politics

SACRAMENTO — Proposed legislation to protect animals from “Frankenstein”-like medical experimentation died in the state Senate on Thursday, and supporters blame election year politics for its demise.

Assembly Bill 1382 by Assemblymember Leticia Castillo (R-Home Gardens) would have banned the sale of genetically modified animals in California, such as glow-in-the-dark rabbits and horned “unicorn” horses.

While the business of cosmetically modified, futuristic-looking pets remains in its infancy, animal rights groups worry that eventually the creatures will be created, sold and later discarded in crowded municipal shelters.

Castillo’s bill passed unanimously in the Assembly earlier this year and sailed through the Senate Judiciary Committee in June with bipartisan support.

On Thursday, the legislation died in the Senate Appropriations Committee. The chair of that powerful committee is Sen. Sabrina Cervantes (D-Riverside) whose sister, Clarissa Cervantes, is challenging Castillo in the Nov. 3 election.

Cervantes never brought up the bill during Thursday’s hearing, which effectively kills it. Cervantes’ office didn’t respond to requests about why the legislation died.

Judie Mancuso, the founder of Social Compassion in Legislation, the bill’s sponsor, called the outcome “ludicrous.”

“When you’ve worked in the Capitol as long as I have, you understand that good bills can become political assets or political liabilities during an election cycle,” said Mancuso.

Castillo pledged Thursday to continue her focus on animals and cosmetic genetic engineering.

“This bill was never about politics — it was about protecting animals from being turned into novelty products,” Castillo said in a statement. “I’m disappointed AB 1382 did not move forward, but I am not done fighting for these animals. The technology that makes ‘designer pets’ possible isn’t going away, and neither am I.”

A 2025 Wired article entitled “Your Next Pet Could Be a Glowing Rabbit” profiled a Texas company seeking to create gene-edited pets. Josie Zayner, the founder of the company, told the Times in July that she opposed Castillo’s bill.

Castillo, at a hearing earlier this year, said she understands the concept of gene-editing animals for health reasons, but doesn’t want to see the alterations for cosmetic reasons.

Glow-in-the dark fish were exempt from her bill, which proposed civil penalties of at least $5,000.

Though the Judicial Council of California, the policy-making body for the courts, reviewed the legislation and didn’t have any fiscal concerns about it, the Senate Appropriations Committee analysis warned of “potentially significant workload cost pressures to the state funded trial court system” to resolve any civil cases related to the bill.

“The fiscal impact of this bill to the courts will depend on many unknowns, including the number of cases filed and the factors unique to each case,” the analysis stated.

The Democratic-controlled legislature uses appropriations committees to cull through hundreds of bills placed on what is referred to as the “suspense file.”

Officially, the suspense file is a tool for legislative leaders to evaluate costly bills by weighing them against one another and deciding what to advance to a vote by the Senate and Assembly. Unofficially, it’s used as a way for Democrats who control the Legislature to kill controversial bills out of the public eye.

California Democrats are making an aggressive push to unseat Castillo from the Assembly in the November election, Politico reported.

Castillo defeated Clarissa Cervantes in 2024 by nearly 600 votes to represent parts of Riverside County and San Bernardino County. Castillo lost to then-Assemblymember Sabrina Cervantes in 2022.

After the bill was moved to the Senate Appropriations Committee earlier this year, animal advocates reached out to state Senate Pro Tempore Monique Limón’s office to question the move.

“It’s my belief that there is some kind of political game going on,” Michelle Kelly, chief executive of the nonprofit welfare organization Los Angeles Rabbit Foundation, told the Times last month.

“Why would anyone not want to move forward with this bill?” Kelly said.

A representative for Limón declined to comment.

Things people don’t want to do this summer, as evidenced by poor ratings: Watch CBS news anchor Tony Doukopil. Tune into Paramount+’s sci-fi teen drama “Star Trek: Starfleet Academy.” Read President Trump’s Truth Social posts.

No matter how much Trump posts, and he has been posting a lot lately, traffic to the platform he uses as his megaphone for official White House statements and personal rants has fallen off significantly this summer. Last month, the overall number of monthly visitors to Truth Social was down about 36% from where it was in 2025, according to the online tracking firm Similarweb. The numbers were similarly dismal in June.

But Trump’s slumping media fortunes may soon get an infusion of cash, or bitcoin, or whatever it takes to line his coffers before the jig is up.

Never one to leave a source of income untapped, the president has come up with yet another way to add to the $2.2 billion he made in just the first year of his second term. His majority-owned Trump Media & Technology Group earlier this month announced that it was rolling out a new service aimed at cashing in on the president’s every word.

Truth API is a subscription service that offers early access to posts from Trump and other notable users of the platform, for a price. It’s charging fees of up to $100,000 and month.

But there’s a hiccup in the president’s latest grift. On Wednesday, media organizations Freedom of the Press Foundation and The Intercept sued Trump, filing a complaint saying that providing quicker access to his posts to those who pay was “extraordinary, corrupt, and unconstitutional.”

Their suit alleges that Truth API contradicts the First Amendment’s guarantee of equal public access to the president’s statements and violates the Fifth Amendment by granting preferential access for “unreasonable sums.” The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asked the court to block Trump from publishing official government information exclusively on Truth Social.

So why is this particular money-making scheme garnering so much attention outside Trump’s many other grifts? Because a president’s words can, and often do, sway the stock market. In the frenetic world of Wall Street trading, early access to statements and news from the Commander-in-Chief gives subscribers an edge, and as NPR pointed out, that could mean a difference of millions of dollars.

Unlike any other sitting U.S. president, Trump in his second term has ignored traditional means of communication such as press briefings, live addresses or posting official announcements, executive actions, press releases, and statements on the official White House Website. He’s done so in favor of communicating through his own privately controlled platform, delivering wild posting sprees that often forgo the fact-based, informative briefings we the people still need from our elected officials. But even back when he was using Twitter (now X) during his first term, the White House said his tweets should be considered official statements.

That standard still holds for his frequent barrages of boasts, insults, threats, grouses and indecipherable dispatches via Truth Social. After the humiliating failure of his America 250 celebration, he fired off 67 posts on Truth Social in just two hours, posting almost every single minute between 11:12 a.m. and 1:14 p.m. His musings ranged from attacks on a federal judge to a photo of himself at a 1991 New York City tree-lighting ceremony with his “Home Alone 2” co-stars.

That spree is now among the thousands more posts from the president, that have not been followed up by announcements from the White House outside of Truth Social. “In other words, President Trump’s posts are the only way to get official government news,” the lawsuit said.

Trump Media & Technology Group, or TMTG, is majority-owned by the president. It was launched following Trump’s account suspension across mainstream social platforms including Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. The platforms cited risks of inciting violence following the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot. Trump responded by creating his own platform, and Truth Social debuted in 2022.

But the platform’s parent company, TMTG, has lost money ever since it went public in 2024. On Monday, Trump Media reported a $238-million loss for the second quarter, tied mostly to cryptocurrency assets. Executives told investors on a conference call that they are now going to focus their energy on Truth Social and soft-explained their latest scheme to profit off the presidency.

“Our customers will get published and publicly available posts fractionally faster” than everyone else,” said Kevin McGurn, the company’s interim chief executive. He added that such early access is a “well-established business practice.”

Unless it’s a sitting U.S. president doing the selling. We’re in uncharted territory, once again. But another big question around this new subscription service is whether investors and traders can trust the intelligence they get from early access to Trump’s posts.

It was revealed this week that the president published deceptive information last month, putting the lives of dozens in danger. Before leaving a NATO meeting in Turkey, he posted that he’d be riding on the older Air Force One “for old time’s sake” instead of the newly retrofitted, Qatari-donated jet. His misdirection was part of an elaborate ruse to mask his transfer from Air Force One to a military fighter jet following intel that Iran may be targeting the president’s plane. The subterfuge involved him stowing away in an airport catering container to sneak onto the jet. Of course a president has to be protected, but Air Force One still had members of the press and his administration aboard when they sent it into the sky. Essentially, they were unwitting decoys.

Sometimes a president has to lie to stay safe. And often times this president peddles misinformation as a means to other ends, like amassing more money for himself while holding onto his seat of power. Paying for early access to Trump’s posts is a great idea — for Trump.

The U.S. Department of Justice and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department have agreed to settle a lawsuit over what federal prosecutors alleged last year was a pattern of delaying applications for permits to carry concealed firearms for “unreasonable” lengths of time.

The Sheriff’s Department will “bring its procedures in line with the Supreme Court’s landmark Bruen decision,” the DOJ said in a statement Thursday, referring to a 2022 high court decision affirming a constitutional right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.

Excessively delaying applications for concealed carry permits, the DOJ had alleged, effectively violated the applicants’ constitutional rights.

In response to its lawsuit, the DOJ’s statement said, the Sheriff’s Department “drastically cut those waiting times and is now in compliance with statutory deadlines.” The development is “a huge win for the residents of Los Angeles County and for the Second Amendment,” the federal agency added.

“The Justice Department supports our law enforcement partners.” Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said in the statement. “The sheriff acknowledged the problem and devoted substantial additional resources, including new processing software and additional personnel, to cutting waiting times dramatically.”

The Sheriff’s Department did not immediately provide comment on the settlement.

In its complaint filed in federal district court in L.A. in September, the DOJ claimed that the Sheriff’s Department had “systematically denied thousands of law-abiding Californians their fundamental Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home — not through outright refusal, but through a deliberate pattern of unconscionable delay.”

The complaint stated that between Jan. 2, 2024, and March 31, 2025, the Sheriff’s Department received almost 4,000 applications for new concealed carry licenses, but issued only two. Two others were denied and the rest were either withdrawn or were still pending, according to the DOJ.

The DOJ complaint also cited Sheriff’s Department data that showed that over those 15 months, it took an average of nearly 300 days for the department to advance the more than 8,000 new permit applications and renewals it received.

The Sheriff’s Department said in September that Sheriff Robert Luna, who was also listed by name as a defendant in the original federal complaint, “inherited a dysfunctional system” when he took office in 2022, and that he had only 13 people to manage the avalanche of applications for concealed carry permits filed each year in L.A. County.

The department also said in September that since December 2022, it had reduced “the backlog” of applications for concealed carry licenses from about 10,000 to about 3,200, and that more than 19,000 such applications had been “successfully approved” since 2020.

WASHINGTON  — Immigration and Customs Enforcement plans to buy thousands of special gloves that would allow agents to administer electronic shocks — a tactic the gloves’ manufacturer describes as a non-lethal “soft empty hand” for controlling people.

But videos posted by the manufacturer, Compliant Technologies of Richmond, Ky., show that the effects of the gloves are anything but soft.

In one video, the CTG-5 G.L.O.V.E — an acronym for Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter — easily brings a strapping man in military fatigues down to his knees in less than a second.

The glove caused another man’s leg muscles to spasm, although the shock, applied on a forearm, was advertised as being strictly localized.

The videos were taken at defensive weapon exhibitions all around the U.S. Frequently, the volunteers who get zapped will yelp as they collapse limply down on a soft mat.

“That sucked! That was terrible,” one man said after going through a demonstration.

“It does suck. But, it sucks a lot less than other options,” the caption from Compliant Technologies reads.

Civil rights organizations say they fear that ICE agents — who have been widely criticized for harsh tactics and fatal shootings — are being given yet another weapon for their already packed arsenal to intimidate the public.

“There is a trust in law enforcement with extreme power over human life, because you believe the people you’re entrusting are trained and they’re careful,” said Naureen Shah, director of policy and government affairs in immigration with the American Civil Liberties Union. “ICE has broken that trust with the public… the mission is simply to scare.”

According to a notice published Monday by the Department of Homeland Security, there is a plan to purchase $10 million to $20 million worth of shock gloves. The plan was first reported by the Associated Press.

John Sandweg, a former acting ICE director under the Obama administration, questioned the wisdom of equipping agents with the shock glove because the agency has seen a decline in training and oversights during the second Trump administration. (The administration has often said training of agents has not declined.)

“Given the struggles the agency’s having with use of force, to deploy a less-lethal tool, especially when you see the administration really shift their focus to the side of the non-criminal population, it raises massive concerns,” Sandweg said.

Sandweg estimates ICE could purchase 10,000 to 15,000 pairs of gloves.

When sent a list of questions about the devices, which resemble thick work gloves, Compliant Technologies declined to comment. Its website says the gloves are used by law enforcement agencies around the country.

The shock gloves deliver 380 volts, far less than the 1,200 volts typically delivered by traditional tasers, studies say. According to the company website, the glove is designed to disrupt sensory nerves without puncturing or burning the skin.

In a statement, Homeland Security defended the plan to purchase the gloves.

“Every decision is made with careful consideration and appropriately reviewed to make sure that any technology ICE utilizes is consistent with all applicable law enforcement policies and standards,” the department said. “Our officers are highly trained in de-escalation techniques.”

Equipping an agency embroiled in controversy over its occasionally fatal enforcement practices with “sci-fi” technology will likely cause the public to make further efforts to evade ICE agents, instead of becoming more compliant, said Bryanna Fox, criminology professor at the University of South Florida and former FBI agent.

“If the public doesn’t understand it and they don’t trust it, they’re not going to view it as procedurally just,” Fox said. “What they’ll have is fear; they’ll think ‘Am I going to stand there and wait for the ICE to shock me, or am I going to run?’”

On its website, Complaint Technologies says it has tested the G.L.O.V.E on people with cardiovascular problems and pacemakers with no issues. It added that the technology does not interfere at all with heart activity.

However, some civil rights advocates note that Compliant Technologies has advised against using shock gloves on pregnant women, children and people with heart issues.

Shah said she believes that intimidation played a key role in the decision to adopt G.L.O.V.E technologies, adding that their use is meant to dissuade citizens from confronting or even recording ICE agents.

“At a time like this, ICE should be trying to do everything it can to rebuild public trust, to reconstruct itself as a credible law enforcement agency,” Shah said.

Referring to Trump aid Stephen Miller, the administration’s main architect of its immigration crackdown, she added, “Instead, it is spending as many taxpayer dollars as it can, as quickly as it can, to acquire technology to make good on Stephen Miller’s dystopian vision of the United States.”

The Kennedy Center Board of Trustees on Thursday voted to move forward with President Trump’s plan to close the building for renovations for two years, according to the Associated Press. During the same meeting, the board, which is filled with the president’s allies, also voted to inscribe Trump’s name on the building.

The votes came after a federal judge in May ordered a halt to Trump’s plan to close the center, and also that Trump’s name be removed from the building, where it had been added to the venue’s official name. The new inscription will read, “Restored and Renovated by President Donald J. Trump,” according to the New York Times. Rep. Joyce Beatty confirmed the news to the AP. The move appears to be an attempt to sidestep U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper’s ruling that the law “makes crystal clear that the Center is to be named for President Kennedy.”

Cooper wrote in that same ruling that the board’s original vote in March to close the venue beginning July 5 was “ill-informed and seemingly preordained.” But he left open the possibility of a closure if — after a more thorough investigation by the board into the plan — the decision was again made. The board’s recent vote came after it reviewed information about the repercussions and costs of a closure. This included three scenarios: a full closure, a partial closure over a period of five years and a limited series of phased closures, sources close to the situation told the AP, asking to remain anonymous.

It is unclear if the recent vote will again face legal pushback.

The Kennedy Center has been in crisis for more than a year, beginning in February 2025 when Trump fired its board and appointed himself chairman. He swiftly selected Richard Grenell, a former ambassador to Germany and a staunch ally, as acting director of the center. Under Trump and Grenell, the venue ruptured audiences and lost a slew of high-profile shows and artists including “Hamilton,” Shonda Rhimes and Ben Folds. The Washington National Opera also left the venue, which it had occupied for decades.

The situation worsened late last year after the board voted to rename the venue the Donald J. Trump and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts. Performers, including jazz musician Chuck Redd, canceled a variety of holiday shows. The Kennedy Center threatened to sue Redd, creating a legal drama that continued until this week when a superior court judge in Washington, D.C., ordered the center to pay more than $250,000 to Redd to cover attorneys’ fees and other legal costs.

Aug. 13 (UPI) — Gun control groups are concerned that the Trump administration has yet to appeal a federal court ruling last week that struck down parts of the National Firearms Act that limited deregulated short-barreled rifles, shotguns, and silencers

U.S. District Judge Wesley Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas ruled Aug. 5 that federal restrictions on gun control could not stand after last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act eliminated a $200 fee to transfer or produce certain firearms.

Hendrix gave a one-week deadline to request a stay of his ruling, which expired early Thursday.

“Today, our government is failing us,” Brady President Kris Brown said in a statement on Thursday. “At midnight, uniquely lethal weapons and devices — including silencers, short-barreled rifles, and shotguns — were deregulated for the first time in nearly a century. The Department of Justice had the opportunity to act to protect our safety, but it failed to do so.”

A Department of Justice official reportedly told news outlets the Justice Department “is currently assessing the impact of the court’s ruling.”

“The Department of Justice’s decision is a failure to defend public safety,” Emma Brown, executive director of gun-control group Giffords, said in a statement.

“For nearly 100 years, Congress has required background checks before someone could buy a silencer, short-barreled rifle, or short-barreled shotgun,” she continued. “These commonsense safeguards keep these dangerous devices out of the wrong hands. Silencers make it harder for law enforcement to detect and locate active shooters. And short-barreled rifles and shotguns are easily concealable and extremely dangerous.

The lawsuit in Texas consolidated two separate cases. The first one was brought by B&T USA, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Palmetto State Armory, Silencerco Weapons Research, Silencer Shop Foundation, 15 Republican-controlled states and several individuals.

The second lawsuit was filed by the Texas State Rifle Association, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation, Hot Shots Custom, and several others.

Hendrix’s ruling only applies to the parties in the two cases.

“For nearly a century, Americans have been forced to beg the federal government for permission to exercise their Second Amendment rights,” Erich Practt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America, said in a statement. “That changes tonight.”

Meanwhile, Gun Owners of America and Silencer Shop announced two of its members “lawfully acquired suppressors without complying with the currently enjoined registration requirements of the National Firearms Act of 1934.”

Abdul El-Sayed made history this month in Michigan by becoming the first Muslim nominated by the Democratic Party to run for the U.S. Senate. But elation among many of his fellow Muslim Americans was tempered by awareness of persisting and widespread anti-Muslim sentiment across much of the nation.

Some Republicans, including President Trump, swiftly began referring to the nominee by his full name, Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed, while depicting him as a danger to America. “Every single Muslim holding public office in America is a Trojan horse, and a threat to both national security and our republic,’’ said U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., in a post on X.

El-Sayed says such attacks betray a weakness in those who launch them.

“We all pray for the same things. … We want what’s good for our kids and our families,” he told MS NOW after his primary victory. “They’re going to use Islamophobia, because their ideas are tired.”

The vitriol extends far beyond the political class. Tensions related to anti-Muslim sentiment have heightened in several communities around the country, where some residents have bitterly opposed proposals to build new mosques.

“American Muslims have made incredible political and societal progress in recent years,” said Edward Ahmed Mitchell, national deputy director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR. He cited increased visibility in entertainment and sports and the election of Democrat Zohran Mamdani as New York City’s first Muslim mayor.

“But there also is a very concerted backlash to this progress,” Mitchell said. “You’ve seen this in the resurgence of anti-Muslim hate and rhetoric, the targeting of mosques.”

A Dallas suburb is a flashpoint

McKinney, Texas, a large suburb in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, is one of the flashpoints. Despite angry anti-Islam remarks at a heated city council meeting on Aug. 4, the council voted unanimously to approve a site plan for the McKinney Islamic Association’s proposed new mosque, classroom building and gym.

Among those urging the council to give the plan fair treatment was George Fuller, a former mayor of McKinney, a nonpartisan position. Opponents of the mosque project booed him, and some shouted “traitor” as he left the council chamber. One woman could be seen on video physically accosting him.

“I have never witnessed so much hate, anger and lack of humanity in our beautiful community gathered in one place as I did today at City Hall,” Fuller later wrote on Facebook.

During the hearing, which lasted more than four hours, the speakers included U.S. Rep. Keith Self, a Republican whose district includes McKinney. To loud applause, he urged the council to reject the mosque proposal.

“I know you’re in the accommodation phase, but the intimidation phase follows quickly,” Self said. “Child marriage. Honor killings. Don’t tell me it can’t happen here.”

Fuller also went to the microphone, evoking the broader phenomenon of divisive political rhetoric.

“Sadly, we live in a time when some have discovered that the easiest way to gain attention or win elections is not by offering solutions but by manufacturing fear, dividing communities, demonizing neighbors and turning misinformation into a political strategy,” he said.

In North Carolina, anger flares over approval for a new mosque

The scenario was similar in Mooresville, North Carolina, when town commissioners held a public comment session on Aug. 3 about a proposed mosque that had already been approved, with early phases of construction underway.

Angry residents at the meeting voiced hostility to Islam and assailed the commissioners for not being more forthcoming about the project as it took shape over previous months. One speaker cited violence in Nigeria by Islamist extremists as a reason for concern in Mooresville. Another depicted Islam as “a political regime with the ultimate goal of takeover in regions and nations.”

CAIR’s regional manager, Al Rieder, issued a statement denouncing “the hateful and conspiratorial anti-Muslim rhetoric” that surfaced at the meeting and expressed concern about the safety of Muslims in the area about 25 miles north of Charlotte.

“Muslims are your neighbors, your doctors, your teachers, your local politicians, your police,” he said.

A few hours after the public meeting, the town commissioners released a summary of the mosque project, which calls for a two-building Islamic center on a parcel acquired in 2019 by a local Muslim organization.

The commissioners said that the parcel is in an area zoned to allow religious assembly and that the mosque proposal was handled the same way as a proposal for a new church.

“All decisions must be based on adopted ordinances, objective standards and legal requirements, which do not allow for different rules for different religious groups,” the commissioners said. “We encourage all members of our community to remain respectful in their discussions and interactions as this project moves through the appropriate processes.”

In Oklahoma, Muslim leaders fight against the rebuff of a new mosque

A mosque controversy has been raging for many months in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, Tulsa’s largest suburb.

Back in January, at a stormy meeting attended by hundreds of people, the city council voted 4-1 to reject a rezoning proposal by the region’s Islamic Society to build Broken Arrow’s first mosque. Before the vote, dozens of residents voiced anti-Muslim views while opposing the project.

Council members who rejected the mosque had raised concerns about its potential impact on infrastructure such as roads, sewers and flood plain management.

But the Islamic Society is persisting with its quest. On Aug. 3, it filed a lawsuit against the mayor and four councilors, alleging that the vote reflected “a wave of bigoted opposition from members of the community and local politicians.” The lawsuit contends that the council violated state and federal laws governing religious land use, treating the mosque proposal differently from other comparable rezoning requests.

“They did not want a mosque in their city. They did not want Muslims here,” said Meghan Murphy, an attorney with CAIR’s Legal Defense Fund, at a news conference announcing the lawsuit. ”So they made up a reason, and in doing so they violated the law.”

Some see a terrorism threat while others see baseless scaremongering

Opposition to mosque construction isn’t a new phenomenon: In Murfreesboro, Tennessee, an effort launched in 2010 to block a mosque project dragged on for more than three years. The mosque was built anyway as the case moved through the courts, but members of the Muslim community faced public protests, vandalism, arson and a bomb threat during that span.

The latest anti-mosque campaigns coincide with a broad wave of anti-Muslim rhetoric from Republican officeholders over the past year. In Congress, several bills were introduced targeting sharia, the moral and spiritual framework that guides Muslims in prayer and ethical conduct. Some Republicans say they’re concerned about growing Muslim populations in major cities and potential ties to terrorism — fears that CAIR and other civil rights groups say are unfounded and being exploited for political purposes.

Republican governors in Texas and Florida have endorsed efforts to shut down CAIR, saying it has ties to terrorism. CAIR has denied the allegations and filed lawsuits calling the governors’ efforts unconstitutional.

Muslim American leaders view the vitriol as political scaremongering.

“Every election year, we expect a rise in anti-Muslim hate,” said CAIR’s Mitchell. “It’s been worse this year than it has been in years.”

Crary writes for the Associated Press.

Aug. 13 (UPI) — The Israeli military ordered Palestinians to evacuate 15 homes in the West Bank village of Qusra in a move to clear Israeli illegal outposts in the area.

The military rescinded the order to evacuate after it became public in the media. The settlers have been in the Palestinian homes since Sunday. It was not immediately made clear why the military needed to remove the Palestinians to get the settlers out of the area.

Some Palestinians were able to return to their homes, but one of the two families told The Times of Israel that they still can’t get to their house.

U.S. Ambassador Mike Huckabee called the Israeli settlers “terrorists” and said the military went to the area because of his request.

“Actions by those who carried out this horrific act of terror meant to intimidate and harass this family are disgusting. No excuse for such thuggish behavior,” Huckabee posted on X.

The military said troops were in Qusra since Thursday morning and are there “to protect the residents and maintain security in the area.”

A similar operation on Wednesday failed.

Residents said the military destroyed all the structures erected by settlers. But Palestinian residents said they’re still too afraid to leave their homes.

Qusay Abu Ridi, a trapped Palestinian, told the BBC that his house had been attacked again overnight and that a few settlers were still hiding from the military.

His brother, who owns the property, is a Palestinian-American businessman who complained to the U.S. embassy.

The siege in Qusra started Sunday when settlers blocked the road to the Palestinian families’ gates and cut off their electricity and water, the BBC reported. The first Israeli soldiers to arrive prayed with the settlers’ families. The Israeli military said they would face discipline for that later.

The Abu Ridi and Hassan families made appeals for help on social media.

The attacks happened in multiple Palestinian towns and villages, including Qusra, where a mosque was burned in late July. Footage from the scene showed graffiti left on the Al-Rahma Mosque in Hebrew reading “Benayahu’s revenge” and other messages.

The settlers have said their goal is to remove Palestinians from the area.

According to the United Nations, 76 Palestinians, including 18 children, have been killed in the West Bank this year by Israeli forces or settlers. Three Israelis have been killed.

Since January 2023, 127 Palestinian communities in the West Bank have been fully or partially displaced, affecting more than 6,390 Palestinians, the U.N. said.

Citing Hollywood’s already struggling production economy, two influential industry unions have jointly called on Paramount Skydance Chairman David Ellison and California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to settle their antitrust fight.

The Directors Guild of America and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees — which represent a combined 200,000 union members — are turning up the political pressure to try to resolve the clash over the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger, which has already carved deep divisions throughout the industry.

The DGA and IATSE’s unusual missive comes as Paramount has been trying to drum up support for the deal and while
development projects reportedly are being put on hold. Paramount executives and others have decried the delay in deciding whether the deal moves forward. Bonta and Paramount are now poised to slug it out in an Oakland courtroom next spring.

“Our collective members are concerned about their futures, and the future of the industry,” DGA Executive Director Russell Hollander and IATSE President Matthew D. Loeb wrote Thursday in their three-page letter to Ellison and Bonta.

“We are aware of productions that have been put on hold or canceled altogether, leading to further reductions in available work for our members and other industry workers,” the letter reads in part.

The effort adds heat to a growing campaign urging Bonta to bend in his fight to block the industry- reshaping deal that would combine the Warner Bros. and Paramount film and television studios, HBO, CBS, CNN, HGTV and Comedy Central.

Earlier this week, California’s Democratic gubernatorial nominee, Xavier Becerra, said he favored a settlement. Republican Steve Hilton has decried the antitrust lawsuit as being politically motivated.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, who leaves office next year, has stayed above the fray.

Paramount and Bonta’s office didn’t immediately comment.

The Writers Guild of America last month joined Bonta’s coalition of state attorneys general in filing lawsuits to upend the $111-billion transaction, saying the Paramount-Warner combination violates U.S. antitrust laws and would decimate the entertainment industry by erasing jobs and reducing pay.

At issue is the $81 billion in debt that Ellison would have to take on to pay Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders for the keys to the studios and HBO.

WGA leaders and others have warned that level of debt would choke the two historic studios, creating a more devastating sequel to 2019‘s combination of the Disney and Fox studios, and the 2022 takeover of Warner Bros. by Discovery.

The union leaders conceded they weren’t merger fans, and they stopped well short of asking Bonta to throw in the towel.

Instead, they listed nine conditions — including requiring Paramount to maintain its operations in Hollywood and a commitment to make film and television shows in the U.S. — as part of any settlement.

The unions want Ellison to make an enforceable commitment that Paramount and Warner Bros. studios each release 15 films into theaters a year. They also want a 45-day theatrical window so that cinema chains can continue their rebound.

Some of the DGA and IATSE terms may be difficult for Ellison to swallow. Already, Paramount is looking to shave expenses to come up with the $81 billion promised to Warner Bros. shareholders. Sources have said Ellison’s suggestion to move Paramount from its picturesque Hollywood campus is designed, in part, to attract financial incentives from another state, such as Tennessee, eager to help with a relocation.

Among the conditions, the DGA and IATSE asked that Paramount’s and Warner Bros.’ motion picture units be kept as “as separate studios, with each studio maintaining its own production, distribution, marketing and exhibition groups as distinct divisions.”

One of the goals of the merger is to shave costs by consolidating overlapping business divisions and back-office functions.

The union leaders also want Warner Bros. television studio to operate independent from the Paramount and CBS production arms. They called on HBO to remain a linear television channel and available on third-party platforms, including Amazon.

Loeb and Hollander’s requests are designed to keep production jobs in the U.S.

They asked Ellison to commit to producing films and TV shows in the U.S. “at no less than the average percentage produced in the United States during the last five years” excluding 2020, the pandemic year, and 2023, when two strikes idled production.

“Our goal, with respect to the proposed merger, has always been to achieve an outcome that ensures a vibrant, competitive marketplace for the production, distribution, and licensing of film and television programming that serves the interests of consumers and filmmakers alike,” Hollander and Loeb wrote.

“We believe that these conditions, if secured through a binding agreement, will largely serve this purpose,” the said.

Bonta previously has said his preference would be structural remedies — divesting key business units — rather than “behavioral” compromises that could evaporate soon after the merger closed.

Should the two sides fail to hash out a settlement with conditions, Loeb and Hollander asked Ellison and Bonta to seek an earlier trial date for the legal showdown.

A federal judge set a March 2 date — despite Paramount’s request to hold the proceedings in November.

WASHINGTON — Public health experts have been quick to condemn an executive order from President Trump aimed at upending childhood vaccinations in the U.S., but the biggest obstacles may be the unprecedented financial and logistical challenges it would impose on parents, health providers and drugmakers.

Monday’s announcement by the Republican president calls for separating combination shots — including the measles, mumps and rubella, or MMR, vaccine — into separate injections. Appointments for that and other vaccinations should be spaced out whenever possible, the order states.

To accomplish that, drugmakers would need to revive a slate of individual vaccines that have not been marketed separately in the U.S. for decades. They would also have to build new manufacturing plants capable of producing millions more vaccine doses than the nation currently uses.

For parents, unbundling the MMR vaccine and spacing out the shots would mean returning to the doctor’s office many more times than is currently needed. Those appointments could also strain pediatricians who typically administer the shots, while driving up costs tied to syringes and other medical supplies.

Studies in the U.S. and other countries have shown that combination vaccines increase the likelihood that children will be fully protected from infectious diseases before starting school.

Health experts say there is no scientific basis for changing course.

“We do things that are less convenient and more expensive if there’s a good reason to do it,” said Dr. Anna Durbin, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “There is no good justification for this. I think it’s very bad public health policy.”

Trump’s plan would require vaccine manufacturing overhaul

Under Trump’s executive order, federal officials are instructed to develop within 90 days plans for breaking up the MMR shot and spacing out other vaccines.

But pharmaceutical scientists and former regulators say those changes would likely take years and require drugmakers to spend tens of millions of dollars on new studies and manufacturing facilities.

Currently, there are no individual vaccines in the U.S. for measles, mumps or rubella. All the vaccines approved for those viruses by the Food and Drug Administration are combination shots. That three-in-one approach has been the standard in the U.S. since the early 1970s.

Dr. Jesse Goodman, a former FDA vaccine chief, said companies would have to conduct large studies showing new individual shots produced immune system-boosting reactions in children similar to the current versions.

Companies might also have to demonstrate the safety of new manufacturing facilities and procedures, given that individual measles shots haven’t been widely produced in the U.S. for roughly a half-century.

“The question is how much has changed since then and how comfortable will the FDA and the companies be relying on those comparisons?” said Goodman, who is now a professor at Georgetown University.

Designing, constructing and getting federal sign-off for new vaccine plants typically takes about five years, according to industry experts.

Additionally, Goodman said the FDA would have to review and license each unbundled vaccine separately, a process with no precedent.

“I don’t think there’s any comparable example of removing hugely effective public health measures that protect babies for no documented scientific reason,” he said.

Individual shots for measles and related diseases tend to be used by lower-income countries that can’t afford the MMR shot. Merck, GSK and the handful of other companies that supply U.S. childhood vaccines make only the combination shot.

In separate statements, Merck and GSK said they stand by the safety and effectiveness of their products. Neither discussed plans to unbundle their shots.

“To date, there has been no published scientific evidence that shows any benefit in separating the combination MMR vaccine into three individual shots,” Merck said in an emailed statement.

Parents would need to make many more trips to the doctor

The MMR shot is currently delivered in two doses — the first at the age of 1 and the second dose after age 4. Splitting up the shot into its three separate components would mean six office visits. Spacing out other shots for pertussis and other infectious diseases could multiply the number of visits many more times.

As the number of visits goes up, parents are more likely to miss appointments or stop making them, according to Durbin.

“It’s going to be less convenient, more expensive and you’re going to have fewer people getting vaccinated,” she said.

Since last year, Trump has repeatedly expressed concern about the number of vaccinations U.S. children are receiving and called on Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to reduce the number. Kennedy and other officials have pointed to smaller countries, such as Denmark, that recommended slightly fewer vaccines than the U.S.

But breaking up combination shots will result in kids receiving many more individual shots than other comparable nations, Durbin notes.

White House spokesman Kush Desai said the Trump administration’s efforts on the MMR vaccine “will give parents more options on timing and frequency for their children, which ultimately will increase vaccination rates for all three diseases.”

Vaccine order is not legally binding

Despite the precedent-breaking nature of Trump’s order, some experts are skeptical it will result in meaningful changes.

Neither the White House nor the FDA can compel drugmakers to develop and seek approval for new vaccines. And from a business perspective, companies have little incentive to develop individual versions of vaccines they already sell in combination shots.

“They’d be competing against themselves, and there’s no reason to do that,” said Dr. Paul Offit, a Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia vaccine researcher and former government adviser.

While Trump’s order calls for more federal research and recommendations, only state governments have the legal authority to require vaccinations for schoolchildren. The order simply advises states to consider updating their laws to reflect the Trump administration’s approach.

“I think states will ignore this,” Offit said. “I think that bottom line is that we don’t need to look to Donald Trump for our medical advice.”

Perrone writes for the Associated Press. AP videojournalist Mary Conlon in New York contributed to this report.

Aug. 12 (UPI) — MyPillow founder Mike Lindell is refusing to concede defeat in the Minnesota governor’s Republican primary election, saying there were irregularities in the vote tallies.

Lindell lost by 11 points to Minnesota House Speaker Lisa Demuth.

A reporter on his own network, LindellTV, asked him if he would concede if The Associated Press called it for Demuth, he answered: “Why would I listen to the AP?”

“There’s 265,000 votes left to count. I’m down by 18,000 now,” he said. “I’m not going to give up this race until the votes are counted. That’s nonsense.”

His own site shows Demuth as the winner by 11% with 99% of the votes counted as of 2 p.m. Wednesday.

Lindell, who was endorsed by President Donald Trump in his run for governor and has previously supported Trump’s claim that the 2020 election was stolen.

Lindell was sued by Dominion Voting Systems for defamation against a former employee of the company, which makes voting machines. Lindell claimed that the employee, Eric Coomer, had helped rig the 2020 election. In 2025, Lindell was ordered to pay Coomer $2.3 million.

Lindell stepped down from MyPillow leadership on Aug. 5 to focus on his campaign for governor.

“Minnesota deserves my full attention, and that’s exactly what I’m giving it,” He said in a statement on X at the time. “I’m all in, and I can’t wait to earn your vote.”

Demuth said her win is a “major milestone,” but said there was still the November election to win.

“Tonight, Minnesotans made it clear they are ready for real change — at the top. It’s time to end the fraud, restore common sense to our state government and return Minnesota to a place that works for families, seniors, businesses and our next generation,” the post said.

“Let’s go win in November!”

Demuth will face Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., in November’s election.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s botched repairs at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool have landed the National Park Service in a political predicament.

The beloved federal agency, its iconic park rangers and other employees have been serving the public while managing controversial demands by the Republican president — from revising exhibits at parks and other sites to the demolition of important structures under its stewardship, such as the White House’s East Wing, to arresting visitors for alleged vandalism at the pool.

Critics say the monthslong Reflecting Pool saga and other demands by Trump risk undermining the integrity of a federal agency that has long been held in high esteem by the American public.

“Never — not once in decades — have I witnessed such systematic degradation, disrespect and dismantling of the National Park Service as I see today under the thumb of President Donald Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum,” said Bill Wade, a former park ranger and superintendent.

Wade, who now serves as executive director of the Association of National Park Rangers, wrote an op-ed for The Denver Post lamenting what he called the Trump administration’s “assault on the people, the mission and the values that have made the National Park Service one of America’s most valued institutions.”

The park service has been at the center of some of Trump’s most contentious actions during his second term. An executive order targeted funding and demanded reviews at national parks and other sites that Trump said advanced “divisive narratives” and “improper ideology,” resulting in changes to some exhibits on slavery or climate change.

The president has also ordered sweeping changes to historical monuments and buildings in Washington that fall under NPS’ purview, including the creation of a White House ballroom and a 250-foot-tall memorial arch. The agency meanwhile has lost at least one-quarter of its permanent workforce since Trump began his second term, through layoffs, forced retirements and resignations.

Park service employees “are being politicized and drawn into the absurdities and corruption of this administration” on a regular basis, said California Rep. Jared Huffman, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee. He cited the pool project, the proposed arch and the executive order on exhibit materials.

The ongoing political assault on the agency “is unlike anything we’ve seen in this country, and it makes life miserable at agencies like the National Park Service,” Huffman said.

Reflecting Pool saga continues

Trump launched repairs at the Reflecting Pool earlier this year, hoping to address longstanding problems at the iconic site ahead of the America 250 celebrations. But the $16 million project faced immediate problems, including peeling blue sealant and a fierce return of green algae.

Trump blamed the sealant issues on vandalism without providing evidence, and felony charges were brought against a former Olympic canoeist, David Hearn, after he was accused of vandalizing the pool.

The U.S. Park Police, a unit of the National Park Service, arrested Hearn, who denied wrongdoing and said he briefly touched a chunk of the coating.

Charges against Hearn were dropped on July 31 after prosecutors acknowledged that damage was caused by a bungled installation rather than vandalism.

The advice and counsel of career officials and rangers — instantly recognizable by their signature flat hats and green-and-gray uniforms — has been ignored or pushed aside as Trump and Burgum make decisions regarding the failed pool repair, according to an Interior Department employee who was not authorized to discuss internal discussions and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

“It’s tragic,” said Ed Stierli, vice president of government affairs at the National Parks Conservation Association, another advocacy group. “The whole thing is a master class in how not to go about a public rehabilitation project.”

In the days since the dismissal of the charges, Trump has continued to lean on NPS in his repeated claims that vandals damaged the pool’s lining.

“A National Park Service career employee, a highly credible witness, saw David Hearn … in broad daylight vandalize the Reflecting Pool by ‘violently’ ripping and tugging at the Pool’s somewhat delicate coating,” Trump posted Aug. 9 on his Truth Social site. Hearn’s legal team said Trump “is continuing to attack an innocent man.”

Stierli, of the parks conservation group, called Trump’s reference to the unnamed park employee an example of the awkward position agency workers now face under Trump and Burgum, who has publicly backed Trump’s claims about vandalism at the pool.

“I think the public understands that unfortunately, you have the president of the United States directly driving decisions, both here in Washington and around the country,” Stierli said. The park service — and especially its career staff — “has very little control over this,” he added.

The White House and the Interior Department did not directly respond to requests for comment on the park service. The White House defended the pool project, saying Trump “promised to make D.C. safe and beautiful, and he’s delivering.”

“For years, the Reflecting Pool sat neglected, plagued with algae and leaking millions of gallons of water,” the White House said in a statement. “Fixing it was common sense.”

Park service morale is at its lowest point, a former official says

Wade, the former park superintendent, called the pool repair “a comedy of errors” and “a continuation of the incompetence” shown by the Trump administration.

“Most people realize the NPS is under the gun and can’t do much about it, even though they’d like to,″ he said, adding that morale at the agency is at the lowest point he can remember.

Edicts from Washington have made clear that speaking honestly about what is going on could cost staffers their jobs, Wade said. “There’s a very strong fear among employees at NPS,″ he said in an interview. “It’s very frustrating for them, as you can imagine.”

Trump’s proposed memorial arch has faced some pushback. A recent report by park service staff warned that the proposed gilded arch could disrupt the historical significance of dozens of sites around its planned location near the Lincoln Memorial.

The arch, which last month received initial approval from a key federal commission, would impact the “integrity” of dozens of historical properties because it would change “character-defining visual and spatial relationships” between them, the report said.

Americans view the National Park Service favorably

The park service is popular with Americans. About three-quarters of U.S. adults — including similar shares of Democrats and Republicans — have a favorable opinion of the agency, according to Pew Research Center polling from 2025. Only about 1 in 10 have a negative impression, and about 15% are unsure.

A Washington Post/Ipsos poll from July found that about two-thirds of Americans say they are “dissatisfied” or “upset” about Trump’s Washington area projects, including construction of a new ballroom at the White House, painting the Reflecting Pool and building his triumphal arch. Republicans are more likely to be “enthusiastic” or “satisfied” with the projects.

About one-quarter of U.S. adults say Trump’s goal is to “make Washington more beautiful,” while about half say he has a “different goal.” In an open-ended question, many respondents speculated that Trump wants to glorify himself or leave his mark.

The pool and other recent controversies including the exhibit reviews jeopardize the agency’s credibility, Wade said.

“Whether interpreting the Civil War, discussing climate science or describing the complex stories of Indigenous people, rangers have sought to present evidence, not political ideology,’’ he said. ”That is now being lost.”

Daly writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Linley Sanders contributed to this report.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement is moving to equip officers with body cameras in the next two months, but the agency’s policy gives it broad control over what footage will be made public by specifying any releases must be in its “best interests.”

After years of delays, ICE said its field officers nationwide will have body-worn cameras by the end of September. The rollout comes after recent fatal shootings by officers enforcing President Trump’s immigration crackdown have intensified pressure for accountability that the cameras could provide.

But the agency’s policy could mean taxpayers who are pitching in tens of millions of dollars to pay for the cameras may be kept in the dark about some high-profile confrontations — at least in their immediate aftermath.

The policy says ICE will promptly release video of shootings and other encounters in which its agents cause death or serious injury only after determining “it is in the best interests of the agency” to do so. That gives its director discretion to release recordings that reflect well on the agency’s image while working to keep others secret, experts on body camera policies said.

Such selective releases are routine in some law enforcement agencies but usually not stated so clearly in policy, according to Christopher Schneider, a professor at Brandon University in Canada and a co-author of the book “Police Body-Worn Cameras: Media and the New Discourse of Police Reform.”

“In some ways, ICE is saying the quiet part out loud,” he said. “Body-worn cameras are being used as contemporary image-work tools to present the police to the public in the most favorable way possible.”

The policy requires officers to activate cameras during routine enforcement activities, including while making arrests, executing search warrants and responding to emergencies.

After shootings or other serious confrontations, a committee that includes top ICE officials and lawyers will review footage and recommend whether to release it promptly, according to the body camera policy issued in February 2025.

If the answer is yes, the recording could be released within 72 hours. But if the ICE director finds that “specific and compelling circumstances” justify withholding the video, they have the authority to block or indefinitely delay the release, the policy says.

The policy does not elaborate on such circumstances, and ICE did not respond to a question about how it would make such decisions.

Practices vary widely in the U.S. In Chicago, a police watchdog agency routinely releases body camera video of shootings and other serious use-of-force incidents within 60 days. In Philadelphia, the police department very rarely uses its discretion to release video of specific incidents and has no policy for when to do so.

Even when footage is released, ICE’s policy will require the redaction of all officers’ identifying features such as their faces, names and badge numbers to preserve their privacy.

Schneider, who has studied body cameras since their use began spreading a decade ago, said he does not expect ICE to release footage of fatal shootings like those last month in Houston and Maine.

He noted ICE’s sister agency, Customs and Border Protection, has not released footage of the January shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis even though it was captured on agents’ cameras. CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott told lawmakers in February that the video and other materials were under investigation and would be made public “when it’s appropriate.”

ICE spent $30.9 million in July to purchase body camera equipment from Axon, the Arizona-based company that also manufactures Tasers, according to federal spending records.

The spending began one day after the fatal shooting of a 25-year-old motorist in Maine by an ICE officer with a history of violent behavior. Days earlier, another ICE officer shot and killed a home-builder in Houston who was driving to work.

Neither shooting was recorded with body cameras. That news angered members of Congress, who had given ICE $20 million to purchase body cameras in a bill passed to end a partial government shutdown April 30.

ICE said body cameras have been sent to more than half its field officers and the rest will receive them by the end of September. That timeline pushes back estimates from earlier public statements. Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who backed funding for cameras, said last month that the agency informed her they would be deployed by the end of August. ICE had said earlier that they would be issued by mid-September.

ICE officers working in the Houston area, where the agency sent more than 800 cameras, are among those who have started training, according to Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Texas Democrat and member of the House Appropriations Committee.

At least one member of every arrest team will be required to have a camera, the agency said.

“I think the American people need to see what that officer sees and hears,” said White House border czar Tom Homan on July 19 on CBS News’ “Face the Nation.” “And if you look at the data, body cameras actually exonerate agents more than they, you know, provide evidence of wrongdoing.”

ICE began testing body cameras in 2021 during the Biden administration and distributed 1,400 devices three years later, saying use would expand as funding became available.

After returning to office in 2025, President Trump rescinded a Biden order that required federal law enforcement agencies to use body cameras.

ICE did not buy body cameras even after it received a historic $75-billion infusion in Trump’s signature policy bill in 2025 and began hiring thousands of new officers. The two July purchases from Axon were made through an existing government contract that began in 2023, records show.

“This is not hard to deploy, but they’ve slow-rolled it,” said Jason Houser, who was ICE chief of staff under President Biden and helped implement the agency’s pilot program.

Houser said the Trump administration should have equipped officers with body cameras when it expanded mass arrests and traffic stops. Doing so only after several shootings and pressure from Congress “is clearly a political response” that will not make officers or the public safer, he said.

“This doesn’t fix the problem of putting officers in a place where they’re not trained or equipped to carry out the style of operations that the administration is asking them to do,” he said.

Foley writes for the Associated Press. AP reporter Valerie Gonzalez contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Democrats seeking to retake control of Congress are planning broad investigations into President Trump and his family’s business dealings as part of an agenda focused on alleged corruption and economic harm, while keeping impeachment an option rather than an immediate priority.

The strategy would use subpoenas, committee hearings, possible criminal referrals and the budget as leverage to examine whether Trump, his family and close associates have used the federal government and public contracts for personal or financial gain.

House Democrats in key leadership posts told The Times the groundwork is already being laid out for probes into the president’s reported $2.2 billion in gains last year, the business ventures of his son-in-law Jared Kushner and his sons Eric and Don Jr., and the family’s crypto projects. There is also interest in scrutinizing Trump’s pardons and commutations to allies and the Department of Justice’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case.

With less than three months before the midterm elections, the prospect of sweeping investigations has hung over Trump as his approval ratings hit new lows and Democrats gain momentum. But the White House has dismissed Democrats’ plans as partisan and unfounded.

“President Trump only acts in the best interests of the American public — which is why they overwhelmingly re‑elected him to this office, despite years of lies and false accusations against him and his businesses from the fake news media,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement. “There are no conflicts of interest.”

Asked about the possibility of being impeached for a third time and being investigated, Trump told Punchbowl News last week that it would be “very unfair,” in part because “a lot of people are saying I am one of the greatest presidents ever.”

For Democrats, impeachment remains an option, but they are reluctant to make it a centerpiece of their agenda this time around. They argued the process could distract from oversight that would address alleged corruption and the ways it is hurting Americans economically.

“We shouldn’t take off the table that he can be impeached again,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said in an interview. “But I think right now we’ve got to stop the Trump harm and investigate those who are helping him.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, which plays a key role in the impeachment process, has also paused at making impeachment a priority. The Maryland lawmaker argued that Trump is “very eager” for Democrats to impeach him so he can mobilize his political base.

“We’re not going to play into the game,” Raskin told MS NOW’s “The Weekend” on Sunday.

In a statement to The Times, Raskin said the priority would be in expanding ongoing investigations into Trump’s pardons, what he called the “weaponization of the Department of Justice against chosen enemies in the nonprofit world,” “rampant violations of the foreign emoluments clause,” and the “theft and waste of public resources by Trump and his Cabinet of corruption.”

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who led the investigation that resulted in Trump’s first impeachment, said he is keeping his “mind open” on whether another impeachment would make sense for Democrats a third time. He argued the “power of the purse” — or using the budget to take aim at Trump’s agenda — would be a more effective tool.

“We’re going to need to do a lot of oversight of this administration, and I think it will be important in doing that oversight to always bring it back to why people should care about it and how the corruption of this regime is really raising their costs,” Schiff said.

Other Democrats are equally wary about using their renewed power to launch a third impeachment trial against Trump.

“We all know that this man has already been impeached twice. … I don’t know that we have to go to that well a third time,” Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles) said.

Probes trickle down

Beyond the president’s business dealings, rank-and-file Democrats are coordinating other efforts to target Trump administration officials and senior aides over policy decisions they argue should force them out of their jobs.

Last week, Kamlager-Dove introduced articles of impeachment against Russell Vought, the White House budget director, arguing that he broke the law when the administration canceled federal funding to Democratic states including California for political reasons.

While she is cautious about impeaching Trump for a third time, she believes it would be effective to “remove Trump’s reapers who are willfully breaking the law.”

“I’m coordinating with leadership so that we have the best path forward for this,” she said. “It’s about being unified. It’s about working in a coordinated fashion, and it’s about understanding the end goal.”

Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), a member of the House Oversight Committee, said there needs to be more scrutiny over the White House’s budget-cutting team, the Department of Government Efficiency. Democrats should inquire more, he said, into allegations that a former DOGE official copied the Social Security numbers, names and personal information of millions of Americans to a private cloud that lacked adequate security.

He said the public still does not know enough about the situation or whether the data is secure or if it was breached, and said lawmakers should examine whether any laws or policies were violated.

“If there was political motivation to access and put at risk the Social Security numbers and the personal information of every single American, that sounds pretty criminal to me,” Walkinshaw said.

In May, three Democrats — Reps. Mike Levin of California, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Jason Crow of Colorado — launched the End Corruption Caucus, creating another vehicle for oversight ideas should Democrats take control of the House.

The push and pull

As Democrats prepare for investigations, there are already questions about the type of resistance that could come from Trump and administration officials, all of whom have shown a willingness to buck Congress.

In a sign of what could be a potential hurdle, the Department of Justice issued a memo Monday evening that says communications between Trump and advisors who do not work for his administration can be protected under executive privilege.

“Restricting executive privilege to purely intragovernmental communications would foreclose the President from relying on an array of important sources that he may find necessary to the effective discharge of his responsibilities of office,” the memo from the department’s Office of Legal Counsel said.

The White House described the memo as a “narrow legal analysis, not an extension of executive privilege.”

But some Democrats see it as an example of how the Trump administration may be gearing up for Democratic-led investigations.

“This dubious expansion of executive privilege to cover Trump’s outside advisors is a clear attack on Congress’ oversight powers, and creates an environment ripe for corruption that protects only the president and his friends. We are ready to fight to uphold our power and authority,” Garcia said.

Walkinshaw added that he predicts the Trump administration is going to “flat-out refuse to engage with or respond to Democrats” if they take control.

If that happens, Democrats already expect to fight back.

“We have contempt tools, we have inherent contempt, we have criminal contempt,” he said. “We just have to be prepared to exercise the full extent of our constitutional tools, and I predict that will happen very early.”

Iran continues to deny claims by the United States that it controls the Strait of Hormuz as talks aimed at negotiating a peace deal between the two sides falter.

US President Donald Trump repeated his claim that the US is in “total control” of the critical waterway on Wednesday, but was met with angry denials from Iran, which has stated that it will not reopen the strait until demands regarding US aggression, reparations and sanctions are met.

“Claims and repeated posts by US officials that the Strait of Hormuz is no longer blocked do not change the reality,” Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA) posted on X on Wednesday.

“The Strait of Hormuz remains blocked and will not be reopened until Iran’s conditions are accepted,” it added.

Here’s what we know about the latest developments in the strait, through which one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies are shipped during peacetime, and the prospects for ongoing talks.

What’s the latest on the US-Iran standoff?

Iranian forces are currently preventing ships that do not have its express approval from navigating through the narrow strait, which passes through territorial waters of Iran and Oman.

Despite Trump’s claim that the US has control over the strait, shipping traffic through the key waterway has dropped to a one-week low as a result of Iran’s blockade.

Meanwhile, the US is operating a naval blockade on Iranian ports both in and around the strait. On Tuesday, US forces targeted a Panama-flagged vessel they said was headed for an Iranian port, in the Gulf of Oman, and which they alleged had failed to respond to warnings.

On Thursday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the US “has long miscalculated due to intelligence failures”, including when launching its war on Iran, which it did alongside Israel with strikes on Tehran on February 28.

In a post on X, Araghchi said Washington’s actions in the Strait of Hormuz were “an even bigger miscalculation”.

“Worse than fake news is fake intelligence,” he said.

Hojjatoleslam Hossein Taeb, the commander of the paramilitary Basij Organisation – an affiliate of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – reiterated that the strait is “under Iran’s control and management”.

“Today you see that the Strait of Hormuz is under the management and control of the Islamic Republic, and our country continues on its path in complete security,” Taeb said on Thursday, according to Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency.

“The Americans saw the power of the Islamic revolution,” he added.

What do we know about Iran-Oman talks?

Iran says it is not talking directly to the US about the strait. Instead, it says it is holding talks with Oman, which it proposes to share in the future management of the strait.

Following the signing of a memorandum of understanding between Iran and the US on June 17, under which Iran undertook to keep the strait open for 60 days, there were soon disagreements about control of the waterway and the routes that ships should take. Iran fired on some ships it said had not followed its permitted route, leading to a renewal of hostilities with the US.

Iran also disagreed with the US over whether it could charge fees to ships passing through the strait. As a result, the strait – which was fully and freely open to all shipping before the US launched its war on Iran – has become the main obstacle to the progression of wider peace talks.

Now, talks between Iran and Oman are aimed at ironing out these issues.

On Tuesday, Qatar said negotiations between Iran and Oman over the strait had reached “an advanced stage”.

“As mediators, we want the Strait of Hormuz reopened as soon as possible,” Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman Majed al-Ansari said during a news conference.

Negotiators are trying to reach a compromise that would allow commercial shipping to resume while addressing the security concerns of both Iran and Oman.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman has said talks with Oman are focused on “establishing safe inbound and outbound shipping lanes” that “uphold sovereign rights while also addressing the national security considerations of both Iran and Oman”.

Last week, Iran said it had agreed on the coordinates for these shipping lanes with Oman.

What do we know about broader peace talks between Iran and the US?

Iran says it is not speaking directly to the US because it has violated the June 17 MoU by restarting strikes on Iran in July.

Now, Pakistan is making efforts to mediate peace talks. It said on Tuesday it was working to bring the US and Iran “to the negotiating table”, as Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi held talks with senior Iranian officials in Tehran.

In April, the US and Iran held face-to-face negotiations, with US Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf attending talks in Islamabad. On June 17, the two sides remotely signed the MoU, which was supposed to kick-start a 60-day negotiation process. However, various disagreements prevented that process from getting off the ground, and talks have stalled since then.

Alan Eyre, a distinguished diplomatic fellow with the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC, told Al Jazeera earlier this month that the only important negotiations taking place right now are Iran-Oman talks over the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran says it is not worth talking directly because it “can’t count on anything the US says”, Eyre said.

Commenting on the possibility of future talks between the longtime foes, Negar Mortazavi, senior fellow at the US-based Center for International Policy, said the key question is whether the escalatory rhetoric from both sides is “opening negotiating positions or actual red lines”.

“If both sides are prepared to compromise, there is still a path towards ending the conflict and reopening the strait,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera on Wednesday.

“If they are not, Hormuz could remain restricted, and the confrontation risks becoming another prolonged, open-ended conflict in the Middle East.”

What are the latest demands from Iran and the US?

At the end of last week, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council set out new conditions it says the US must meet before the Strait of Hormuz can fully reopen.

The six conditions include an end to US threats against Iran and insults to what Zolghadr described as the country’s national and religious values; a permanent end to attacks against Iran and its allies in Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen and Iraq; the lifting of the US naval blockade and withdrawal of naval and air forces from around Iran; compensation for damage from what he called two “imposed wars”; the lifting of sanctions; and the unconditional release of frozen Iranian assets.

Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday that his administration was going to seek payment for “50 years” of damage caused by Iran, framing the move as a direct response to Tehran’s claims.

The payments, he said, would cover deaths among US forces in the region as well as civilian protesters in Iran, claiming that 52,000 people have been killed in Iran in the past four months. Tehran says some 3,117 people died in antigovernment protests that swept the country in January, prior to the launch of the US-Israel war. In February, the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) reported about 7,000 deaths, including 6,500 protesters.

On Thursday, Al Jazeera’s Tohid Assidi reported, citing observers, that Iran is focused on two primary issues.

“First was the security assurances Iran sought, ensuring that a reached deal could pave the way for a period of stability in the country,” Assidi said.

“Second were economic concerns, primarily articulated in demands for the US naval blockade to be removed and sanctions frozen, which represented the key demands coming from the Iranian side,” he added.

Despite the rhetoric from Trump, analysts have told Al Jazeera that the US may have to concede to some of Iran’s demands as it faces growing pressure domestically to avoid another escalation.

The US media have reported that concerns over dwindling defensive munitions have contributed to Trump’s decision not to carry out his threatened large-scale strikes against Iran.

SACRAMENTO — As the campaign for California governor heads into the general election, Democrat Xavier Becerra maintains a strong lead over Republican Steve Hilton, according to a new poll from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times.

Buoyed by the state’s liberal voting base, Becerra had support from 55% of likely voters surveyed — compared with Hilton’s 37%. The remaining 7% were undecided.

Like in a previous IGS poll conducted in late May, support for each candidate falls overwhelmingly along partisan lines: 88% of Democrats prefer Becerra and 91% of Republicans plan to back Hilton. No-party-preference voters also lean heavily toward Becerra, a former Biden administration Cabinet member, 58% to Hilton’s 30%.

The two will face off in the Nov. 3 general election to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is barred from running again and considering a 2028 bid for president. Becerra, whose resume includes stints as U.S. Health and Human Services secretary and state attorney general, is heavily favored to win the seat over Hilton, a former Fox News host who advised a prime minister in his native Britain.

“After the unsettled and chaotic primary, this is shaping up to be a fairly standard California general election, where Democrats enjoy a comfortable edge statewide,” said Eric Schickler, a political science professor and IGS co-director. “Hilton would need to make major inroads among traditionally Democratic-leaning groups to make this a highly competitive race.”

According to the poll, majorities of voters across age, gender and racial categories prefer Becerra — with particularly strong support among women, younger voters and Black Californians.

Becerra emerged from the primary ahead of more progressive opponents, including billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, and quickly earned the backing of their onetime supporters, said IGS Poll Director Mark DiCamillo.

“These are people who say, ‘I identify as a progressive.’ ‘I identify as a democratic socialist.’ They’re overwhelmingly for Becerra, and it’s mainly because they really don’t think very much of the Republicans as a party. It’s not so much about Hilton himself,” DiCamillo said.

Regionally, the poll found voters in Los Angeles and San Diego counties, along with the Bay Area and Central Coast, prefer Becerra. Hilton leads in the state’s more sparsely populated and conservative-leaning areas, including the Central Valley and North Coast/Sierra region.

Politically purple Orange County and the economically stressed Inland Empire are more closely divided but lean toward Hilton.

When asked why they support each candidate, voters largely cited conventional partisan issues.

More than half of Hilton backers, 55%, pointed to his support for traditionally Republican policies such as cutting taxes and reducing government regulation. It was followed by 28% who said they prefer Hilton because he is not part of California’s political establishment.

Hilton’s platform includes making Californians’ first $150,000 in annual earnings tax-free, slashing government regulations and ramping up oil production in hopes of achieving $3-per-gallon gas prices.

“Those are the benefits, but the underlying mission that I’ve set [for] myself as the next governor is to transform our business climate to make California competitive again, so that we do get the investment and the job creation and start to turn things around. I think it’s an absolute crisis that we’re in if we don’t change direction,” Hilton said Tuesday during a political conference in Sacramento.

Becerra supporters were evenly divided over their top reasons for supporting him; 38% cited his support for Democratic policies such as expanding healthcare and protecting LGBTQ+ rights, while another 38% expect him to aggressively fight the Trump administration.

The poll suggests that, in California, President Trump factors more heavily into Democratic voters’ political decisions than Republicans’.

“One of the reasons Becerra is doing so well is because of his opposition to Trump,” DiCamillo said. “For Hilton supporters, not so much. His endorsement by the president is only cited by 4% as a reason why they’re supporting Hilton.”

The former Health secretary has an extensive plan to lower healthcare costs and frequently touts the more than 120 lawsuits he filed as California attorney general against the first Trump administration. At the Tuesday political event hosted by Politico, Becerra said, “California will become the backstop for healthcare” after Trump signed a tax bill with steep cuts to Medicaid.

To prevent an estimated 2 million people from losing their health insurance because of the cuts and rising premiums, Becerra pitched a deal directly to insurance companies: “I will ensure people stay covered. You ensure that you help me reduce the cost. I ensure that you get paid.”

Thirteen percent said they’re supporting Becerra because he is a Democrat and 7% said the same about Hilton’s Republican affiliation.

Just 4% of Latino respondents and 1% of the total sample of likely voters said they would vote for Becerra because he is a Latino candidate and a child of immigrants.

Each candidate saw a small bump in support since the May poll, which asked registered voters just before the primary election to pick between them in a then-hypothetical matchup. In that survey, 52% chose Becerra and 31% supported Hilton.

Just under half of voters, 49%, have a favorable opinion of Becerra while 43% have an unfavorable view. Hilton’s favorability rating is underwater, with 39% of likely voters viewing him favorably and 50% unfavorably.

The numbers present a challenge for Hilton, who is trying to overcome the state’s pronounced Democratic tilt by appealing to independent voters frustrated with issues such as homelessness and California’s high cost of living.

“That might, for him, be the swing block,” DiCamillo said. “But among no-party-preference voters, his image rating is negative, 59% to 31%, whereas Becerra’s image rating is pretty much the same as it is statewide, which is positive.”

The poll was conducted online in English and Spanish from Aug. 3 to 9. Responses for the governor’s race poll came from a weighted sample of 2,310 respondents considered likely voters in the November election, out of a larger group of 4,207 registered voters throughout California. It has a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points in either direction.

SACRAMENTO — It’s hard being a global titan these days, when despite beaucoup bucks spent bending government to your will, any little ant of a state attorney general can crawl up your pant leg and bite.

Just ask David Ellison.

After, well, the world seemingly fell in line with his long-planned $110-billion merger of Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery in recent weeks, a dozen state attorneys general, led by California’s Rob Bonta, have stymied the deal with a so-far-successful lawsuit that has put the whole thing on ice.

That has Paramount, and presumably Ellison, big mad-sad. So much so that a company lawyer this week suggested Paramount could move out of California if Bonta doesn’t back down.

For those of us in the cheap seats, the whole plot of the Paramount merger has become so convoluted and nebulous it‘s hard to follow exactly what’s going on, and what it all means.

So let’s pull back, and take a big-picture look at what’s happening and what’s at stake — legally and politically.

Legally pretty good

First, the recap: Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery have been trying to merge since 2024. European regulators, along with those in other countries, cleared the deal, with some conditions in place.

U.S. regulators also backed the deal (which was not surprising considering Paramount went out of its way to court Trump, maybe even settling a multimillion-dollar suit and canning Stephen Colbert as part of that), making it seem like it was all but done.

Then, recently, 12 state attorneys general led by Bonta sued to stop the merger on antitrust grounds and won a temporary restraining order.

So why did the states sue?

Trump’s idea of regulation seems to be to OK anything he likes, or that personally benefits him. Therefore, “the states have come in and played a really important role, since the DOJ has basically walked away from a lot of interest enforcement,” said George Hay, a professor of law and economics at Cornell University. “The states take this really seriously.”

While there have been lots of angles on this merger in the media (including concerns over foreign investments), the antitrust lawsuit is really fairly narrow — the main argument is that the merger will “kill off theaters,” Hay said, and hurt consumers and creators.

Bonta has pointed out that after the merger, the new Paramount would control about 27% of films released into theaters in the U.S., along with basic cable distribution.

David Ellison, chairman and chief executive of Paramount Skydance, speaks at a New York event in April.

(Noam Galai / Getty Images for Paramount)

On those narrow grounds, “the states have done a good job putting together a credible case, a case that a court’s likely to regard as being plausible,” said William Kovacic, a professor of law at George Washington University.

While the lawsuit is only in preliminary stages, Harry First, a professor of law emeritus at New York University and an expert in antitrust matters, said it has a “decent chance of succeeding.”

That has to worry Paramount, because a long, drawn-out court case is bad for business.

“If you go through appeals, it means that your transaction hangs suspended in the air for a couple of years,” Kovacic said. “It creates all sorts of uncertainty about the future direction of the business.”

The issues that don’t matter, but actually do

Paramount also has PR headaches involved with this deal, though they largely lie outside the scope of the legal action.

Whether or not CNN would retain its editorial independence has been a huge topic of debate. Ellison’s dad, billionaire Larry Ellison, is a huge F.O.T. (friend of Trump) with a hard-right tilt.

The younger Ellison has already been accused of destroying the integrity of “60 Minutes.” Many fear (or hope, depending on their politics) that he will do the same to CNN. But that’s not really an antitrust issue, although Ellison has tried to claim this is political persecution by liberal states.

There’s also been talk from labor unions and some politicians that the merger will hurt workers, which seems like a reasonable fear. In general, First points out, less competition leads to more power for the remaining owners to set the terms of employment.

Again, that’s not what the lawsuit is actually focused on.

Politics front and center

But both of those issues have become popular talking points, more prevalent than the actual issues in the lawsuit.

That reality is creating a political headache for some big political heads, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom and governor-in-waiting Xavier Becerra, who are increasingly receiving pressure from Paramount to make this all go away.

That thumbscrew campaign lost all subtlety this week at a Politico event in Sacramento, where Paramount’s chief legal officer Makan Delrahim said the company would consider leaving the state.

“If I was governor, I wouldn’t want to lose Hollywood from the state. I wouldn’t want to lose a major company like Paramount to another state,” Delrahim said.

Both Newsom and Becerra in recent days have indicated they would prefer some sort of settlement, avoiding a long legal battle that could kill the deal entirely.

NYU’s First sees that as “the weakness of Democrats who say they don’t like concentration and they don’t like concentration in the media and they don’t like companies getting bigger and bigger, and then they fold when the companies have political power.”

Let’s look at that power more closely, though, because if you recall, there are 11 other attorneys general in this suit, including from powerful states such as New York and Colorado.

That means “California doesn’t necessarily dictate what will happen to the case,” Hay said. “It may well be Ellison will twist Newsom’s arm to get Newsom to twist the attorney general’s arm to call off the case or take a very favorable settlement, but it doesn’t kick the other states out.”

While Bonta, at the same Politico event, said he’s had private conversations with Newsom on the issue, he also doesn’t seem interested in folding.

“In a span of weeks, Paramount agreed to halt the merger until a court decision or until June 2027, asked for a November trial, and is now back with another attempt to blackmail the state into letting an illegal deal through. Paramount has lost the plot as it continues to lose in court. It didn’t work the first time — on the eve of our July lawsuit — and it won’t work this time,” Bonta said in a recent social media post.

Don’t forget, Bonta has his own aspirations for governor, and Hay points out that AGs often see antitrust cases as “a political stepping stone” because they are popular with voters.

So what’s next?

As the lawsuit is currently written, First and other legal experts agreed this would be a hard case to settle because it doesn’t leave a lot of room for dealmaking.

That, of course, doesn’t mean a deal couldn’t be done.

But it’s unlikely Ellison will force California to crumble with so many other states in the game, no matter how many threats Paramount drops, and unlikely the merger will escape this lawsuit without concessions that the attorneys general can cite as victories.

What else you should be reading
The must-read: ICE to outfit officers with gloves that can deliver electric shocks
The California angle: Nick Reiner lay in wait before killing his parents, prosecutors allege
The L.A. Times Special: Live updates: Bob Iger, Joshua Kushner agree to buy Lakers for $12.5 billion
Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

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

In the grand buffet of problems explaining President Trump’s abysmal approval ratings, reserve a tray for Mexican food.

Americans are rightfully frustrated with the myriad consequences of the war with Iran he plunged us into, the rising cost of living, his pharaonic obsession with monuments to himself and his overall doddering state of mind.

But as this president afflicts the country with a prolonged civic bout of Montezuma’s Revenge, Mexican food’s role in the overall mess Trump has left us with is notable.

One of this country’s most popular cuisines has inadvertently spent this summer embarrassing Trump in fundamental ways — and I’m not just talking about TACO, the acronym referring to how Trump Always Chickens Out on his most bombastic claims and threats. The most prominent — and disgusting — example has been outbreak of foodborne illness traced back to popular Mexican restaurant chains that have sickened tens of thousands of Americans while Trump has shrugged and effectively told us to eat frijoles.

The Food and Drug administration traced an outbreak of cyclosporiasis, a parasite-born intestinal disease, to contaminated lettuce grown in Mexico by Salinas-based Taylor Fresh Foods that made its way to Taco Bell. The world’s biggest Mexican fast food chain quickly put out a statement that it removed all suspected lettuce from its restaurants and that “we encourage all relevant restaurants, retailers, and foodservice operators to do the same.”

If only the Trump administration was as proactive in caring for the well-being of Americans as the creators of Doritos Locos tacos and Crunchwrap Supremes.

It turned out that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network told state inspectors last year that they were no longer required to report to the agency any instances of the parasite that causes cyclosporiasis they found in this country’s food supply. This was part of massive cutbacks at the CDC that reduced its staff by a quarter and cut billions of dollars in funding.

When reporters confronted Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with these facts, he responded that such criticisms were “invalid” and that the cyclosporiasis outbreak was “under control.”

Make America Healthy Again? More like Make Americans Heave Always.

A bean and cheese burrito with green chile sauce at Al & Bea’s in Boyle Heights.

(Kirk McKoy/Los Angeles Times)

On Aug. 4, the Food and Drug Administration revealed that a salmonella outbreak traced back to contaminated jalapeños imported from Mexico had left hundreds of Americans sick. But the feds were two weeks late to the news: By July 20, Chipotle had already removed all suspected jalapeños from its stores. Unlike the Trump administration, it had invested in food-safety tracking that quickly spotted the problem, a system implemented after the company suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in sales losses and a $25-million federal fine last decade due to repeated foodborne illnesses originating in its stores.

I’m no fan of Chipotle’s underwhelming hipster vibe or Taco Bell’s over-salted options, but they know what the Trump administration seems to not understand: Americans deserve to eat without worrying about whether they’ll get ill as a result. And they also know Americans especially like Mexican food, a cuisine dependent on exported produce that is now more expensive than ever because of Trump’s misguided tariffs and overall bellicosity to our Latin America trading partners.

You would think Trump himself would know: Remember the infamous photo he posted on Cinco de Mayo during his first term of him smiling at his desk appearing ready to chow down on a giant taco salad bowl?

Which leads to the second section of Trump’s combo plate of bad Mexican food news this year. On the same day the FDA belatedly disclosed the jalapeño salmonella outbreak, Turning Point USA spokesperson Andrew Kolvet posted on social media that a college student complained to him that “a burrito shouldn’t cost $20.” Kolvet correctly pointed out that many people currently feel the cost of living is too high, and rightfully suggested that Republican Party leaders should sympathize with such concerns lest they lose even more voters that they already have during Trump’s second term.

Instead, Trump toadies from Vice President JD Vance to Rep. Dan Crenshaw urged young people to eat instant ramen and live frugally instead of splurge on burritos. That provoked other conservative activists to smack down the MAGA Men for showing how out of touch they are with how expensive everything is right now.

Forget the Consumer Price Index: The cost of a burrito is the best way to judge how much the cost of living actually is. I haven’t regularly bought them for years because they’re just not worth it anymore.

A delicious, slender bean-and-cheese burrito with no sauce at the venerable Al & Bea’s in Boyle Heights is going for six bucks and change right now when it was about $2 cheaper two years ago. The gargantuan breakfast burritos at my favorite place to get one, Athenian III in Buena Park, run about $13. Even my go-to fast-food treat, a half-pound Del Taco bean-and-cheese burrito, costs $2.61 with tax at the closest location to my house.

Remember when they were about a dollar? I do.

As someone whose wife runs a restaurant, I don’t blame businesses for hiking their prices; I blame Trump. He campaigned two years ago on stopping and reversing the runaway inflation that was happening toward the end of the Biden administration and won over a lot of Mexican Americans as a result. But when those voters can’t even enjoy a carne asada burrito for lunch without thinking about whether they’ll have enough money for the rest of the week, that should worry Trump and his team as the November midterms approach.

That they’re collectively still blaming Biden shows how pendejos they are at best, and uncaring at worst.

Back to that 2016 Cinco de Mayo photo of himself enjoying a taco salad sold at his Trump Hotel in Manhattan. It was peak Trump: daring opponents to call him out for appropriating a hallmark of Cal-Mex dining while thinking Americans would see the move as a metaphor for the bounties of riches and good times Trump would usher in for this country.

A decade later, Trump just makes too many Americans want to run to the proverbial toilet and barf from all the slop he and his minions have cooked up for our country.

Aug. 13 (UPI) — The Trump administration’s decision to close the U.S. Consulate in Medan, Indonesia, may save relatively little money. But it risks weakening American influence in one of the Indo-Pacific’s most strategically important regions at a time when Washington says competition with China is its foremost foreign policy priority.

The Medan consulate is small compared with the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta or major diplomatic posts elsewhere in Asia. Yet, its strategic value has long exceeded its size.

Situated on the island of Sumatra, the consulate serves roughly 60 million Indonesians across 10 provinces, supports U.S. commercial interests, advances educational and environmental partnerships and provides Washington with a permanent presence near the Strait of Malacca — one of the world’s busiest maritime corridors.

The proposed closure comes as the United States seeks to deepen its Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with Indonesia, Southeast Asia’s largest economy, the world’s largest Muslim-majority democracy and an increasingly influential G20 member.

Those ambitions sit uneasily alongside a shrinking American diplomatic footprint in one of Indonesia’s most important regions.

For years, U.S. officials have argued that competition with China extends beyond military deployments and naval exercises. It also depends on trade, investment, educational exchanges, environmental cooperation and people-to-people ties.

Those objectives require diplomats on the ground, particularly outside national capitals where many of today’s political and commercial relationships are forged.

“The administration should reconsider closing a strategically located consulate near the Strait of Malacca,” Patrick Cronin, chair for Asia-Pacific Security at the Hudson Institute, told UPI. “Recent tensions around the Strait of Hormuz remind us how indispensable the Strait of Malacca remains to global commerce.”

Sumatra is one of Indonesia’s economic engines, producing energy, palm oil, coffee, rubber and other commodities, while anchoring important shipping and trade routes across the Malacca Strait and the Indian Ocean.

The island accounts for a large share of Indonesia’s palm oil production, while its provinces are also major exporters of rubber, coal, agricultural products and manufactured goods.

North Sumatra recorded more than $3.5 billion in exports in 2025, while South Sumatra recorded $6.3 billion. American companies operating in energy, agribusiness, manufacturing and logistics therefore have commercial interests that extend well beyond Jakarta, including relationships with provincial governments, suppliers, ports, industrial estates and local business communities.

A diplomatic presence in Medan provides U.S. officials with a base for supporting those relationships, monitoring commercial conditions and helping American companies navigate regulatory and administrative issues in a region central to Indonesia’s trade and resource economy.

“It will reinforce the perception that the United States is shrinking its footprint in Southeast Asia,” Murray Hiebert, head of research at BowerGroupAsia, told UPI. “Closing Medan also removes the only permanent U.S. diplomatic presence near the Strait of Malacca.”

Unlike many countries where political authority is concentrated in one capital, Indonesia’s decentralized system gives provincial governments considerable influence over investment, environmental management and economic development. Relationships built through a regional consulate cannot easily be replicated through periodic visits from embassy officials based in Jakarta.

Indonesia also occupies a distinctive place in Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy. It is neither a treaty ally nor a strategic adversary, but an independent regional power that has consistently pursued its long-standing “free and active” foreign policy. Jakarta has resisted choosing sides between Washington and Beijing, preferring to cultivate strong ties with both.

Ted Osius, former U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam, who also served as president and CEO of the U.S.-ASEAN Business Council, said Washington has spent years strengthening its partnership with Indonesia as both countries seek closer trade and defense cooperation.

“The annual cost of operating the U.S. Consulate in Medan, staffed by just two American diplomats serving an island of more than 60 million people, is roughly equivalent to one minute of Pentagon spending during the conflict with Iran,” Osius told UPI. “The modest savings from closing the post would come at a disproportionate strategic cost.”

China has long recognized that influence is built through sustained local engagement as much as national diplomacy. Over the past decade, Beijing has expanded its presence across Indonesia through infrastructure projects, mining investments, industrial cooperation and Belt and Road financing.

Chinese companies dominate Indonesia’s rapidly growing nickel-processing industry, while the Jakarta-Bandung high-speed railway has become Beijing’s flagship infrastructure project in Southeast Asia.

Chinese engagement extends well beyond Jakarta. Provincial governments across the archipelago work directly with Chinese companies, universities and local officials, allowing Beijing to deepen relationships through consistent local engagement rather than high-profile diplomatic initiatives alone.

Against that backdrop, reducing the American presence outside the capital risks reinforcing perceptions that Washington’s commitment is narrowing rather than expanding.

The implications extend beyond geopolitics. Sumatra contains some of the world’s richest tropical forests, including the Leuser Ecosystem, one of the few places where orangutans, elephants, rhinos and tigers still co-exist in the wild. These forests also rank among the world’s most important carbon sinks, making them central to global biodiversity and climate efforts.

“We should not be closing the U.S. Consulate in Medan,” Robert Blake, a former U.S. ambassador and now senior managing director at McLarty Associates, told UPI. “Despite its relatively small operating cost, the consulate punches well above its weight.

“It enables U.S. diplomats to engage with Sumatra’s 60 million people, promotes American business in a region rich in energy, palm oil and coffee, and supports Indonesia’s efforts to protect Sumatra’s unique biodiversity — a globally significant natural heritage and one of the world’s most important carbon sinks.”

That work has included support for conservation partnerships, scientific cooperation, educational exchanges and civil society initiatives. As climate change increasingly intersects with national security and economic policy, environmental diplomacy has become another arena in which countries build long-term influence.

The Medan consulate has served as a regional presence in North Sumatra, providing U.S. diplomats with direct access to local officials, business leaders, universities, civil society organizations and other institutions outside Indonesia’s capital.

Its location also gives Washington a base for monitoring developments across a strategically important part of the country, including trade, investment, maritime activity and regional ties.

Closing or consolidating that presence would shift more of those functions to the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta and other regional posts, potentially changing how frequently American officials engage with counterparts in Sumatra.

Supporters of consolidation argue that modern communications and periodic travel can substitute for permanent regional offices, particularly during a period of fiscal restraint. But diplomacy remains fundamentally relational. Trust develops through sustained interaction, familiarity with local institutions and networks that cannot be built through occasional visits.

Whether the closure ultimately proceeds is less important than what it signals. Throughout the Indo-Pacific, Washington contends that strategic competition with China will be won not only through military strength, but also through sustained economic, diplomatic and societal engagement. That strategy depends on people, institutions and local relationships built over decades — not only on high-level summits or defense agreements.

The annual savings from closing a small consulate in Medan are likely to be modest. The strategic cost may be harder to measure.

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.

Los Angeles County election officials are examining steps ahead of the November midterms to respond to the rising popularity of election trading via prediction markets, including a possible ban on wagering for county election workers.

The discussions follow a fracas during the June ballot count, when a handful of influencers suggested fraud could be occurring in L.A.’s mayoral primary because the results began diverging from the market’s prediction.

That incident, the most prominent interaction of prediction markets and a U.S. election to date, revealed a new dynamic in the battle for public trust in elections. Now, election administrators around the country are considering the possible implications of the markets’ forecasts, including whether they have the power to affect voter confidence in election results.

“We’re … trying to find our way in this,” L.A. County Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan said in an interview. “It’s opened up a lot of questions that we’re grappling with.”

Three months before the midterms, with much of the American public concerned about democracy and trust in elections dropping, officials are paying attention to anything that could create further uncertainty around how elections are run.

The midterm contests are high stakes for both parties, which are battling for control of Congress amid a difficult economy, the war in Iran and low approval ratings for President Trump. And many Americans are wagering on what might happen — users have traded nearly $200 million on the midterm elections so far, a July analysis by NBC News found.

Prediction market platforms and their proponents say trading contracts on the markets is not the same as betting, likening it instead to trading on the stock market. Critics say it amounts to gambling, regardless of how the markets are set up.

The timeline for election administrators to think through the issue before November is tight, and it poses challenges for offices that already are stretched thin preparing for other possible election-day scenarios. What happened during the L.A. mayoral primary, however, has prompted discussions around the country, said Carolina Lopez, executive director of the Partnership for Large Election Jurisdictions, or PLEJ, a nonpartisan organization that represents election administrators.

“The potential effect on confidence [in elections] is significant,” Lopez said.

A spokesperson for Kalshi, one of the leading trading platforms, said the platform bans insider trading and welcomes any policy measures doing the same. The company takes “seriously our responsibility to be a responsible actor in this space,” spokesperson Jacki McGavick said.

Los Angeles could become one of the first major election jurisdictions to implement guidance or policy related to prediction markets. Delaware County, Pa., in suburban Philadelphia, already has taken such a step — adding prediction markets to an oath poll workers already were required to sign affirming that they have not wagered on the election.

Last month, Maryland’s top election official asked the state prosecutor to open an investigation into the legality of prediction markets. In late July, Wisconsin’s election administrator warned voters that it is illegal under state law to both vote in and bet on an election. That drew swift attacks from executives at Kalshi, one of whom claimed the state would “disenfranchise voters who use Kalshi.”

In L.A. County, Logan said his office is in the research stage for an insider-trading policy for staff. His office also is creating public messaging to deploy in various scenarios and factoring the potential dynamics around prediction markets into security planning.

Any potential for unrest or protests related to people’s monitoring of market forecasts is likely to come in the days following the election, while ballots still are being counted, Logan said.

Elections staff also is preparing FAQ documents about prediction markets and discussing how to talk about the issue with reporters, gaming out different scenarios, he said.

Orange County Registrar of Voters Bob Page said he advised his office’s staff before the primary, and plans to do so again before November, that participating in election markets could create a conflict of interest prohibited by county code. Staff betting could been seen by the public “as improper,” Page said he told his staff, “ which would undermine trust in the integrity of the election.”

Thirty-nine percent of likely midterm voters in a recent survey commissioned by PLEJ said their confidence in an election outcome would be reduced if the official result differed from prediction market odds. Three-quarters of those surveyed said they believed prediction markets create confusion around elections.

A majority was unable to correctly identify what prediction market odds represent, according to the survey results, with more than a third believing they showed the current number of votes for each candidate or an official projection from election officials.

The rise of the exchanges, which allow users to stake money on the chance that a given event will happen in the future, has provided a way to create predictions that some experts say are more accurate than political polling.

Leaders of the platforms have suggested they can help combat election misinformation by providing predictive insights and help decision-makers understand public sentiment. Kalshi launched what it termed a “midterms hub” late last month, which it said would contain not only market forecasts but also news, polling and fundraising data.

“Election markets have been my dream since the start of Kalshi,” Luana Lopes Lara, a co-founder of the platform, said on social media upon the hub launch. “The holy grail of prediction markets, they shed light on some of the most consequential, decentralized and human processes in the world, where good data is crucial and hard to find.”

She added: “It’s changed the way I interacted with the electoral process and made me smarter — I hope it does the same to you.”

McGavick, the spokesperson, said about 75% of Kalshi visitors view the odds without buying anything in order to understand what “the crowd forecasts.”

“Kalshi has become a leading indicator of where elections are headed,” she said.

As users trade contracts — each one representing a bet for or against a given event, such as a certain candidate winning an election — the market generates odds. On Tuesday, for instance, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass had a 61% chance of winning in November on Kalshi, while City Council member Nithya Raman had a 39% chance.

Either Bass or Raman could win, but if the public’s understanding of the markets is murky, experts say, voters may confuse their speculation for certainty.

In June, the market odds appeared to drive some public belief about what the results would be, Logan told reporters at a briefing last month — in this case, that Republican Spencer Pratt would be one of the top-two vote-getters, which ultimately did not happen.

“That put us in a position as election officials of having to respond to a whole new layer of misinformation,” Logan said. “Not only were we being asked how were the polls wrong … but [people were saying], ‘We saw numbers’ or ‘We saw odds.’”

Experts worry it could become more common for market odds to be cited by people who are dissatisfied with an election result as a new way to attempt to discredit a ballot count, adding a new quiver in the bow of election deniers and potentially confusing the public.

The existence of prediction markets “provides one more source of information” that could be used by bad actors to stir up confusion or distrust in election results, said Mindy Romero, executive director of the California-based nonpartisan Center for Inclusive Democracy.

“People might think … prediction markets are a good thing or a bad thing,” Romero said, “but you can’t deny that it is one more thing that could potentially be manipulated.”

Separately, prediction markets have drawn the attention of lawmakers in Congress for various reasons, including fears of insider trading. Members of both parties have proposed guardrail legislation this year. Several states are locked in legal battles with the federal government over whether they can regulate the markets under state anti-gambling laws.

Last week, as destructive wildfires raged in Washington, Oregon, California and elsewhere, California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla joined with other Democratic senators from western states to urge the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to restrict the markets from offering betting on wildfires. They cited concerns that people could be tempted to influence fires or commit arson in order to “make sure their bets are successful.”

Schiff introduced a bill to prohibit such trading in March. Kalshi has a ban on markets tied directly to death and war. Kalshi and the other leading platform, Polymarket, also regularly report suspected insider trading to the federal government for investigation. Last month, federal investigators alleged that Trump’s teleprompter operator had used inside knowledge to win more than $100,000 after Kalshi spotted his activity.

In Los Angeles, Logan said his office may issue guidance by November, but the task will extend beyond the next election day.

“What we want to do is defend against anything that would devalue the elections process,” Logan said. “We don’t want voters to be discouraged from participating.”