused and personally hurt by Xavier Becerra and his campaign.”

Molina told reporters that the congressman could not hide behind his aides and that, even if he did not personally authorize them, had to accept responsibility for the calls.

Molina’s strong statements could hurt Becerra, who has benefited from her support and enjoyed a squeaky-clean image.

“There’s no way to see this in a positive light,” said Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Assn. of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials and a longtime friend of Becerra. “I can’t imagine him knowing. On the other hand, he is the candidate and he is ultimately responsible for the actions of his campaign.”

Late Wednesday, Becerra said he had offered an apology to Molina and Villaraigosa. In a two-page statement issued from his attorney’s office, the congressman said his campaign staff had long denied involvement in the calls.

Becerra said he had told his staff not to engage in negative campaigning. “I can’t express how disappointing and frustrating it is to now learn that those instructions and responsibilities may have been ignored in this case,” he said.

Pacheco, a rising force at City Hall, also found himself entangled in the scandal. The nonprofit organization that he co-founded, Cal Inc., leased its telephone bank to La Colectiva, which made the controversial calls. And one of his top aides was a pivotal figure in the inquiry.

The calls targeted rival mayoral candidate Villaraigosa just days before the April election, in which he finished first out of six major candidates. He is now in a runoff with City Atty. James K. Hahn; Becerra finished fifth with 6% of the vote.

In the calls, made to 80,000 voters, a woman identifying herself as “Gloria Marina” declared: “Please don’t hang up. This is an emergency call.” She then made allegations about Villaraigosa’s record on crime.

One day after the calls began, Molina asked Cooley to investigate them. Seven weeks later, the district attorney said that even though his office found no crime committed, it was important for the public to know what happened.

“Although those responsible for this reprehensible conduct will not face criminal prosecution, this office remains hopeful that the court of popular opinion will rule that this type of underhand political ‘dirty tricksterism’ will not be tolerated,” Cooley wrote in a letter to Molina.

A detailed report on the investigation combined with other information obtained by The Times shows that investigators first interviewed people at La Colectiva on April 2, two days after the calls were made.

“After . . . it became clear that investigators from this office were focusing on La Colectiva,” the report says, Floyd Monserratt, a top aide to Pacheco who was working as a volunteer for La Colectiva, became concerned and spoke with Becerra campaign manager Paige Richardson. At that point, the report adds, Richardson told Monserratt to change the recorded call. During the switch, the “Marina” recording was erased.

Over the course of the probe, investigators found themselves stymied by some of the Becerra campaign’s top officials, prosecutors said.

Monserratt initially denied any knowledge of the controversial calls.

Several days later, Cooley said, investigators tried to reach Monserratt but were unsuccessful until an attorney representing him contacted the district attorney’s office. But on May 1, under oath, Monserratt explained La Colectiva’s role in making the controversial calls.

Richardson also failed to cooperate with authorities’ efforts to get to the source of the phone calls, the report says. As early as April 5, a district attorney’s investigator spoke to Richardson at the campaign’s headquarters, where she denied any knowledge of the calls, according to Cooley’s office. Last weekend, Richardson refused to speak to an investigator who flew to her New Mexico home.

By then, prosecutors had interviewed two other members of the Becerra campaign who said Richardson had given them a script for the call. One, press deputy Allyson Laughlin, said she believed it was “inappropriate” to record the call because as press deputy “her voice was so recognizable,” the district attorney’s report says.

Richardson then asked Veronica Del Rico, a scheduling aide, to record the announcement, prosecutors said. Stephen Mansfield, an attorney for Del Rico, said his client was a low-level employee who was presented a script by her superiors. She asked whether the call would be ethical, legal and accurate before recording it, he said.

The prosecutors’ report also says Richardson and deputy campaign manager Scott Nunnery made the decision to have the caller identify herself as “Gloria Marina.”

“Ms. Richardson and Mr. Nunnery laughed at the idea, and Ms. Richardson said something like, ‘It would be a slap in her face since she just endorsed Villaraigosa,’ ” the report states.

Richardson’s attorney has denied that she originated the recorded call. Nunnery did not return calls for comment.

“The D.A.’s report is inaccurate in many respects,” Richardson’s attorney, Fred Woocher, said in a statement Wednesday. “At this point, however, she sees no value in pointing her finger elsewhere or in spreading the blame.”

On Tuesday, Becerra said in a statement that he had just learned the district attorney’s investigation was focusing on La Colectiva. On Wednesday, in a more detailed statement, he said he had heard “rumors” of the connection weeks ago and asked his campaign attorney to look into it.

Becerra said his attorney reported back that all staffers denied involvement.

Cooley took issue with the notion that the congressman only recently become aware of the focus on La Colectiva. Indeed, Cooley said that, although his office only recently contacted Becerra, there was no doubt the congressman’s campaign was under scrutiny.

“After all, we had been interviewing his campaign staffers for several weeks,” Cooley said. He also disputed Pacheco’s claim that the councilman was instrumental in finding out who was behind the calls.

“That is not an accurate representation,” Cooley told reporters. “He surfaced only because we contacted him last Friday.”

In a letter dated Tuesday to the district attorney, Pacheco said he encouraged Monserratt to share what he knew of the calls with prosecutors.

“That assertion would be inconsistent with our investigation and the statements of Mr. Monserratt,” Cooley said. Adding that Pacheco could have done more to let investigators know about the calls, the district attorney said: “One would think that Nick would have known his information would be helpful.”

Pacheco said he was “stunned” that Cooley told reporters he failed to quickly disclose his knowledge of the calls. “All I can tell you is I was hearing secondhand stories,” Pacheco said. “I’m stunned a prosecutor would want an investigation started with secondhand rumors.”

*

Times staff writers Tina Daunt and Matea Gold contributed to this story.

The Humboldt County Office of Elections made an unnerving discovery Monday: a stack of 596 sealed ballots from the most recent election left at the bottom of a locked voting drop box.

The uncounted ballots would not have affected the outcome of the November statewide special election for Proposition 50, the county office said in a news release Wednesday. However, officials said they’re working hard to have all the votes legally counted.

The office discovered that the ballots were uncounted because of a staff error. When workers checked the drop box, there was a miscommunication about whether it had been fully emptied, the office said.

“That outcome is unacceptable and runs counter to the core of what this office stands for,” Juan Pablo Cervantes, county clerk-recorder and registrar of voters, said in a statement. “While the mistake occurred after an election worker did not follow proper procedures, the responsibility for what happened ultimately sits with me.”

After the ballots were discovered, elections staff confirmed that the sealed ballots had not been tampered with, and they worked with the California secretary of state to determine next steps. Under California law, the ballots should have been counted before the election was certified on Dec. 5 and destroyed six months later.

The Office of Elections said it had altered its protocols to ensure such a mistake does not take place again, implementing a new “lock out, tag out” procedure to ensure each drop box is empty and secured before election results are finalized.

“I promise you that we are taking this seriously,” Cervantes said. “We will strengthen our processes and continue pushing toward the standard our community expects and deserves.”

The discovery comes as California continues to be under a microscope for allegations of voter fraud.

Within minutes of polls opening for California’s special election in November, President Trump took to Truth Social to claim that the Proposition 50 vote — which redrew several congressional districts to favor Democratic candidates — was rigged.

“The Unconstitutional Redistricting Vote in California is a GIANT SCAM in that the entire process, in particular the Voting itself, is RIGGED,” Trump wrote.

When asked later that day to explain Trump’s claims on how the election was allegedly rigged, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said California has “a universal mail-in voting system, which we know is ripe for fraud.” She also accused the state of counting ballots from undocumented immigrants.

Elections officials and Democratic leaders including Gov. Gavin Newsom decried those claims as baseless. “The bottom line is California elections have been validated by the courts,” California Secretary of State Shirley Weber said in a November statement.

More recently, Republican gubernatorial candidate Chad Bianco has drawn scrutiny for using his position as Riverside County sheriff to seize some 650,000 ballots in the county to determine whether they were fraudulently counted. Critics decried the move as another attempt by Republican election deniers to disenfranchise voters.

Humboldt County, which encompasses 4,052 square miles of rural California below the Oregon border, has largely avoided election-related turmoil in recent years. In 2008, however, Humboldt election officials discovered that software they used to tally votes had failed to count 197 ballots from one precinct.

More recently, nearby Shasta County has become a hotbed of election denialism and MAGA politics, with its Board of Supervisors voting in 2023 to end the use of Dominion Voting Systems machines in favor of pursuing a hand-counting system.

Times staff writers Hailey Branson-Potts, Jenny Jarvie and Ana Ceballos contributed to this report.

PORTSMOUTH, Va. — The FBI searched the Virginia state Senate leader’s office on Wednesday as part of a corruption investigation, a person familiar with the matter said. Federal agents also were seen at the senator’s nearby cannabis business.

The search at Virginia Sen. L. Louise Lucas’s district office in Portsmouth comes after the Democrat helped lead the state’s recent redistricting effort.

The FBI said only that it was conducting a court-authorized search warrant in Portsmouth. The person who confirmed the FBI’s search was not authorized to discuss an ongoing investigation by name and spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

Besides the search at Lucas’ office, agents in FBI T-shirts also went into the nearby Cannabis Outlet, which she opened in 2021. Several entrances to its cannabis store parking lot were blocked by unmarked vehicles with flashing blue lights.

Lucas — a prominent backer of legalizing marijuana — has said the store sells legal hemp and CBD products. It has drawn scrutiny from local media amid allegations that some products were mislabeled.

Virginia has legalized pot possession, but retail sales of recreational marijuana remain illegal in the state.

A message seeking comment was left Wednesday on a cellphone for Lucas, who has been a state senator for 34 years.

State House Speaker Don Scott said he was deeply concerned by the FBI search.

“Right now, there is far more theatrics and speculation than actual information available to the public,” Scott, a Democrat, said in a statement, adding that more facts were needed “before anyone rushes to political conclusions.”

Gov. Abigail Spanberger declined to comment. Some other Virginia Democrats were quick to note that the search comes as the FBI and Justice Department have opened a spate of politically charged investigations into perceived adversaries of President Trump.

The context “must be acknowledged,” U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott said in a social media post.

Last week, the Justice Department charged former FBI Director James Comey with making a threatening Instagram post against Trump, an accusation that Comey — who for nearly a decade has drawn the president’s ire — has denied. A separate mortgage fraud case, ultimately dismissed by a court, targeted Democratic New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, who had brought a major civil fraud lawsuit against Trump and his business.

The FBI and Justice Department have also provoked concerns among Democrats about ongoing election-related investigations, including the seizure by agents of ballots and other information from Fulton County, Ga.

Lucas has been a vocal leader of Virginia’s redistricting effort, which voters approved last month. A sign urging people to “vote yes” to “stop the MAGA power grab” still hung Wednesday on a fence separating her office’s parking lot from the parking for the cannabis shop.

Amid a national, state-by-state partisan redistricting fight kicked off by Trump’s desire to aid his fellow Republicans, Virginia voters OK’d a Democrat-backed constitutional amendment authorizing new U.S. House districts. The plan could help the party win up to four additional seats.

“We are not going to let anyone tilt the system without a response,” Lucas said after the vote. Trump, meanwhile, denounced the results.

The state Supreme Court let the referendum proceed but has yet to rule whether the effort is legal. The court is considering an appeal of a lower-court judge’s ruling that the amendment is invalid because lawmakers violated procedural requirements.

Voting districts typically are redrawn once a decade, after each census. But Trump last year urged Texas Republicans to redraw House districts to give the GOP an edge in the midterms. California Democrats reciprocated, and redistricting efforts soon cascaded across states.

Lucas, 82, has been a figure in Virginia politics since the 1980s, when she became the first Black woman elected to a City Council seat in her native Portsmouth. She now is the first woman and first African American to serve as the body’s president pro tempore.

Earlier in life, she was the Norfolk Naval Shipyard’s first female shipfitter, according to her biography in the state library. The job entails making, installing and repairing sometimes enormous metal assemblies for vessels.

In recent years, she has been the chief executive of a Portsmouth business that runs residences, day programs and transportation for intellectually disabled adults.

Tucker, Breed and Peltz write for the Associated Press. AP writers Dylan Lovan in Louisville, Ky.; Jake Offenhartz in New York; and Claudia Lauder in Philadelphia contributed to this report.

The Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday voted in favor of new restrictions on so-called “pretextual” traffic stops, signaling a growing impatience with the Police Commission’s failure to rein in a controversial LAPD tactic that critics say enables racial discrimination.

The vote requests that the department’s all-civilian watchdog adopt new guidelines similar to San Francisco, which bars police officers from pulling people over for broken taillights and other minor equipment violations unless there is a safety threat.

“Board of Police Commissioners: Get this done; we’re watching, no excuses,” said Councilmember Imelda Padilla, who shared stories of her late father being stopped by police with no explanation. “This is what this generation wants.”

If the new policy were adopted, LAPD officers would be prohibited from stopping motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians for minor violations “except in cases where the violation poses a significant and imminent safety risk.”

The unanimous vote followed sometimes emotional testimony at a City Council meeting from Angelenos about how their lives had been shaken by discriminatory traffic stops and searches.

Several speakers pointed to a growing body of research showing that minor stops disproportionately affect Black and brown motorists and do little to combat violent crime while eroding public trust. In recent years, there have been several high-profile traffic stops that resulted in officers or drivers being killed.

The current LAPD policy, in place since 2022, requires officers to record themselves on their body-worn cameras stating the reasons for suspecting a more serious crime had occurred when making a stop for a minor infraction.

The measure passed Wednesday stops short of a categorical ban that some have sought, but was still met with cautious optimism by traffic safety reformers.

“It helps place the city of Los Angeles on a path of ending racial profiling by LAPD,” said Chauncee Smith, of Catalyst California, a group that advocates for racial justice.

Smith’s group recently released a report that said such stops have continued to disproportionately affect Black and Latino drivers.

Smith said the new policy advanced by the City Council represents “a more formal, explicit prohibition,” adding that he hopes the Police Commission will ultimately give officers even less discretion in deciding when to make stops.

In a brief statement after the vote, Mayor Karen Bass thanked Harris-Dawson for his “leadership and dedication in moving this updated policy forward.”

“I will work closely with the Police Commission and Chief [Jim] McDonnell to implement it and to provide officers with appropriate training,” Bass said.

Any changes to the policy will probably draw strong challenges from within the LAPD and the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the powerful union that represents the city’s rank-and-file officers.

McDonnell has publicly defended the stops as an essential law enforcement tool in the department’s fight against guns, gangs and drugs. He and some transportation safety advocates have argued that persistent traffic deaths — road fatalities have in recent years outpaced the number of homicides — indicate the city needs to crack down harder on reckless driving.

The proposed change comes against the backdrop of a broader effort by city leaders to wrest greater oversight of the LAPD from the Police Commission. A spokesperson for the civilian body said it would evaluate how to proceed.

“The Board intends to place this item on a forthcoming agenda to enable a full and transparent discussion of the Department’s pretextual stop policy, which will include the recommendations from the City Council,” the statement said.

McDonnell did not respond to a request for comment.

The vote was the latest move in a broader push to remove police officers from traffic enforcement. Some advocates have argued that more punitive approaches that prioritize arrests and traffic citations do little to keep city streets safe; instead, they argue the city should invest in unarmed civilian workers and speed bumps, roundabouts and other street modifications that could help curb unsafe driving.

Adrienna Wong, a senior attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said Wednesday’s vote showed city leaders taking action on an issue that was personal to them.

“I think what you saw today in council was the council members have lived experiences and are hearing from their constituents and are voting to represent their constituents in a way that the Police Commission has not,” she said.

Karen Bass, Spencer Pratt and Nithya Raman each came into tonight’s mayoral debate with goals for what may be their only time together on stage.

As the incumbent mayor, Bass had to weather blows from her challengers while trying to sell voters on her fitness for another term, despite a disastrous 2025.

As a reality TV star with no political experience, Pratt needed to show that he could offer substance instead of just AI fanboy videos and the name-calling — “Karen Basura” — he has indulged in on social media.

Raman’s task was perhaps the hardest. As a city councilmember whose two previous campaigns were backed by the local Democratic Socialists of America chapter, she needed to convince Pratt-curious voters that she’s more conservative than Bass. Yet for others, she needed to appear liberal enough to peel away support from the mayor and come out as a progressive lioness to excite Democrats in a year where GOP candidates like Pratt have to answer for the disaster that is President Trump’s second term.

Only one of the three failed.

At times, Raman was tongue-tied trying to answer simple questions. Moderators kept telling her she was going over her time. Answering a yes/no question about whether noncitizens should be allowed to vote in city elections, the councilmember went on and on, until the moderator cut her off.

While Raman offered some policy plans, she also played a card straight out of Trump’s arsenal. She claimed that Pratt and Bass were teaming up against her — an unlikely scenario that drew laughs from the audience. She got more and more frustrated, to the point that when Bass was allowed time for a rebuttal, she dejectedly proclaimed, “I haven’t been offered that in a lot of this debate.”

Raman, who had endorsed Bass’ reelection before throwing her hat in at the last minute, came off as inexperienced, touchy and unprepared.

The line of the night was Pratt dismissing Raman as a “random councilmember” — which is how the L.A. political world responded to her entry into the race. She was so upset about Pratt’s remark that she continued to whine about it to a KNBC reporter after the debate.

What’s shocking about Raman’s flop is that she should know how important it is to project well to a television audience, given that her husband is a screenwriter. Her tone was flat, when she needed to be passionate.

No one had to remind Pratt of that. He was parrying tough questions on a big stage for the first time, facing an audience who knew him only as the Angry L.A. White Guy he has reveled in playing.

He mostly succeeded.

At his best, Pratt came off as a boisterous bro with enough charm to call himself “humble” without coming off as obnoxious. He dominated the flow of conversation without coming off as commandeering, even interrupting Raman at times to let Bass speak. At one point, he even said “Sorry” when he had taken up too much time and the moderators cut him off.

He was light on specifics, other than saying he was going to do better than the others and that he would prioritize public safety above all. Instead, he was the one person on stage who used anecdotes to sell himself, citing conversations about abused animals, downtown workers too afraid to eat outside and film producers hiring local gang members to keep their shoots safe.

As a TV personality-turned-influencer, Pratt knows that storytelling is far more effective than drowning the audience in statistics, as Bass and Raman did.

But the bad Pratt flared up at times. He earned a reprimand from KNBC anchor and debate co-moderator Colleen Williams when he called the mayor an “incredible liar.” Affecting high-pitched voices to mock Bass and Raman came off as juvenile and possibly sexist. And when it came to last summer’s federal immigration raids that terrorized Southern California, Pratt appeared flummoxed when Bass pointed out that 70% of those arrested didn’t have criminal records — a use of stats that hit.

Bass was also who she had to be — measured, forceful and raring to defend her record, without coming off as defensive. She wasn’t exactly inspirational, but she didn’t have to be. The city’s powerful labor unions have backed her, along with much of the Democratic establishment.

Raman and Pratt are right in deeming Bass the old guard of a beat-up city — but the old guard didn’t get there without knowing how to win.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in New York unsealed a suicide note Wednesday purportedly written by Jeffrey Epstein in July, 2019, before a failed suicide attempt soon after he had been taken into federal custody on sex trafficking charges.

The disgraced financier would ultimately die weeks later in the same New York facility in what was ruled a suicide.

While the note’s authenticity has not been established, it contains an apparent reference to a line from a 1931 Little Rascals film that Epstein had used in at least two email messages, according to the trove of Epstein documents released by the U.S. Department of Justice this year in response to the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act.

In the short handwritten note released Wednesday, Epstein allegedly wrote, “They investigated me for month — Found nuthing!!!”

The note concludes, “Whatcha want me to do — Burst out cryin!! No Fun – Not Worth It!!”

It was a phrase Epstein had used before.

In a September, 2016, email to his brother, Mark, he wrote, “whtchoo want me toodo — bust out crying” in response to news that their cousin had become a grandfather.

And in another message the following year to his childhood friend Terry Kafka, Epstein wrote, “Whatcha want me todo/bust out cryin,” in response to a message from Kafka about being nostalgic

Epstein’s brother and Kafka did not immediately responded to requests for comment.

The line is an apparent reference to a 1931 Little Rascals short film “Little Daddy,” in which the character Stymie says, “Well, what do you want me to do, bust out crying?” when another character says that it will be their last breakfast together.

The note emerged from the court records of Epstein’s onetime cellmate Nicholas Tartaglione, a former police officer who is serving four consecutive life sentences for a 2016 quadruple murder.

It was released in response to a request by the New York Times.

The note itself was not included in the millions of pages released by the Justice Department.

In 2020, “60 Minutes” disclosed a note Epstein reportedly wrote days before his August, 2019, death that included complaints about his conditions and similarly concluded with the phrase “No fun!!!”

Journalist Katie Phang sued acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche for allegedly failing to comply with the requirements of the Epstein files law passed last year, which required that the documents be released in their entirety within 30 days, with reasoning provided for any documents not released.

The department released the files after the deadline passed and has faced criticism for removing or not releasing some documents and simultaneously failing to redact the names of numerous Epstein victims while redacting the names of some of Epstein’s friends and associates.

Although he lost his bid to become Speaker of the California Assembly, Charles Calderon (D-Alhambra) said he will persist in efforts to curb the powers of that office and to reform the legislative system even if it means working for passage of a Republican-sponsored initiative.

Assemblyman Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) won an unprecedented fifth term as Speaker on Monday, turning back the challenge of a coalition of Republicans and five dissident Democrats, including Calderon. Brown got 40 votes in the 80-member Assembly while Calderon received 34.

Calderon, a 38-year-old attorney, shook hands with Brown after losing the election but said that act did not signal an end to his challenge to Brown’s leadership. All it meant, he said, is that “I’m not a bad loser.”

It was nearly a year ago that Calderon and four other Assembly Democrats rebelled against Brown and formed what the press dubbed “The Gang of Five.” They began working with Republicans to pass legislation Brown opposed and called for reforms to weaken the Speaker’s power.

Gained Support

Brown not only survived the challenge but picked up additional allies in November’s elections.

Nevertheless, Calderon said he considers the Gang of Five effort successful because it has brought legislative reform to the forefront.

He noted that even Brown has said he will support changes in the way the Assembly is run and has appointed a committee headed by Assemblyman John Burton (D-San Francisco) to make recommendations. Calderon said he is skeptical about Brown’s support for reform and in a letter to Burton termed the committee’s preliminary proposals “a clever and skilled rubber-stamping procedure that in reality further concentrates power in the Speaker and his friends.”

Calderon said he is optimistic about the prospects for legislative reform, however, because Democrats apart from the Gang of Five are demanding it.

If the Legislature does not produce meaningful reform, he said, he will support Assembly Minority Leader Ross Johnson’s proposal to reform the Legislature through the initiative process.

In an interview in his Montebello office last month, Calderon said that by putting legislative reform at the top of his agenda, he is responding to the desires of voters in his district.

‘Don’t Give Up’

“Everyone says, ‘Don’t give up. Keep fighting.’ That’s what people want. They don’t want to elect people to go up to Sacramento to lay down for an office. They want people to go up and raise hell for the right reasons.”

Calderon compared the way the Assembly works now to what he saw of the Communist Party when he visited the Soviet Union in a cultural exchange program in 1985.

“The way the Speaker runs the Assembly has many similarities to how the Communist Party works,” Calderon said.

“In the Soviet Union, the only means of upward mobility is through participation and advancement in the Communist Party,” he said. Those who are loyal, do as they are told and don’t challenge those above them move up, he said.

“That’s exactly the way the Assembly works. If you don’t challenge the Speaker, don’t vote against him, don’t embarrass him and do as you’re told, why, then you’ll move up in the Assembly hierarchy.”

Susan Jetton, Speaker Brown’s press secretary, dismissed Calderon’s assertion that the Assembly operates like Soviet politics. Brown, she said, “has never, never said that people have to agree with him.” But Jetton added, Brown has told lawmakers that if they want to chair committees they should support his direction “on procedural matters.”

For example, she said, in the last legislative session Brown appointed Republican Assemblyman Larry Stirling of San Diego as chairman of the Public Safety Committee, even though the liberal Brown often disagreed with the conservative Stirling.

When told that Calderon is continuing to assail Brown’s policies, she said: “I’m sorry Chuck is doing this. The Speaker began the day after the election and has continued . . . to bury the hatchet and say ‘let’s work together.’ ”

Calderon rose to the post of majority whip under Brown and was a member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. He authored major bills opening California to interstate banking, requiring environmental testing near landfills, and regulating firms that help consumers obtain credit.

Calderon said that even before he joined the Gang of Five, Brown “perceived me as a threat to him and constantly attempted to co-opt me by handing me more titles and assignments, more public praise and that kind of thing. When he realized he wasn’t making any difference, he took the opposite tack and tried to take everything away.”

Fall From Power

Calderon’s allies in the Gang of Five, Gerald Eaves of Rialto, Rusty Areieas of Los Banos, Steve Peace of Chula Vista and Gary Condit of Ceres, all held leadership positions or seats on influential committees before they began challenging Brown’s leadership. Last spring Brown referred to them as “just the most outrageous collection of ungrateful people I’ve ever met.”

All five lost their leadership positions and choice committee assignments.

In addition, Brown dismissed six members of Calderon’s staff and moved him to a smaller office earlier this year. Calderon no longer has any committee assignments, and said he sometimes has been denied the customary legislative per diem of $87 for attending legislative hearings and reimbursement for travel to Sacramento.

Calderon said Brown “arbitrarily approves or denies legislative per diem depending on the way he feels.” A spokeswoman for Brown said he rejects claims that fail to comply with Assembly rules, but does not act arbitrarily.

Speaks as Moderate

Calderon said Brown and other Democratic leaders have increasingly focused on a liberal agenda that excludes moderates such as himself.

“If ‘60s liberalism continues to dominate the leadership of the Democratic Party, then I think the party is doomed,” Calderon said.

“It used to be there was room for everybody in the Democratic Party. The reality is that there is no room for you if you are a moderate or a middle-of-the-road Democrat.”

However Calderon said he does not intend to leave the party. “I have been a Democrat all my life,” he said. “I will always be a Democrat. My mother was a Democrat . . . my father . . . my grandparents, and I will die a Democrat but I won’t sit back and be a silent Democrat.”

Some critics have questioned whether Calderon is moderate and a reformer, or is just maneuvering for power.

Critical Memo

Before Monday’s vote on the speakership, Assemblyman Richard E. Floyd (D-Hawthorne), a Brown loyalist, circulated a 28-page memo titled “The Two Faces of Charles Calderon.” The memo accused Calderon of ducking issues, saying he has one of the highest rates of not voting in the Assembly. The memo also accused Calderon of hypocrisy in advocating a ban on transfer of campaign funds, and then transferring thousands of dollars to political allies. It also noted that he has urged a limit on the number of bills a legislator can introduce but has introduced more than most of his colleagues, although he has had a low percentage enacted.

Calderon said he does not know whether the charge that he votes on fewer bills than other members is true, but he sometimes abstains when he approves the general thrust of a bill but dislikes specific provisions. As to his position on transfer of funds, Calderon said he has supported reform of campaign financing, including Prop. 68 last June, but until reforms take effect he will operate within existing rules, helping allies when that is permitted.

The assemblyman said he does not regard the number of bills introduced and passed to be a measure of effectiveness.

Diffusing Power

Calderon has called for a number of reforms in the Assembly, many of them aimed at sharing power now concentrated with the Speaker. For example, in place of the present system in which the Speaker controls committee assignments, Calderon would have the entire Assembly elect the Rules Committee, which would make other committee assignments. He also would give each member a budget allotment, outside the control of the Speaker.

“We’ve got to diffuse the power of the Speaker by setting up a checks and balances system in the House and by taking away the Speaker’s power to punish members in a personal and political way.

“We need to do away with this punishment and reward system,” he said. “As long as there is this punishment and reward system, members are going to be either seduced or intimidated from representing their own districts.”

One Brown ally, Assemblyman Burt Margolin (D-Los Angeles) said he hopes Calderon will make peace with the Democratic leadership.

GOP Links

“I’m hopeful he’ll return as a fully functioning member of the Democratic caucus and leave behind the alliance with Republicans,” he said.

Margolin said he has repeatedly stressed the following point in conversations with Calderon during the past year:

“Whatever our internal differences, they are best resolved within the Democratic caucus and when you invite Republicans into the discussion what follows is not in the best interest of the Democratic Party . . . because they (the Republicans) clearly have a focused self-interest.”

In an interview on Tuesday, Assemblyman Richard Mountjoy (R-Monrovia) said that Calderon’s future remains bright, despite Monday’s vote.

“I think he’s got a good future here,” Mountjoy said. “I just don’t believe Willie will be around here a long time. I’m not sure if he will become Speaker. That’s not out of the realm of possibility. But even if he’s not Speaker, certainly he will have a key position in the house once Willie moves on and I don’t think Willie will be here forever.”

Calderon, who lives in Whittier, was reelected to his fourth term in November without Republican opposition. He represents a district that contains Alhambra, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pico Rivera, South El Monte and part of Whittier.

Times staff writer Mark Gladstone in Sacramento contributed to this story.

Three of the leading candidates for Los Angeles mayor — incumbent Karen Bass, Councilmember Nithya Raman and reality television personality Spencer Pratt — will share the stage for a debate Wednesday evening.

The hour-long forum, broadcast on NBC4 and Telemundo 52, will be held at the Skirball Cultural Center in Brentwood starting at 5 p.m.

The debate will also air online at nbcla.com and telemundo52.com and be available via streaming channels on platforms like Amazon Fire TV, Roku and Samsung TV Plus.

Voters have already been mailed their ballots for the June 2 primary election, which can be returned by mail or at designated drop box locations. In-person voting is already open at the county’s Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office in Norwalk, and will expand to county Vote Centers starting May 23.

Wednesday’s debate will be moderated by anchor Colleen Williams and political reporter Conan Nolan of KNBC-TV, and anchor Enrique Chiabra of Telemundo 52. The debate is held in partnership with Loyola Marymount University and the Skirball Cultural Center.

A gubernatorial debate will follow at 7 p.m.

May 6 (UPI) — The FBI raided the offices of and a cannabis business co-owned by L. Louise Lucas on Wednesday in Portsmouth, Va.

Lucas is a Virginia state senator, president pro tempore of the state Senate and a vocal leader of Virginia redistricting efforts.

Officials told The Washington Post that the investigation has to do with corruption and bribery allegations involving the business. Lucas was not arrested, and an FBI spokesperson said the investigation was ongoing.

Democrats called in question the motivation behind the raid; Lucas has often criticized President Donald Trump and was instrumental in the successful Virginia referendum in April to redraw the state’s congressional maps. However, The Washington Post, NBC News and The New York Times reported that sources familiar with the case claimed the investigation was opened during the Biden administration and has to do with the marijuana dispensary.

Rep. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott, D-Va., said that the raid “occurs in the broader context of President Trump’s repeated abuse of the Department of Justice to target his perceived political opponents.”

Don Scott, speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, emphasized that Lucas has not been charged with anything.

“I am deeply concerned by today’s raid,” he said, WAVY-TV reported. “Given the politicization of this administration — an FBI led by Kash Patel and a Justice Department led by President Donald Trump’s former personal attorney — I think people should take this with a grain of salt and allow the facts to come out before jumping to conclusions,” he said.

Scott said he spoke with Lucas after the search, The New York Times reported.

“She basically said, ‘They’re not going to find anything there and I didn’t do anything wrong,’ ” he said. “She’s very upset and she’s very angry and she won’t back down.”

Lucas was elected to the Virginia General Assembly in 1991.

Secessionists in the western Canadian province of Alberta recently announced that they have gathered enough signatures to launch a referendum on independence from the rest of the country.

Leading secessionists said that they formally submitted about 300,000 signatures to election authorities earlier this week, far more than the 178,000 required for the province to consider a referendum.

“This day is historic in Alberta history,” secessionist leader Mitch Sylvestre said.

“It’s the first step to the next step — we’ve gotten by Round 3, and now we’re in the Stanley Cup final,” he added, referring to a hockey championship tournament.

Even if a vote were in favour of independence, an uncertain and protracted process would follow, including possible legal challenges and negotiations with the federal government.

But the possibility of a referendum has brought renewed attention to Alberta’s longstanding frustrations with federal power in Canada and calls for greater autonomy.

What is driving Alberta’s secessionist movement? What are the prospects of success for the referendum, and what could it mean for Canadian politics? Here’s what you need to know.

How many signatures were collected?

Alberta secessionists said on Monday that they had submitted nearly 302,000 signatures, more than the 178,000 required to qualify for referendum consideration.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has said she would move forward with the vote if the petition gathered enough signatures, although she does not support independence from Canada herself.

What would the referendum ask voters?

If the proposed measure makes it to the ballot, it would ask voters: “Do you agree that the Province of Alberta should cease to be a part of Canada to become an independent state?”

Does this guarantee a referendum, and could Alberta actually separate from Canada?

Meeting the signature requirement does not in itself guarantee that a referendum will take place.

Elections Alberta, the province’s electoral authority, still needs to verify the petitioners’ names, a process that has been stalled by a court ruling.

Indigenous groups have also filed a legal challenge, stating that separation would be a violation of their treaty rights.

There are also questions about whether the referendum will gather sufficient support among voters to pass. Polls have shown that about 30 percent of residents would support such a measure.

What’s behind Alberta’s bid for separatism?

While secession has never been so close to a vote in Alberta, pro-independence sentiment has been part of the province’s political culture — home to about 5 million people — for decades.

That sentiment is driven largely by the feeling of many in Alberta that the province is distinct — culturally, economically, and politically — from the rest of Canada.

The oil-rich western province has long expressed frustration with political decision-making in Ottawa, the Canadian capital, despite what it sees as its outsized economic contribution to the national economy through its massive fossil fuel industry.

Environmental regulations and efforts to address climate change have become another flashpoint, with secessionist leaders depicting Alberta’s primary industry as hamstrung by regulatory decisions made by bureaucrats with little understanding of the province.

“We’re not like the rest of Canada,” secessionist leader Sylvestre told the news service AFP. “We’re 100 percent conservative. We’re being ruled by Liberals who don’t think like us.”

“They’re trying to shut down our industry,” he added.

Have any other provinces considered separating from Canada?

Alberta is not the only region with a complicated relationship with the rest of Canada.

The French-speaking province of Quebec is home to a decades-old nationalist movement that has pushed to separate from Canada, rooted in a desire to recognise Quebec’s distinct linguistic and cultural identity.

The popularity of that movement has ebbed, with a March poll finding Quebecois secessionism at its lowest level of support since voters narrowly rejected a referendum in 1995. Still, the secessionist Parti Quebecois political party is polling high in advance of a provincial election set for later this year.

Has the push for independence attracted criticism?

As with all independence movements, the province’s bid for separation from the rest of Canada has become a source of passionate disagreement.

“It stands for something that most of us Albertans and Canadians don’t stand for,” Thomas Lukaszuk, the province’s former deputy premier and a strong supporter of federalist identity, told AFP. “It’s a form of treason.”

Expressions of support from the administration of United States President Donald Trump, who has angered Canadians by suggesting that the country should become a US state, have also sparked criticism that the secessionist movement is undermining Canadian unity.

Asked about the possibility of independence in January, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that Alberta would be a “natural partner” for the US.

“Alberta has a wealth of natural resources, but they won’t let them build a pipeline to the Pacific,” Bessent told a US right-wing commentator. “I think we should let them come down into the US, and Alberta is a natural partner for the US. They have great resources. The Albertans are very independent people.”

“The separatists are not elected members. They’re just citizens of Canada residing in Alberta, and they actually formed delegations and are received by the highest levels of US administration,” Lukaszuk said. “That must be very empowering to them.”

Regardless of whether the proposed ballot measure succeeds, the development is likely to serve as a shot in the arm for the province’s secessionist forces.

“I think this is going to be a permanent change in our political culture,” independent historian and supporter of independence Michael Wagner told AFP, adding that the movement “is not going to just disappear”.

What happens next?

A provincewide ballot could take place as soon as October, as part of a larger referendum on several questions relating to constitutional issues and other matters, such as immigration, scheduled for October 19.

Justice Shaina Leonard issued a monthlong stay on the certification of the independence petition on April 10, following a legal challenge from several First Nations groups who say separation would violate treaty rights.

That ruling did not bar the gathering of signatures, and a decision on legal challenges from Alberta First Nations is expected later this week. A decision in favour of the First Nations challengers could render the process academic.