Politics

A U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington on Tuesday overturned a decision requiring organizations that run election-related television ads to reveal their funders, saying a lower court erred in finding that Congress intended to require such disclosure — a victory for some of the biggest groups participating in the 2012 campaign.

In an unsigned decision, the three-judge panel wrote that it was “doubtful” that Congress anticipated how campaign finance rules would change and sent the case back to the lower court for further review.

But for the remainder of this election the ruling lets up the pressure on GOP-allied organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Prosperity and Crossroads GPS, which changed their ad strategies after a federal judge ruled this spring that Congress intended such groups to disclose their donors.

INTERACTIVE: Spending during the 2012 election

“We’re just delighted,” said Thomas Kirby, an attorney for the Center for Individual Freedom, one of two groups that pursued an appeal of the case. “CFIF believes that the right to engage in political speech should not be needlessly conditioned upon the loss of anonymity.”

Rep. Christopher Van Hollen (D-Md.), who brought the original case against the Federal Election Commission that upheld the donor disclosure requirement, issued a statement saying the appellate decision “struck a blow against transparency in the funding of political campaigns.”

“The Court of Appeals’ decision today will keep the American people, for the time being, in the dark about who is attempting to influence their vote with secret money,” he added.

The case hinges on the FEC’s interpretation of the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act, a landmark campaign finance reform measure that, among other things, required groups that engage in “electioneering communications” to reveal all their contributors.

Five years later, the FEC issued a rule stating that such organizations only had to reveal the donors who gave for the purpose of financing TV ads.

Van Hollen — backed by lawyers from the campaign finance reform organizations Democracy 21, Public Citizen, Campaign Legal Center and the law firm WilmerHale — sued the FEC, arguing that the rule created a major loophole that undermined the intent of the McCain-Feingold Act. A federal judge agreed, ruling on March 30 that the FEC had overstepped its authority.

“Congress intended to shine light on whoever was behind the communications bombarding voters immediately prior to elections,” Judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote in her decision.

Her ruling threw out the 2007 rule and reinstated a 2003 FEC regulation that required organizations doing electioneering to report all donations of $1,000 or more dating back to the first day of the preceding year.

That triggered a scramble among politically active groups on the right that have been fighting efforts to force them to reveal their funders. Despite the fact that they are organized as nonprofit social welfare organizations – or, in the case of the Chamber, as a trade group — the groups began running explicitly political ads, taking advantage of the conflicting patchwork of campaign finance rules that did not require disclosure of those doing “express advocacy.”

That move came with its own risk: paying for overtly political spots could jeopardize their tax status.

INTERACTIVE: Battleground states map

Such a tactic is no longer necessary after Tuesday’s ruling by the appellate court, which declared that the McCain-Feingold Act is “anything but clear” in light of major court cases that have followed it, including the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United.

The panel chided the FEC for not clearly dealing with the changes in the law or defending its stance in court. The appellate court sent the case back to the lower court, ordering it to refer the matter back to the FEC to defend its current rules or issue new ones.

But with the FEC locked in partisan gridlock, it remains unclear whether the six commissioners will be able to come to agreement on how to proceed.

Campaign finance reform advocates said they were not giving up, saying they still believed they had a strong argument to make at the district court level if the FEC chooses to defend the current rules.

“The Court of Appeals got it wrong,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21. “There is no way Congress enacted a statute to result in no disclosure of contributors when the statute calls for all disclosure of contributors.”

Wertheimer said his group would also continue to press the Internal Revenue Service to scrutinize the activities of groups such as Crossroads GPS that claim to be nonprofit social welfare organizations.

But he admitted that in the prospect of forcing such organizations to reveal their donors this year has been effectively shut down.

“They’ll go back to doing electioneering and claim that their campaign ads are not campaign ads,” Wertheimer said.

Follow Politics Now on Twitter and Facebook[email protected]

Twitter: @mateagold

Over the weekend, United States President Donald Trump promised Americans $2,000 each from the “trillions of dollars” in tariff revenue he said his administration has collected.

During his second term, Trump has imposed tariffs broadly on countries and on specific goods such as drugs, steel and cars.

“People that are against Tariffs are FOOLS!” Trump said in a November 9 Truth Social post. “We are taking in Trillions of Dollars and will soon begin paying down our ENORMOUS DEBT, $37 Trillion. Record Investment in the USA, plants and factories going up all over the place. A dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone.”

How seriously should people take his pledge? Experts urged caution.

Tariffs are projected to generate well below “trillions” a year, making it harder to pay each person $2,000. And the administration already said it would use the tariff revenue to either pay for existing tax cuts or to reduce the federal debt.

Trump’s post came days after the US Supreme Court heard arguments about the legality of his tariff policy. The justices are weighing whether Trump has the power to unilaterally impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. If the justices rule against Trump, much of the expected future tariff revenue would not materialise.

What Trump proposed, and who would qualify

The administration has published no plans for the tariff dividends, and in a November 9 ABC News interview, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he had not spoken to Trump about giving Americans a dividend payment.

Details about a potential payment have been limited to Truth Social posts.

Trump said “everyone”, excluding “high income people”, would get the money, but did not explain the criteria for high-income people. He also did not say whether children would receive the payment.

In a November 10 Truth Social post, Trump said his administration would first pay $2,000 to “low and middle income USA Citizens” and then use the remaining tariff revenues to “substantially pay down national debt”.

Trump has not said what form the payments might take. Bessent said the dividend “could come in lots of forms, in lots of ways. You know, it could be just the tax decreases that we are seeing on the president’s agenda. You know, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security, deductibility of auto loans. So, you know, those are substantial deductions.”

Analysts said it is a stretch to rebrand an already promised tax cut as a new dividend.

Trump has previously discussed paying Americans with tariff revenue.

“We have so much money coming in, we’re thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt,” he told reporters on July 25. “We’re thinking about a rebate.”

Days later, Senator Josh Hawley introduced legislation that would give $600 tariff rebate cheques to each American adult and child. Hawley’s bill has not advanced.

Tariff revenue collected versus cost of ‘dividend’ payment

Trump made the imposition of tariffs one of his signature campaign promises for the 2024 presidential election. Since taking office in January, he has enacted tariffs on a scale not seen in the US in almost a century; the current overall average tariff rate is 18 percent, the highest since 1934, according to Yale Budget Lab.

Through the end of October, the federal government collected $309.2bn in tariff revenue, compared with $165.4bn through the same point in 2024, an increase of $143.8bn.

The centre-right Tax Foundation projects that tariff revenue will continue to increase to more than $200bn a year if the tariffs remain in place.

Erica York, the Tax Foundation’s vice president of federal tax policy, estimated in a November 9 X post that a $2,000 tariff dividend for each person earning less than $100,000 would equal 150 million adult recipients. That would cost nearly $300bn, York calculated, or more if children qualified. That is more than the tariffs have raised so far, she said.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projected that Trump’s proposal could cost $600bn, depending on how it is structured.

The administration previously detailed other uses for tariff revenue

The Trump administration already promised to use tariff revenue for other purposes, including reducing the country’s deficit and offsetting the cost of the GOP tax and spending bill Trump signed into law in July.

As Trump announced new tariffs on April 2, he said he would “use trillions and trillions of dollars to reduce our taxes and pay down our national debt”.

Bessent has made the same promise, falsely saying in July that tariffs were “going to pay off our deficit”.

The treasury secretary said in August that he and Trump were “laser-focused on paying down the debt”.

“I think we’re going to bring down the deficit-to-GDP,” Bessent said in an August 19 CNBC interview. “We’ll start paying down debt and then, at a point, that can be used as an offset to the American people.”

Tariffs’ current cost to Americans 

Tariffs are already costing Americans money, analysts say. Independent estimates range from about $1,600 to $2,600 a year per household. Given the similarity of these amounts to Trump’s proposed dividend, York said it would be more efficient to remove the tariffs.

Joseph Rosenberg, Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Centre senior fellow, said a $2,000 dividend in the form of a cheque would require congressional approval – and lawmakers have already declined to act on that idea once.

When members of Congress approved the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, “They had the ability to include a tariff dividend, but they didn’t”, Rosenberg said.

For months, as victims pleaded for information, the Los Angeles Fire Department kept secret that its firefighters were ordered to stop mop-up operations on a small brushfire that continued to smolder and reignited days later into the massive Palisades fire.

At least one department official learned that a battalion chief had directed the firefighters to pack up their hoses and leave the scene of the Lachman fire Jan. 2, even though they complained that the ground was still smoking in places and rocks remained hot to the touch, according to a source who was briefed on the matter in June.

But the department did not include that finding, or any detailed examination of the reignition, in its after-action report on the Jan. 7 Palisades fire — or otherwise make the information public — despite victims demanding answers for months about how the blaze started and whether more could have been done to prevent it.

The report, which was released last month and intended to identify shortcomings in the LAFD’s preparedness and response, only briefly mentioned the prior blaze, even though its role in starting the Palisades fire was clear to firefighters. According to the report, on the morning of Jan. 7, an LAFD captain called Fire Station 23 — one of two stations in Pacific Palisades — to say that the Lachman fire had started up again.

Despite this, LAFD officials were emphatic early on that the Lachman fire was fully extinguished.

“We won’t leave a fire that has any hot spots,” Kristin Crowley, the fire chief at the time, said at a community meeting Jan. 16, after the Palisades fire killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes.

“That fire was dead out,” Chief Deputy Joe Everett said at the same meeting, adding that he was out of town but communicating with the incident commander. “If it is determined that was the cause, it would be a phenomenon.”

The Times reported late last month that a battalion chief had ordered firefighters to leave the scene of the Lachman fire the day after it broke out, rather than stay and make sure there were no hidden embers that could ignite a new fire, according to firefighter text exchanges. Mario Garcia, the battalion chief listed as being on duty the day that firefighters were ordered to leave the Lachman fire, said in an email that he was unable to comment due to “the ongoing investigation.”

Interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva declined to be interviewed or answer questions about when top LAFD officials learned of the firefighters’ complaints about leaving the scene. Mayor Karen Bass also declined an interview request and did not respond directly to a question about whether she was informed of the firefighters’ complaints before The Times report and, if so, when.

After The Times published the story on the texts, victims of the Palisades fire expressed outrage, while Bass directed Villanueva to launch an investigation into the matter. Critics of Bass’ administration have asked for an independent inquiry. A spokesperson said Thursday that Bass’ selection for permanent fire chief, Jaime Moore, will lead the investigation, not Villanueva. Moore’s appointment still must be confirmed by the L.A. City Council.

Meanwhile, a federal grand jury subpoena was served on the LAFD for firefighters’ communications, including text messages, about smoke or hot spots in the area of the Lachman fire, according to a memo distributed to firefighters last week.

The source, a high-ranking fire official who works for a different agency in the L.A. region, told The Times that another LAFD battalion chief, Nick Ferrari, informed him in June that the department had learned of the Lachman firefighters’ account of being ordered to leave the burn site. The official asked not to be identified by name or the agency he works for because of the sensitivity of the LAFD finding.

The Times reviewed written notes that the official made shortly after the conversation, documenting what Ferrari had said about the firefighters’ complaints.

Ferrari works in the department’s risk management section, according to his LAFD email profile. That section typically conducts internal reviews of incidents such as the Palisades fire for potential liability. He did not respond to interview requests and an emailed list of questions. It is not clear what, if anything, Ferrari did with the information he shared with the official about five months ago.

Federal investigators say the Lachman fire was deliberately set and had burned underground in a canyon root system until high winds rekindled it on Jan. 7. Last month, an investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives led to the arrest of former Pacific Palisades resident Jonathan Rinderknecht, who is accused of setting the Lachman fire shortly after midnight Jan. 1.

It is unclear from the internal LAFD memo whether the federal subpoena for firefighter texts is directly related to the case against Rinderknecht, who has pleaded not guilty.

In one text message reported last month in The Times, a firefighter who was at the Lachman scene Jan. 2 wrote that the battalion chief in charge had been told it was a “bad idea” to leave because of visible signs of smoldering terrain, which crews feared could start a new fire. “And the rest is history,” the firefighter wrote in recent weeks.

A second firefighter was told that tree stumps were still hot at the location when the crew packed up and left, according to the texts. And another firefighter said in texts last month that crew members were upset when directed to leave the scene, but that they could not ignore orders. That firefighter also wrote that he and his colleagues knew immediately that the Jan. 7 fire was a rekindle of the Jan. 1 blaze.

The firefighters’ accounts line up with a video recorded by a hiker above Skull Rock Trailhead about 11:30 a.m. Jan. 2 — almost 36 hours after the Lachman fire started — that shows smoke rising from the dirt. “It’s still smoldering,” the hiker says from behind the camera.

The LAFD previously said that officials did everything they could to ensure the Lachman fire was out.

In an interview with The Times last month, Villanueva — who came out of retirement to head the department in February, after Bass removed Crowley from the position — said that firefighters remained in the Lachman fire burn area for more than 36 hours and “cold-trailed” it, meaning they used their hands to feel for heat, dug out hot spots and chopped a line around the perimeter of the fire to ensure it was contained.

He said firefighters returned Jan. 3 for another round of cold-trailing after a report of smoke in the area, though the LAFD did not provide records that corroborated those actions.

Those documents are readily available for release, but the LAFD has required The Times to pursue them through an often lengthy process under the California Public Records Act. Bass’ office declined to order the LAFD to provide the records to the paper.

The Times in recent years has filed three lawsuits against the city for its failure to release documents under the records act. Two of the lawsuits involved alleged misconduct by LAFD employees, including accusations that a chief deputy appeared to be intoxicated while the department was battling a 2021 fire in the Palisades.

The now-retired chief deputy said he was off-duty at the time and did nothing wrong. The department took no action against him. A judge ordered the city to release the records in the case and pay The Times’ legal fees.

In the second case involving alleged misconduct, the city agreed to settle by producing the records and reimbursing the paper’s legal costs. In the third lawsuit, which is pending, The Times contends that the city has unlawfully deleted Bass’ text messages related to the Palisades fire.

Pringle is a former Times staff writer.

Nov. 11 (UPI) — In a new diplomatic escalation between Colombia and the United States, President Gustavo Petro again recalled Colombia’s ambassador to Washington, Daniel García-Peña, for consultations.

This time, the recall aims to clarify a situation reported by the Colombian magazine Cambio regarding a photo released by the White House on Oct. 21 as part of its official coverage of a meeting between senior officials and Republican senators.

On Sunday, the image drew renewed attention after Cambio published an analysis focusing on a folder held by Deputy Chief of Staff James Blairen. The photo shows Petro alongside Nicolás Maduro, both wearing orange jumpsuits similar to those used in U.S. prisons, as part of a document titled “Trump Doctrine.”

“If an ambassador is called for consultations, the representative of the other country returns to their own country while the necessary information is obtained,” Petro wrote on X, suggesting that while García-Peña is in Bogotá, U.S. chargé d’affaires John McNamara should return to the United States, El Colombiano reported.

“This is about understanding why the official White House page shows me as if I were a prisoner in a U.S. jail. It is a brutal disrespect to the people who elected me and to the Colombian nation and its history,” Petro added.

Colombia’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement confirming that Ambassador García-Peña “has been called for consultations” and “is already in Bogotá.”

At the same time, Foreign Minister Rosa Villavicencio ruled out the expulsion of U.S. chargé d’affaires John McNamara from Colombia, El Tiempo reported.

The Petro government’s decision comes amid a visible deterioration in diplomatic relations between the two countries and adds pressure to a bilateral agenda that includes sensitive issues such as counternarcotics cooperation, migration, trade and hemispheric relations.

According to Cambio, the first paragraph of the document held by Blairen outlines five steps against the Colombian president, three of which are already underway.

The five are designating additional cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, supporting pro-U.S. leaders in the Western Hemisphere, imposing targeted sanctions on Petro, his family and associates, countering corrupt and anti-U.S. criminal activities, and launching a comprehensive investigation into Petro’s campaigns and their foreign financing.

“People should not always rely on what they read in the newspapers,” Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau said when askedwhether the United States had a plan underway to imprison Colombian President Gustavo Petro.

The diplomat addressed the issue during a telephone press briefing with several Latin American media outlets Monday morning.

Landau declined to comment further on the photo, which has since been removed from the U.S. government website, but expressed dissatisfaction with the Colombian president’s statements.

Zohran Mamdani will be the first Muslim-Indian mayor of New York City when he takes up the post in January 2026, following an election which has gained global attention.

Mamdani, 34, will be the city’s youngest mayor since 1892. Having entered the race as a largely unknown candidate, he won the Democratic nomination and campaigned on a promise of affordability for New Yorkers, including rent freezes, free buses and universal healthcare, gaining huge popularity among young voters.

The mayor-elect, who will be formally inaugurated on January 1, 2026, has also been a beacon for a large number of those in the city who come from immigrant backgrounds.

During a Democratic primary debate in June, his opponent for the nomination – former Democratic Mayor Andrew Cuomo – mispronounced his name several times.

“The name is Mamdani, M-A-M-D-A-N-I, you should learn how to say it because we’ve got to get it right,” he told Cuomo in the televised debate.

But what does Mamdani mean, and what is the significance of his full name, Zohran Kwame Mamdani?

Where is he from?

Mamdani was born in Uganda to Indian parents who have citizenship of Uganda and the US. His father, Mahmood Mamdani, was born in Mumbai (then known as Bombay), India and is Herbert Lehman Professor of Government and a professor of anthropology, political science and African studies at Columbia University, New York. His mother, Mira Nair, is a film director who was also born in India. The family moved from Uganda to South Africa when Mamdani was five, and then to New York when he was seven.

By 2018, Mamdani had become a naturalised US citizen but also retained his Ugandan citizenship. The mayor-elect still regularly visits Uganda with his family, and most recently travelled there to celebrate his wedding to the American illustrator, Rama Duwaji, in July this year.

What does Mamdani’s name mean?

Zohran Kwame Mamdani is a name which reflects his multicultural identity.

His surname, Mamdani, is a common Gujarati name for Khoja Muslims, a sect of Islam.

Etymologically, Mamdani roughly translates to “Mohammadan”, a name for followers of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.

His first name, Zohran, has both Arabic and Persian origins and carries several meanings, including “light”, “radiance”, and “blossom”.

His middle name, Kwame, is a traditional name of the Akan people, from the ethnic Kwa group who live primarily in Ghana as well as in parts of the Ivory Coast and Togo in West Africa.

Mamdani’s father is known to be a great admirer of the Ghanaian freedom fighter, Kwame Nkrumah, who led the fight for independence from British rule and served as the newly independent country’s first president from 1957.

What is the significance of his middle name, Kwame?

Kwame literally translates to “born on Saturday” in the language of the Akan people. It also means “wisdom” and “leadership”.

Outside of its literal definition, however, the name is strongly connected with the Ghanaian revolutionary, Kwame Nkrumah, who led his country’s independence movement. Ghana was the first sub-Saharan African nation to gain independence from British rule in March 1957. Nkrumah served as its first prime minister and, later, its first president until he was overthrown in a coup in 1966.

He was influential across the continent as an advocate of pan-Africanism, an ideology which promotes unity across the African continent and within its diaspora in defiance of the imperialistic division of African nations under European colonial rule.

Under his administration, which was both nationalist and predominantly socialist, Nkrumah oversaw the funding of national energy projects and a robust national education system which also promoted pan-Africanism.

After he was overthrown in a military coup in 1966, Nkrumah lived his life in exile, settling in Guinea where he died in 1972.

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

The measure still needs to be approved by the House and signed by US President Donald Trump.

The United States is moving closer to ending its record-breaking government shutdown after the Senate took a critical step forward to end its five-week impasse.

The Senate on Monday night approved a spending package by a vote of 60 to 40 to fund the US government through January 30, and reinstate pay for hundreds of thousands of federal workers.

The spending bill next moves to the House of Representatives for approval and then on to President Donald Trump for a sign-off before the shutdown can finally end.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has said he would like to pass it as soon as Wednesday and send it on to Trump to sign into law.

The vote in the Senate follows negotiations this weekend that saw seven Democrats and one Independent agree to vote in favour of the updated spending package to end the shutdown, which enters its 42nd day on Tuesday.

Also included in the deal are three-year funding appropriations for the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration, military construction projects, veterans affairs and congressional operations.

The bill does not, however, resolve one of the most central issues in the shutdown – extending healthcare subsidies. Senate Republicans have agreed to vote on the issue as a separate measure in December.

US legislators have been under growing pressure to end the government shutdown, which enters its forty-second day on Tuesday, as their constituents feel the impact of funding lapses for programmes like food stamps.

Hundreds of thousands of federal employees have been furloughed or required to work without pay since the shutdown began on October 1, while Trump has separately threatened to use the shutdown as a pretext to slash the federal workforce.

Voters have also felt the impact of the shutdown at airports across the US after the Federal Aviation Administration last week announced a 10 percent cut in air traffic due to absences from air traffic controllers.

The cuts have created chaos for US air travel just as the country is heading into its busiest travel season of the year.

CAPE TOWN, South Africa — President Trump says that his government will boycott the Group of 20 summit this month in South Africa over his claims that a white minority group there is being violently persecuted. Those claims have been widely rejected.

Trump announced Friday on social media that no U.S. government official will attend the Nov. 22-23 summit in Johannesburg “as long as these Human Rights abuses continue.” South Africa’s Black-led government has been a regular target for Trump since he returned to office.

In February, Trump issued an executive order stopping U.S. financial assistance to South Africa, citing its treatment of the Afrikaner white minority. His administration has also prioritized Afrikaners for refugee status in the U.S. and says they will be given most of the 7,500 places available this fiscal year.

The South African government — and some Afrikaners themselves — say Trump’s claims of persecution are baseless.

Descendants of European settlers

Afrikaners are South Africans who are descended mainly from Dutch but also French and German colonial settlers who first came to the country in the 17th century.

Afrikaners were at the heart of the apartheid system of white minority rule from 1948-94, leading to decades of hostility between them and South Africa’s Black majority. But Afrikaners are not a homogenous group, and some fought against apartheid. There are an estimated 2.7 million Afrikaners in South Africa’s population of 62 million.

Afrikaners are divided over Trump’s claims. Some say they face discrimination, but a group of leading Afrikaner business figures and academics said in an open letter last month that “the narrative that casts Afrikaners as victims of racial persecution in post-apartheid South Africa” is misleading.

Afrikaners’ Dutch-derived language is widely spoken in South Africa and is one of the country’s 12 official languages. Afrikaners are represented in every aspect of society. Afrikaners are some of South Africa’s richest entrepreneurs and some of its most successful sports stars, and also serve in government. Most are largely committed to South Africa’s multiracial democracy.

Trump claims they’re being ‘killed and slaughtered’

Trump asserted that Afrikaners “are being killed and slaughtered, and their land and farms are being illegally confiscated.” The president’s comments are in reference to a relatively small number of attacks on Afrikaner farmers that he and others claim are racially motivated.

Trump has also pointed to a highly contentious law introduced by the South African government that allows land to be appropriated from private owners without compensation. Some Afrikaners fear that law is aimed at removing them from their land in favor of South Africa’s poor Black majority. Many South Africans, including opposition parties, have criticized the law, but it hasn’t led to land confiscations.

Trump first made baseless claims of widespread killing of white South African farmers and land seizures during his first term in response to allegations aired on conservative media personality Tucker Carlson’s former show on Fox News. Trump ordered then-U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to look into the allegations, but nothing came of any investigation.

South Africa rejects the claims

The South African government said in response to Trump’s social media post that his claims were “not substantiated by fact.” It has said that Trump’s criticism of South Africa over Afrikaners is a result of misinformation because it misses the context that Black farmers and farmworkers are also killed in rural attacks, which make up a tiny percentage of the country’s high violent crime rate.

There were more than 26,000 homicides in South Africa in 2024. Of those, 37 were farm murders, according to an Afrikaner lobby group that tracks them. Experts on rural attacks in South Africa have said the overriding motive for the violent farm invasions is robbery, not race.

Other pressure on South Africa

Trump said it is a “total disgrace” that the G-20 summit — a meeting of the leaders of the 19 top rich and developing economies, the European Union and the African Union — is being held in South Africa. He had already said he wouldn’t attend, and Vice President JD Vance was due to go in his place. The U.S. will take on the rotating presidency of the G-20 after South Africa.

Trump also said in a speech last week that South Africa should be thrown out of the G-20.

Trump’s criticism of Africa’s most developed economy has gone beyond the issue of Afrikaners. His executive order in February said South Africa had taken “aggressive positions towards the United States and its allies,” specifically with its decision to accuse Israel of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza at the United Nations’ top court.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio boycotted a G-20 foreign ministers meeting in South Africa in February after deriding the host country’s G-20 slogan of “solidarity, equality and sustainability” as “DEI and climate change.”

Imray writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A deal that could end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history is poised to head to the House, where Democrats are launching a last-ditch effort to block a spending agreement reached in the Senate that does not address healthcare costs.

The push comes as Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) urged House members on Monday to start making their way back to Washington in anticipation of the chamber voting on a spending package later in the week. The Senate began taking a series of votes Monday night, a day after Senate Republicans reached a deal with eight senators who caucus with Democrats.

The spending plan, which does not include an extension of the Affordable Care Act subsidies that are set to expire at the end of the year, has frustrated many Democrats who spent seven weeks pressuring Republicans to extend the tax credits. It would, however, fund the government through January, reinstate federal workers who were laid off during the shutdown and ensure that federal employees who were furloughed receive back pay.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) also promised senators a vote in December that would put lawmakers on record on the healthcare subsidies. Thune said in a speech Monday that he was “grateful that the end is in sight” with the compromise.

“The American people have suffered long enough,” he said. “Let’s not pointlessly drag this bill out. Let’s get it done, get it over to the House so we can get this government open.”

Senate Democrats who defected have argued that a vote is the best deal they could get as the minority party, and that forcing vulnerable Republicans in the chamber to vote on the issue will help them win ahead of next year’s midterm elections.

As the Senate prepared to vote on the deal Monday, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader of the chamber, continued to reiterate his opposition to what he called a “Republican bill.” Schumer, who has faced backlash from Democrats for losing members of his caucus, said the bill “fails to do anything of substance to fix America’s healthcare crisis.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) speaks to reporters about the government shutdown.

(Mariam Zuhaib / Associated Press)

Thune’s promise to allow a vote in the Senate does not guarantee a favorable outcome for Democrats, who would need to secure Republican votes for passage through the chamber. And the chance to address healthcare costs will be made even harder by Johnson, who has not committed to holding a vote on his chamber in the future.

“I’m not promising anybody anything,” he said. “I’m going to let the process play out.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), meanwhile, told reporters that House Democrats will continue to make the case that extending the subsidies is what Americans are demanding from elected officials, and that there is still a fight to be waged in the chamber — even if it is a long shot.

“What we are going to continue to do as House Democrats is to partner with our allies throughout America is to wage the fight, to stay in the Colosseum,” Jeffries said at a news conference.

Some Republicans have agreed with Democrats during the shutdown that healthcare costs need to be addressed, but it is unlikely that House Democrats will be able to build enough bipartisan support to block the deal in the chamber.

Still, Jeffries said the “loudmouths” in the Republican Party who want to do something about healthcare costs have an opportunity to act now that the House is expected to be back in session.

“They can no longer hide. They can no longer hide,” Jeffries said. “They are not going to be able to hide this week when they return from their vacation.”

Democrats believed that fighting for an extension of healthcare tax credits, even at the expense of shutting down the government, would highlight their messaging on affordability, a political platform that helped lead their party to victory in elections across the country last week.

If the tax credits are allowed to lapse at the end of the year, millions of Americans are expected to see their monthly premiums double.

In California, premiums for federally subsidized plans available through Covered California will soar by 97% on average next year.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune answers questions Monday about a possible end to the government shutdown after eight members of the Democratic caucus broke ranks and voted with Republicans.

(J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press)

California’s U.S. senators, Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, were among the Democrats who voted against the deal to reopen the government because it did not address healthcare costs.

“We owe our constituents better than this. We owe a resolution that makes it possible for them to afford healthcare,” Schiff said in a video Sunday night.

Some Republicans too have warned that their party faces backlash in the midterm elections next year if it doesn’t come up with a more comprehensive health plan.

“We have always been open to finding solutions to reduce the oppressive cost of healthcare under the unaffordable care act,” Johnson said Monday.

A final vote could still take several days. Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, for one, has said he supports an expeditious vote to reopen the government, but is insisting on a prior vote on an amendment that would eliminate language from the spending deal he says would “unfairly target Kentucky’s hemp industry.”

Without unanimous consent to proceed, the final Senate vote could end up bogged down by procedural delays.

Johnson, meanwhile, has asked members to return by Wednesday in anticipation of a vote in the latter part of the week. Republicans expect to have the votes to pass it, Johnson said.

Any piece of legislation needs to be approved by both the Senate and House and be signed by the president.

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Monday, President Trump said he would support the legislative deal to reopen the government.

“We’re going to be opening up our country,” Trump said. “Too bad it was closed, but we’ll be opening up our country very quickly.”

Trump added that he would abide by a provision that would require his administration to reinstate federal workers who were laid off during the shutdown.

“The deal is very good,” he said.

Johnson said he spoke to the president on Sunday night and described Trump as “very anxious” to reopen the government.

“It’s after 40 days of wandering in the wilderness, and making the American people suffer needlessly, that some Senate Democrats finally have stepped forward to end the pain,” Johnson said. “Our long national nightmare is finally coming to an end, and we’re grateful for that.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump hosted Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa at the White House on Monday, welcoming his once-pariah state into a U.S.-led global coalition to fight the Islamic State group.

Al-Sharaa arrived at the White House around 11:30 a.m. and shortly after began his Oval Office meeting, which remained closed to the press. The Syrian president entered the building through West Executive Avenue, adjacent to the White House, rather than on the West Wing driveway normally used for foreign leaders’ arrivals. He left the White House about two hours later and greeted a throng of supporters gathered outside before getting into his motorcade.

“We’ll do everything we can to make Syria successful because that’s part of the Middle East,” Trump told reporters later Monday. The U.S. president said of Al-Sharaa that “I have confidence that he’ll be able to do the job.”

Syria’s foreign ministry, in a statement, described the meeting as “friendly and constructive.”

Trump “affirmed the readiness of the United States to provide the support that the Syrian leadership needs to ensure the success of the reconstruction and development process,” the statement said.

It added that U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had then met with Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shibani and Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, who arrived in Washington on Monday, and that they agreed to proceed with implementing an agreement reached in March between Damascus and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces to integrate the SDF into the new Syrian army. Implementation of the deal has repeatedly stalled amid tensions between the two sides. It was unclear what concrete steps were agreed upon in Monday’s meeting.

The statement said the “American side also affirmed its support for reaching a security agreement with Israel,” but it did not say how Syria had responded.

Al-Sharaa’s visit was the first to the White House by a Syrian head of state since the Middle Eastern country gained independence from France in 1946 and comes after the U.S. lifted sanctions imposed on Syria during the decades the country was ruled by the Assad family. Al-Sharaa led the rebel forces that toppled Syrian President Bashar Assad last December and was named the country’s interim leader in January.

Trump and Al-Sharaa — who once had ties to Al Qaeda and had a $10-million U.S. bounty on his head — first met in May in Saudi Arabia. At the time, the U.S. president described Al-Sharaa as a “young, attractive guy. Tough guy. Strong past, very strong past. Fighter.” It was the first official encounter between the U.S. and Syria since 2000, when then-President Clinton met with Hafez Assad, the father of Bashar Assad.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday’s visit is “part of the president’s efforts in diplomacy to meet with anyone around the world in the pursuit of peace.”

One official with knowledge of the administration’s plans said Syria’s entry into the global coalition fighting Islamic State will allow it to work more closely with U.S. forces, although the new Syrian military and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces in the country’s northeast had already been fighting the group.

Before Al-Sharaa’s arrival in the U.S., the United Nations Security Council voted to lift sanctions on the Syrian president and other government officials in a move that the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Mike Waltz, said was a strong sign that Syria is in a new era since the fall of Assad.

Al-Sharaa came to the meeting with his own priorities. He wants a permanent repeal of sanctions that punished Syria for widespread allegations of human rights abuses by Assad’s government and security forces. While the Caesar Act sanctions are currently waived by Trump, a permanent repeal would require Congress to act.

One option is a proposal from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that would end the sanctions without any conditions. The other was drafted by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a hawkish Trump ally who wants to set conditions for a sanctions repeal that would be reviewed every six months.

But advocates argue that any repeal with conditions would prevent companies from investing in Syria because they would fear potentially being sanctioned. Mouaz Moustafa, executive director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force, likened it to a “hanging shadow that paralyzes any initiatives for our country.”

The Treasury Department said Monday that the Caesar Act waiver was extended for another 180 days.

Kim writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Abby Sewell in Beirut and Fatima Hussein and Konstantin Toropin in Washington contributed to this report.

Eric Preven, one of L.A. County’s most prominent citizen watchdogs, has died at 63, according to his family.

Preven, a well-known government transparency advocate, garnered a reputation as an eagle-eyed observer of local meetings, a savvy wielder of the state’s public records act, and a reliable thorn in the sides of his government.

Relatives said Preven died Saturday in his Studio City home of a suspected heart attack.

The term “gadfly” often is bandied about local government to describe those who never miss a public meeting. But politicians and his family say the term doesn’t quite do Preven justice.

“You may not agree with him, but it wasn’t just like [he was] shooting from the hip. He would do his research,” said Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who watched Preven testify for more than a decade. “He would let the facts speak for themselves.”

In 2016, Preven and the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California took a lawsuit all the way to the California Supreme Court, which ruled in his favor, finding the public had a right to know how much the county was paying outside lawyers in closed cases. Three years later he successfully forced the city to expand its rules around public testimony after he argued he’d been unlawfully barred from weighing in on a Studio City development.

Many attendees of local public meetings tend to drift into offensive diatribes that have little to do with the matter at hand. Preven never did.

Instead he fine-tuned the art of presenting minute-long, logical arguments on everything from budget shortfalls to seemingly excessive settlements. He could be cutting but he always had a point to make.

And he never missed a meeting.

“Thank you for this exhausting dressing down of the probation department,” Preven said last Tuesday after the supervisors wrapped up rebuking officials for paltry programming inside juvenile halls. “The idea that we’re paying for these programs, these programs are scheduled, and nothing is happening is terrible.”

A New York native, Preven moved to Los Angeles to work in Hollywood, landing TV writing gigs on shows including “Popular” and “Reba.” His path into local activism began 15 years ago after his mother’s two chocolate labs were removed by the county’s animal control department following a fight with an off-leash dog, according to his family.

Preven, a canine lover known to throw parties with members of his local dog park, found the removal of the labs unjustifiable. He went to the Board of Supervisors meeting to tell them so. Then he went again. And again. And again.

Long after the dogs were returned, Preven kept going back.

“He started listening to the meeting and looking at the agenda, and he became just appalled at so many things that he saw,” said his brother, Joshua Preven. “He became so incensed by it.”

Preven became a fierce advocate for the public’s right to know what was happening in local meetings and kept close track of staff changes at City Hall. He was known to text local government reporters early on weekend mornings to ask why someone had stepped down from a city agency, or self-deprecatingly share his latest blog post on CityWatch, a local news site.

“My latest deep dive into my own navel,” he texted two weeks ago with his new article on the famed architect behind his historic home in Studio City’s foothills.

He often sent Times editors and reporters weekly emails on successes and shortcomings in their coverage. The county’s politicians and officials received similar messages about their governance.

“He could be irascible,” his brother said. “When he came and encountered the L.A. County Board of Supervisors, it became a really good use of that stubbornness.”

Preven was a dogged user of the California Public Records Act, finding gems of records buried in seldom-scrutinized agencies. He filed so many record requests to the Animal Care and Control department that the county assigned an attorney just to deal with them, according to Dawyn Harrison, the county’s top lawyer.

“Eric was the epitome of an engaged constituent and critic of local government, persistently questioning and challenging government officials,” Harrison said. “As his interest in County government grew, so did the range of his requests; so, my office decentralized the handling of his requests because no one person could cover all the subjects he looked into. He was a true watchdog.”

Supervisor Janice Hahn said Preven had been scrutinizing her and her colleagues ever since she was a councilmember at City Hall.

“Eric Preven never let those with power in government forget who we work for. … He pushed us, he challenged us, and he had an opinion on everything — from the biggest issue of the day to the more routine contract votes that too often go overlooked,” she said. “While some people wrote him off, I thought there was always truth in what he had to say.”

Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, whose district includes parts of Studio City, said he “took seriously the role of citizen, religiously participating in County meetings.”

In addition to his brother, Preven is survived by his sister, Anne Preven, his mother, Ruth Preven, his father, David Preven, and two children, 28-year-old Isaac Rooks Preven and 26-year-old Reva Jay Preven.

Preven ran several times for public office, launching idiosyncratic campaigns for mayor, city council and county supervisor. He barely fundraised and wasn’t allowed in many of the debates, said his brother, who helped out as his campaign manager.

“We didn’t know what the hell we were doing at all,” Joshua Preven said. “But he kept showing up.”

Times reporters Dakota Smith and David Zahniser contributed to this report.

Nov. 10 (UPI) — The Trump administration is working on a plan to introduce a 50-year fixed-rate mortgage with the goal of making homeownership more affordable for millions of Americans, as some analysts warn of hidden costs.

Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte confirmed the report, saying the proposed 50-year loan would lower monthly payments to bring more buyers into the housing market.

“Thanks to President Trump, we are indeed working on The 50-year Mortgage — a complete game changer,” Pulte wrote Saturday in a post on X. Trump has compared the plan to the 30-year mortgage from President Franklin D. Roosevelt‘s New Deal.

“We hear you. We are laser focused on ensuring the American Dream for young people and that can only happen on the economic level of home buying,” Pulte added. “A 50-year mortgage is simply a potential weapon in a wide arsenal of solutions that we are developing right now: stay tuned.”

The housing market has grown stagnate over the past three years as younger Americans are unable to afford the payments that come with a 30-year fixed rate at more than 6% interest. To add to that, inventory is depleted as homeowners are locked in to their houses with the lower interest rates of the COVID-19 economy.

Both Pulte and Trump have blamed Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell for hiking interest rates to curb inflation and then keeping rates “artificially high.”

While a 50-year mortgage would lower monthly payments, it would also prevent homeowners from building equity as quickly. Over the life of the loan, the amount of interest paid to lenders would be 40% higher, according to analysts who also warn about the need for congressional approval.

“Fannie and Freddie could establish a secondary market for 50-year mortgages in advance of policy changes. They even could buy mortgages for their retained portfolios,” Jaret Seiberg, a financial services and housing policy analyst at TD Cowen, wrote in a note to clients.

“Yet this would not alter the legal liability for lenders. It is why we believe lenders will not originate 50-year mortgages absent qualified mortgage policy changes,” Seiberg said, adding congressional approval could take up to a year to meet the definition of a qualified mortgage under the Dodd-Frank Act.

A judge on Monday allowed the continued deployment of more than 300 West Virginia National Guard members to patrol the streets of Washington, D.C., as part of President Trump’s push to send the military into Democratic-run cities.

Kanawha County Circuit Judge Richard D. Lindsay made the ruling after hearing arguments in a lawsuit by a civic organization that argued Republican Gov. Patrick Morrisey exceeded his authority when he authorized the Guard’s deployment in August.

“The question before this court is whether or not state law allows West Virginia to do this,” Lindsay said. “… This court believes that the federal law allows for the request made by the president to the governor.”

West Virginia is among several states that sent National Guard members to the nation’s capital. While the state National Guard has said its deployment could last until the end of November, it is consulting with the governor’s office and others on the possibility of extending the stay.

Formal orders were issued last week extending the deployment of the District of Columbia’s National Guard in the city through the end of February.

“We are pleased with the judge’s decision,” Jace Goins, the state’s chief deputy attorney general, said outside the court in Charleston. “The National Guard are going nowhere. They’re staying in D.C. They’re not going to be redeployed to West Virginia.

“The judge made the determination that the governor made a lawful decision deploying the National Guard to D.C. by a lawful request of the president.”

The West Virginia Citizen Action Group, which filed the lawsuit, argued that under state law, the governor could deploy the National Guard out of state only for certain purposes, such as responding to a natural disaster or another state’s emergency request.

The civic group claimed that it was harmed by the deployment by being forced to refocus its resources away from government accountability and transparency. The state attorney general’s office sought to reject the case, saying the group has not been harmed and lacked standing to challenge Morrisey’s decision.

“It was a simple issue of a broad, lawful request by the president and a lawful deployment by the governor. That’s all,” Goins said.

Aubrey Sparks, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union’s West Virginia chapter, said she didn’t believe it was the correct decision.

“I think that West Virginia law is clear,” Sparks said. “I think what the state was permitted to do here is to skirt past West Virginia law simply because Trump asked them to. And that’s not how the law works. We remain deeply concerned about it.”

Trump issued an executive order in August declaring a crime emergency in the nation’s capital, although the Department of Justice itself says violent crime there is at a 30-year low.

Within a month, more than 2,300 Guard troops from eight states and the District of Columbia were patrolling under the Army secretary’s command. Trump also deployed hundreds of federal agents to assist them.

Separately, a federal judge heard arguments Oct. 24 on District of Columbia Atty. Gen. Brian Schwalb ’s request for an order that would remove National Guard members from Washington streets. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, an appointee of former President Biden, did not rule from the bench.

Raby writes for the Associated Press.

Ukranian president promises accountability after anticorruption bureau announces probe into alleged Energoatom scheme.

Ukraine’s anticorruption agency has launched an investigation into an alleged $100m kickback scheme involving Energoatom, the state-run nuclear power company that supplies more than half of the country’s electricity.

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), which operates independently of the government, announced the probe on Monday as the country faces another harsh winter under daily Russian bombardment.

In a statement posted on social media, NABU said that a “high-level criminal organisation” orchestrated the alleged scheme, led by a businessman and involving a former adviser to the energy minister, Energoatom’s head of security, and four other employees.

“In total, approximately 100 million USD passed through this so-called laundromat,” NABU said, without naming the suspects.

“The minister’s adviser and the director of security at Energoatom took control of all the company’s purchases and created conditions under which all contractors had to pay illegal benefits,” according to NABU chief detective Oleksandr Abakumov.

He said the group discussed increasing the kickback rate during work on protective structures at the Khmelnytskyi nuclear plant last October.

Investigators said Energoatom’s contractors were forced to pay bribes of 10 to 15 percent to avoid losing contracts or facing payment delays.

“A strategic enterprise with annual income exceeding 200 billion hryvnias [$4.7bn] was managed not by authorised officials but by individuals with no formal authority,” NABU said.

Zelenskyy calls for ‘criminal verdicts’

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, addressing the nation on Monday evening, urged full cooperation with the investigation. “Everyone who has been involved in corruption schemes must receive a clear legal response. There must be criminal verdicts,” he said.

Zelenskyy’s comments come just months after he was forced to reverse plans to curb the agency’s independence following widespread protests. Eradicating corruption remains a crucial condition for Ukraine’s European Union membership bid, a goal Kyiv views as central to its post-war future.

Energoatom confirmed on social media that its offices were being searched and said it was cooperating with investigators.

Deputy Minister of Energy of Ukraine Svitlana Grynchuk told reporters she was not yet familiar with the case details, but promised a “transparent process” and accountability for anyone found guilty. “I hope that the transparency of the investigation will reassure our international partners,” she said.

Ukraine’s power infrastructure has suffered extensive damage from Russia’s air strikes this autumn, leaving large parts of the country without electricity. Although Moscow has not targeted nuclear reactors directly, Ukrainian authorities say substations linked to them have been repeatedly hit.

NABU released photographs showing stacks of cash, Ukrainian hryvnias, US dollars and euros, stuffed into bags and piled on tables. The agency did not disclose the owners of the seized money.

The agency conducted 70 searches, reviewed more than 1,000 hours of audio recordings, and deployed its entire detective staff over 15 months.

Opposition lawmaker Yaroslav Zheleznyak, a strong supporter of anticorruption reform, said he would introduce a parliamentary motion to dismiss Grynchuk and her predecessor, German Galushchenko, now serving as justice minister. Hrynchuk declined to comment on the proposal, while Galushchenko did not respond to requests for comment.

As Ukraine continues to battle both corruption and Russia’s war, Kyiv’s ability to convince its international partners of reform may prove as critical to its future as the fighting on the front lines.

Nov. 10 (UPI) — The U.S. Senate plans a series of votes Monday night to try to end the record-long shutdown as House Speaker Mike Johnson called representatives to return to Washington to be there when a bill reaches them.

Earlier, Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota said they were in a “holding pattern.”

Late Monday afternoon, the GOP’s whip office told CNN a vote would begin after 5 p.m. p.m. John Barrasso of Wyoming mobilizec members for key votes. A GOP aide confirmed the plans to CBS News.

On Sept. 19, the House approved short-gap spending legislation along party lines 217-213 that doesn’t include healthcare subsidies next year through the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. Only a majority is needed in the House, but the Senate needs 60 votes in the 100-member chamber.

The Senate is scheduled to go into recess Tuesday for Veterans Day and was seeking to conclude business before then.

Thune said the American people “have suffered for long enough,” and other senators were reasonably optimistic.

“It’s very close,” said Sen. Mike Rounds, who also serves South Dakota. “We’ll work our way through a couple of issues.”

“I’m optimistic, yeah,” Florida Sen. Rick Scott said. “People want to, you know, they want to get — they want to go home.”

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is the only Republican to vote against past funding bills. He wants hemp farming in the agriculture appropriations bill in exchange for allowing the legislation to move quickly. The Senate plans to vote on the amendment.

“If Rand wants to plant his flag and hold the government shut down for over hemp in Kentucky, take that fight on. I think he’ll lose that one pretty hard,” said Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, noting that another senator wants an amendment to withhold pay from members during government shutdowns.

Monday marked the 41st day of the United States’ longest-running government shutdown, which started Oct. 1. It beat the previous longest shutdown of 35 days, which took place in 2018 and 2019 during President Donald Trump‘s first term.

Despite the pending vote, Johnson further pushed against the Democrats’ battle to extend health insurance subsidies. The Senate would vote separately on the subsidies next month.

“There’ll be long days and long nights here for the foreseeable future to make up for all this lost time that was imposed upon us,” Johnson told reporters.

Senators held a procedural vote Sunday in which seven Democrats and one Independent joined Republicans to narrowly advance a funding measure 60-40.

In exchange for the Democrats’ votes, Republicans agreed to hold a vote in the future on extending Obamacare subsidies.

There are more steps to take before senators hold an official vote on legislation to fund the government through January, including a measure on how long the chamber will debate.

All but a few Democrats have voted 14 times against the House stopgap measure out of concerns over a lack of an extension to the ACA tax credits, set to expire end of December. More than 20 million U.S. citizens currently rely the ACA on for health insurance.

“The American people have now awoken to Trump’s healthcare crisis,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said.

“Healthcare is once again at the forefront of people’s minds,” Schumer said on the Senate floor. “People now see that premiums are about to skyrocket. They’re terrified about how they’re going to pay for their insurance.”

The new measure would reverse all shutdown-related job layoffs, guarantee federal worker pay during the shutdown, establish a specific budget process and fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program through September.

Johnson said he will give a 36-hour notice before any House votes, but did not offer a specific timeline.

The speaker, who has kept the lower chamber out of session since late September, indicated that a vote could occur as early as this week.

Any bill passed by both chambers will require a signature by Trump to become law. Trump said he intends to sign the legislation.

“Well, it depends what deal we’re talking about, but if it’s the deal I heard about … they want to change the deal a little bit, but I would say so,” Trump told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins in the Oval Office.

“I think, based on everything I’m hearing, they haven’t changed anything, and we have support from enough Democrats, and we’re going to be opening up our country. It’s too bad it was closed, but we’ll be opening up our country very quickly.”

That includes adhering to a provision that would reverse layoffs of federal workers his administration pushed during the shutdown.

In the House, Johnson plans to swear in Adelita Grijalva of Arizona when the members return, according to a CNN source.

Grijalva was elected Sept 23, but Johnson refused to swear her in until Senate Democrats agreed to reopen the government.

Once Grijalva is sworn in, she is expected to become the 218th signature necessary to bypass leadership and force a vote on compelling the release of files in the Jeffrey Epstein sex-abuse case.

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Monday that House Democrats would continue to oppose the spending bill that advanced in the Senate this weekend.

“As House Democrats, we know we’re on the right side of this fight, the right side of the American people, and we’re not going to support partisan Republican spending bill that continues to gut the health care of the American people, and we’re going to continue the fight to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits,” he said at a news conference.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has pardoned his former personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, his onetime chief of staff Mark Meadows and others accused of backing the Republican’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

The “full, complete, and unconditional” pardon for dozens of Trump allies are largely symbolic. It applies only to federal crimes, and none of the people named in the proclamation were charged federally over the bid to subvert the election won by Democrat Joe Biden. It doesn’t affect state charges, though state prosecutions stemming from the 2020 election have hit a dead end or are just limping along.

The move, however, underscores Trump’s continued efforts to promote the idea that the 2020 election was stolen from him even though courts around the country and Trump’s own attorney general at the time found no evidence of fraud that could have affected the outcome. Reviews, recounts and audits of the election in the battleground states where Trump contested his loss also affirmed Biden’s victory.

Trump’s recent action follows the sweeping pardons of the hundreds of Trump supporters charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, including those convicted of attacking law enforcement.

Ed Martin, the Department of Justice’s point person on pardons and a former lawyer for the Jan. 6 defendants, linked his announcement of the pardons to a post on X that read “No MAGA left behind.”

Dozens of Trump allies received pardons

Among those also pardoned were Sidney Powell, an attorney who promoted baseless conspiracy theories about a stolen election, John Eastman, another lawyer who pushed a plan to keep Trump in power, and Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who championed Trump’s efforts to challenge his election loss.

Also named were Republicans who acted as fake electors for Trump and were charged in state cases accusing them of submitting false certificates that confirmed they were legitimate electors despite Biden’s victory in those states.

The proclamation explicitly says the pardon does not apply to the president himself, who has continued to repeat the lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him, used that falsehood to argue for sweeping changes in the way the country votes and demanded his Department of Justice investigate the vote count that led to his loss.

The pardon described efforts to prosecute the Trump allies as “a grave national injustice perpetrated on the American people” and said the pardons were designed to continue “the process of national reconciliation.” Giuliani and others have denied any wrongdoing, arguing they were simply challenging an election they believed was tainted by fraud.

“These great Americans were persecuted and put through hell by the Biden Administration for challenging an election, which is the cornerstone of democracy,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in an emailed statement.

Those pardoned were not prosecuted by the Biden administration, however. They were charged only by state prosecutors who operate separately from the Justice Department.

An Associated Press investigation after the 2020 election found 475 cases of potential voter fraud across the six battleground states, far too few to change the outcome.

Impact of the pardons is limited

Giuliani, a former New York City mayor, was one of the most vocal supporters of Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of large-scale voter fraud after the 2020 election. He also is an example of the limited impact of the pardons.

Giuliani has been disbarred in Washington, D.C., and New York over his advocacy of Trump’s bogus election claims and lost a $148-million defamation case brought by two former Georgia election workers whose lives were upended by conspiracy theories he pushed. Since pardons only absolve people from legal responsibility for federal crimes, they’re unlikely to ease Giuliani’s legal woes.

Ted Goodman, a spokesperson for Giuliani, said the former mayor “never sought a pardon but is deeply grateful for President Trump’s decision.”

“Mayor Rudy Giuliani stands by his work following the 2020 presidential election, when he responded to the legitimate concerns of thousands of everyday Americans,” Goodman said in an emailed statement.

While the pardons may have no immediate legal impact, experts warned they send a dangerous message for future elections.

“It is a complete abdication of the responsibility of the federal government to ensure we don’t have future attempts to overturn elections,” said Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor. “Ultimately, the message it sends is, ‘We’ll take care of you when the time comes.’”

Some pardoned were co-conspirators in Trump’s federal case

Trump himself was indicted on federal felony charges accusing him of working to overturn his 2020 election defeat, but the case brought by Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith was abandoned in November after Trump’s victory over Democrat Kamala Harris because of the department’s policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. Giuliani, Powell, Eastman and Clark were alleged co-conspirators in the federal case brought against Trump but were never charged with federal crimes.

Giuliani, Meadows and others named in the proclamation had been charged by prosecutors in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin over the 2020 election, but the cases have repeatedly hit roadblocks or have been dismissed. A judge in September dismissed the Michigan case against 15 Republicans accused of attempting to falsely certify Trump as the winner of the election in that battleground state.

Eastman, a former dean of Chapman University Fowler School of Law in Southern California, was a close adviser to Trump in the wake of the 2020 election and wrote a memo laying out steps Vice President Mike Pence could take to stop the counting of electoral votes while presiding over Congress’ joint session on Jan. 6 to keep Trump in office.

Clark, who is now overseeing a federal regulatory office, also is facing possible disbarment in Washington over his advocacy of Trump’s claims. Clark clashed with Justice Department superiors over a letter he drafted after the 2020 election that said the department was investigating “various irregularities” and had identified “significant concerns” that may have affected the election in Georgia and other states.

Clark said in a social media post Monday that he “did nothing wrong” and “shouldn’t have had to battle this witch hunt for 4+ years.”

Richer writes for the Associated Press. AP reporter Nicholas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York is facing mounting pressure to step aside as leader of the Senate Democratic caucus after eight members voted against his wishes Sunday, joining Republicans in a bid to end the longest government shutdown in history.

The vote was just the latest development in a troubling week for the 74-year-old Schumer, who, after eight years as the top Senate Democrat, has faced growing calls from within the party to make way for a new generation of leadership.

Elections last week revealed the emergence of a growing progressive movement in Schumer’s hometown, where the longtime senator declined to endorse Zohran Mamdani in his successful bid for New York City mayor.

National progressive organizations on Monday urged him to step down and have encouraged a popular congresswoman in the state, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, to run for his Senate seat in 2029. Polls show Schumer faces the lowest approval numbers of any national leader in Washington.

His leadership troubles come on the heels of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), the first female speaker of the House, announcing her retirement, a decision that generated praise across the political aisle last week reflecting on her shrewd ability to control a sprawling House Democratic caucus during high-stakes votes.

“Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) wrote on X after the Sunday night vote. “If you can’t lead the fight to stop healthcare premiums from skyrocketing for Americans, what will you fight for?”

Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the top Democrat in the House, told reporters Monday that he strongly disapproved of the emerging deal in the Senate, where seven Democrats and one independent who caucuses with the party voted to proceed with government funding.

For seven weeks, House and Senate Democrats said they would not vote for legislation to reopen the government unless they were able to secure an extension of health insurance subsidies. But the deal reached in the Senate indicated how some Democrats gave in on that bottom-line negotiation.

Schumer reiterated his disapproval of the spending deal in a speech from the floor Monday. He criticized the compromise as a “Republican bill” even though members of his party helped broker the deal.

“Republicans now own this healthcare crisis,” Schumer said. “They knew it was coming. We wanted to fix it and they said no, and now it is on them.”

As Schumer delivered his speech, Jeffries spoke to reporters at a news conference on the other side of the Capitol.

Asked whether he thought Schumer remained an effective leader and should remain in his position, Jeffries replied, “yes and yes.”

When pressed to elaborate, Jeffries said “the overwhelming majority of Senate Democrats led by Chuck Schumer waged a valiant fight,” and turned his disapproval to the Democrats who voted with Republicans on the bill.

“I am not going to explain what a handful of Senate Democrats have decided to do,” Jeffries said. “That’s their explanation to offer to the American people.”

Now that the effort turns to the House, Jeffries said Democrats in the chamber will try to block a deal that does not address healthcare costs.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom offered harsh criticism of Senate Democrats on Monday, who he said had “rolled over.”

After speaking at the Milken Institute’s Global Investors’ Symposium in São Paulo, Newsom told The Times that the move blunted the momentum his party was experiencing following a string of victories last week.

“You don’t start something unless you’re going to finish,” said Newsom, who next heads to the climate summit known as COP30 in Belém, Brazil. “Why the hell did we do this in the first place? We could have gotten this deal in 20 minutes. … Honestly, I don’t know what’s going on with my party.”

Zach Wahls, a Democratic candidate for Senate in Iowa, said Schumer had “failed to lead this party in one of its most critical moments,” calling for him to step down. And Rep. Seth Moulton, a Democrat from Massachusetts, wrote that an effective leader would have been able to keep party members in line.

“Tonight is another example of why we need new leadership,” Moulton wrote on X.

The eight members who voted to reopen the government — 15% of the Senate Democratic caucus — voted directly against Schumer, who voted against the measure.

Wahls speculated that the moderate members who voted with Republicans were privately given Schumer’s blessing to do so.

“The fact that he voted against this deal, while he clearly gave it his blessing in private, is a perfect illustration of why people no longer trust the Democratic Party,” Wahls said, “and as long as he stays in a leadership role, it is going to be impossible for anybody — whether it’s in Iowa or any other swing state — to win a majority.”

Times staff writers Wilner and Ceballos reported from Washington, and Gutierrez contributed from São Paulo.

SACRAMENTO — One takeaway from last week’s elections: The role model for California Gov. Gavin Newsom as he runs for president should be New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani.

Actually, Mamdani should be emulated not only by Newsom but by Democrats running for office anywhere.

Neither Newsom, of course, nor any candidate outside the most leftist burgs in America should wear the label “democratic socialist,” as Mamdani calls himself. That would frighten too many voters.

But what does appeal to voters — and always has in America — is a strong, positive message of hope. People like to think that a candidate understands their daily troubles and has a vision of how to make their lives better.

Mamdani is a 34-year-old Ugandan-born Muslim of Indian descent and a back-bench New York state assemblyman who the political experts would never figure to win a top-tier elective post such as New York mayor. But he has charisma, exudes authenticity and fills voters with hope.

OK, some of his campaign promises are undeliverable, even in liberal New York: free bus service, free child care and city-run grocery stores. But I suspect many voters didn’t take those pledges literally. It was the boldness and commitment to change for their betterment that drew people to him.

It’s a message framework that has been a winner throughout history.

Franklin D. Roosevelt promised “a new deal for the American people” and gave them hope with his radio fireside chats during the Great Depression.

John F. Kennedy offered a “new frontier.” Barack Obama chanted, “Yes we can” and ran on a slogan of “hope.”

They were all Democrats. But Republican founder Abraham Lincoln urged Americans to “vote yourself a farm and horses” and promised them homesteads on the western frontier.

Ronald Reagan declared: “Let’s make America great again.” Then Donald Trump stole the line and ruined it for any future candidate.

Newsom’s spiel has mostly been that Trump is lower than a worm. That has worked up until now. He has established himself as the Democrats’ most aggressive combatant against Trumpism — and the leader in early polling for the party’s 2028 presidential nomination.

Last week, his national party credentials were bolstered after orchestrating landslide voter approval of Proposition 50, aimed at countering Trump-coerced congressional redistricting in Texas and other red states.

Trump is desperate for the GOP to retain its narrow majority in the House of Representatives during next year’s midterm elections. But Proposition 50 gerrymandering could flip five California seats from Republican to Democrat — perhaps helping Democrats capture House control. Newsom becomes a party hero.

“He’s now a serious front-runner for the Democratic nomination,” says Bob Shrum, a former Democratic consultant who is director of the Center for the Political Future at USC.

Political strategist Mike Murphy, a former Republican turned independent, says “the Democratic presidential race in ‘25 has been won by Gavin Newsom. He made a bet [on Proposition 50] and it paid off.”

But Shrum, Murphy and other veteran politicos agree that Newsom at some point must change his script from predominantly anti-Trump to an appealing agenda for the future.

“He has to have an affordability message, for one,” Shrum says. “And he has to connect with voters. Voters just don’t go down a list of issues. FDR, JFK, Obama, they all were very connected with voters.”

Murphy: “He’s going to have to expand from fighting Trump to talking about his vision for helping the middle class. I’d say, ‘The era of Trump will soon be over. I have a way to bring back the American dream and here’s how I’m going to do it.’”

Easier said than done, especially if you’re the governor of troubled California.

“If it’s about a referendum on California, he has a vulnerability,” Murphy says. “He can’t run on ‘California is great.’”

Newsom consistently brags that California is a pacesetter for the nation. But lots of Americans want nothing to do with our pacesetting.

“You can’t have the highest unemployment, highest gas prices and the biggest homeless problem and tell Americans that everything in California is hunky-dory,” says Republican consultant Rob Stutzman. “Because voters don’t believe that.”

But Democratic consultant Bill Carrick, a South Carolina native, dismisses the effect of anti-California attitudes in Democratic presidential primaries.

“The notion that he can’t win in the South and border states, that’s nonsense,” Carrick says. “People who say that are Republicans. They don’t like Newsom or any other Democrat. People who vote in primaries are hardcore Democrats.”

But Carrick acknowledges that an anti-California bias could hurt Newsom in some states during a general election.

Here’s another takeaway from the elections: The Democratic Party is not in the toilet as far as it has been soul-searching since last November’s presidential election.

Last week, Democrats won everything from local commissioner to governor in much of the country. It confirmed my belief that the party’s chief problem in 2024 was a lousy presidential effort.

President Biden didn’t withdraw early enough for the party to hold primaries that would have allowed its nominee to build wide support. And Kamala Harris simply lacked appeal and didn’t inspire.

Democratic voter enthusiasm was contagious this time.

“There was one of the most exciting ground operations I’ve seen in a long time for 50,” says Democratic strategist Gale Kaufman. “Local party clubs, activists, union members all came together.”

Democrats can thank Trump.

“Voters really don’t trust Democrats but they‘re so angry with Trump it doesn’t matter,” says Dan Schnur, a political science instructor at USC and UC Berkeley.

Final takeaway: Trump has morphed into a Republican albatross.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: After outburst, Katie Porter’s support in the California governor’s race slips, new poll shows
The TK: Proposition 50 is a short-term victory against Trump. But at what cost?
The L.A. Times Special: Taking inspiration from Mamdani, democratic socialists look to expand their power in L.A.

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

Nov. 10 (UPI) — Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa will meet with President Donald Trump Monday in the White House.

Al-Sharaa, who was affiliated with al-Qaida, was labeled an international terrorist by the United States until Friday and had a $10 million bounty on his head.

On Friday, the State Department said that Sharaa and Syrian Interior Minister Anas Khattab would be removed from the list of terrorists.

“These actions are being taken in recognition of the progress demonstrated by the Syrian leadership after the departure of Bashar al-Assad and more than 50 years of repression under the Assad regime,” the State Department’s press release said.

“This new Syrian government, led by President al-Sharaa, is working hard to locate missing Americans, fulfill its commitments on countering terrorism and narcotics, eliminating any remnants of chemical weapons, and promoting regional security and stability as well as an inclusive, Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political process.”

Sharaa was formerly known by an assumed name, Abu Mohammed al-Jolani. He once led the militant group Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, which cut ties with al-Qaida in 2017.

Sharaa is likely to ask Trump to lift sanctions against the Assad government and to join the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State. Removing the sanctions will allow Syria to get international finance to rebuild after the devastating civil war.

The Syrian leader met Trump in Saudi Arabia in May, and Trump told him he would get the sanctions lifted.

“Tough guy,” Trump said of Sharaa after the meeting. “Very strong past. Fighter.”

Critics of Sharaa’s government have cited recent acts of violence in the country. In July, about 37 people were killed in sectarian violence. A few days later, Israel attacked Damacus and killed about three people and wounded 34 others. Israel claimed it attacked to protect the Druze, a Syrian Arab minority.

In June, a suicide bombing killed 20 people at a Damascus church.

The International Committee of the Red Cross said it has registered 35,000 cases of people missing in Syria in the past 13 years. Syria’s Network for Human Rights put the number of Syrians “in forced disappearance” at 80,000 to 85,000 killed under torture in Assad’s detention centers.

Only 33,000 detainees have been found and freed from Syria’s prisons since Assad’s ouster, according to the human rights network. American journalist Austin Tice, who was detained by the Assad regime in 2012, has still not been found.

Democrats just crumbled like soft-bake cookies.

The so-called resistance party has given up the shutdown fight, ensuring that millions of Americans will face Republican-created skyrocketing healthcare costs, and millions more will bury any hope that the minority party will find the substance and leadership to run a viable defense against Trump.

Sunday night, eight turncoat Democrats sold out every American who pays for their own health insurance through the affordable marketplaces set up by President Obama.

As has been thoroughly reported in past weeks, Republicans are dead set on making sure that insurance is entirely out of financial reach for many Americans by refusing to help them pay for the premiums with subsidies that are part of current law, offered to both low- and middle-income families.

Republicans — for reasons hard to fathom other than they hate Obama, and apparently basics such as flu shots — have long desired to kill the ACA and now are on the brink of doing so, in spirit if not actuality, thanks to Democrats.

Trump must be doing his old-man jig in the Oval Office.

The pain this craven cave-in will cause is already evident. Rates for 2026 without the government subsidies have been announced, and premiums have doubled on average, according to nonpartisan health policy researchers KFF. Doubled.

Insurance companies are planning on raising their rates by about 18%, already devastating and symptomatic of the need for a total overhaul of our messed-up system. That increase, coupled with the loss of the subsidies beginning at the start of next year, means a 114% jump in costs for the folks dependent on this insurance. Premiums that cost an average $888 in 2025 will jump to $1,904 in 2026, according to KFF.

But it’s the middle-income people who will really be hit.

“On average, a 60-year-old couple making $85,000 … would see yearly premium payments rise by over $22,600 in 2026,” KFF warns, meaning that instead of paying 8.5% of their entire income toward health insurance, it will now jump to about 25%.

Merry Christmas, America.

While the eight Democrats who broke from their party to allow this to happen are directly responsible (thankfully our California senators are not among them), Democratic leadership should also be held accountable.

A party that can’t keep itself together on the really big votes isn’t a party. It’s a a bunch of people that occasionally have lunch together. Literally, they had one job: Stick together.

The failure of Democratic leadership to make sure its Senate votes didn’t shatter in this intense moment isn’t just shameful, it’s depressing. For all of the condemnation of the Republican members of Congress for failing to uphold their duty to be a check on the power of the presidency, here’s the opposition party rolling over belly up on the pivotal issue of healthcare.

As California Rep. Ro Khanna put it on social media, “Senator Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced. If you can’t lead the fight to stop healthcare premiums from skyrocketing for Americans, what will you fight for?”

If the recent elections had any lessons in them, it’s that Democrats — and voters in general — want courage. Love or hate Zohran Mamdani, his win as New York City mayor was due in no small part for daring to forge his own path. Ditto on Gov. Gavin Newsom and Proposition 50.

Mamdani put that sentiment best in his victory speech, promising an age when people can “expect from their leaders a bold vision of what we will achieve, rather than a list of excuses for what we are too timid to attempt.”

Before you start angry-emailing me, yes, I do understand how much pain the shutdown in causing, especially for furloughed workers and those about to see their SNAP benefits cut off. I feel for every person who doesn’t know how they will pay their bills.

But here are the facts that we can’t forget. Republicans have purposefully made that pain intense in order to break Democrats. Trump has found ways to pay his deportation agents, while simultaneously not paying critical workers such as airport screeners and air traffic controllers, where the chaos created by their absence is both visible and disruptive. He has also threatened to not give back pay to some of those folks when this does end.

And on the give-in-or-don’t-eat front, he’s actually been ordered by courts to pay those SNAP benefits and is fighting it. Republicans could easy band together and demand that money goes out while the rest is hashed out, but they don’t want to. They want people to go hungry so that Democrats will break, and it worked.

But at what cost?

About 24 million people will be hit by these premium increases, leaving up to 4 million unable to keep their insurance. Unable to go to the doctor for routine care. Unable to pay for cancer treatments. Unable to have that lump, that pain, the broken bone looked at. Unable to get their kid a flu shot.

In many ways, this isn’t a California problem. The majority of these folks are in southern, Republican states that refused to expand Medicaid when they had the chance. About 6 in 10 subsidy recipients are represented by Republicans, according to KFF, led by those living in Florida, Georgia and Mississippi. But Americans have been clear that we want access to care for all of us, as a right, not an expensive privilege.

Which makes it all the more mystifying that Democrats are so eager to give up, on an issue that unites voters across parties, across demographics, across our seemingly endless divides.

But I guess that’s just how the cookie crumbles.