Politics

The United Kingdom’s government is considering an amendment to immigration rules modelled on Denmark’s controversial policy amid pressure from the far-right groups, who have attacked the Labour government over the rising number of refugees and migrants crossing into the country.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood last month dispatched officials to study the workings of the Danish immigration and asylum system, widely considered the toughest in Europe. The officials are reportedly looking to review the British immigration rules on family reunion and limit refugees to a temporary stay.

The Labour government led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer has been under immense pressure amid growing public opposition to immigration and the surge in the popularity of the far-right Reform UK, which has centred its campaign around the issue of immigration.

So, what’s in Denmark’s immigration laws, and why is the centre-left Labour government adopting laws on asylum and border controls championed by the right wing?

What are Denmark’s immigration laws?

Over the last two decades in Europe, Denmark has led the way in implementing increasingly restrictive policies in its immigration and asylum system, with top leaders aiming for “zero asylum seekers” arriving in the country.

First, Denmark has made family reunions tougher, keeping the bar of conditions comparatively higher than it is in allied countries. Those who live in estates designated as “parallel societies”, where more than 50 percent of residents are from so-called “non-Western” backgrounds, are barred from being granted family reunion. This has been decried by rights groups as racist for refugees’ ethnic profiling.

In Denmark, a refugee with residency rights must meet several criteria for their partner to join them in the country. Both must be age 24 or older, the partner in Denmark must not have claimed benefits for three years, and both partners need to pass a Danish language test.

Permanent residency is possible only after eight years under very strict criteria, including full-time employment.

Christian Albrekt Larsen, a professor in the Political Science department of Aalborg University in Denmark, told Al Jazeera that successive Danish governments’ restrictive policies on “immigration and integration have turned [it] into a consensus position – meaning the ‘need’ for radical anti-immigration parties has been reduced”.

Noting that “there is not one single Danish ‘model’”, but that the evolution has been a process of adjustments since 1998, Larsen said, “In general, Denmark’s ‘effectiveness’ lies in being seen as less attractive than its close neighbours, [including] Germany, Sweden, and Norway.”

Copenhagen is more likely to give asylum to those who have been targeted by a foreign regime, while those fleeing conflicts are increasingly limited in remaining in the country temporarily.

However, Denmark decides which country is safe on its own. For example, in 2022, the Danish government did not renew permits for more than 1,200 refugees from Syria because it judged Damascus to be safe for refugees to return to.

In 2021, Denmark also passed laws allowing it to process asylum seekers outside of Europe, like negotiating with Rwanda, though putting this into practice has been controversial and challenging.

Denmark has reduced the number of successful asylum claims to a 40-year low, except in 2020, amid the coronavirus pandemic’s travel restrictions.

How do these differ from the UK’s current immigration laws?

The UK allows individuals to claim asylum if they prove they are unsafe in their home countries. Refugee status is granted if an individual is at risk of persecution under the United Nations’ 1951 Refugee Convention. Refugees are usually granted five years of leave to remain, with the option to apply for permanent settlement afterward.

Most migrants and refugees can apply for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) after five years, followed by eligibility for citizenship one year later. Requirements include English proficiency and passing the “Life in the UK” test.

The UK system currently does not impose an age limit beyond 18, but requires a minimum annual income of 29,000 British pounds ($38,161), and is subject to a rise pending a review, for sponsoring partners.

Asylum seekers are excluded from mainstream welfare and receive a meagre weekly allowance. However, once granted protection, they access the same benefits as British nationals.

The UK under the previous Conservative government passed controversial legislation to enable deportation to Rwanda, but the policy has not yet been implemented due to ongoing legal challenges.

Before September this year, the UK Home Office allowed spouses, partners, and dependents under 18 to come to the UK without fulfilling the income and English-language tests that apply to other migrants. That is currently suspended, pending the drafting of new rules.

Why is the Labour government changing the UK’s immigration laws?

Facing heat from the opposition over the rising arrivals of migrants and refugees by boats, Prime Minister Starmer in May proposed a draft paper on immigration, calling it a move towards a “controlled, selective and fair” system.

As part of the proposal, the standard waiting time for migrants and refugees for permanent settlement would be doubled to 10 years, and English language requirements would be tightened.

The Labour Party, which advocated for a more open migration model, has been on the back foot over the issue of immigration.

From January through July of this year, more than 25,000 people crossed the English Channel into the UK.

The opposition has seized on this issue.

Nigel Farage, the leader of the Reform UK party, has accused Labour of being soft on immigration. Farage has pledged to scrap indefinite leave to remain – a proposal Starmer has dubbed as “racist” and “immoral”.

Successive British governments have tried unsuccessfully to reduce net migration, which is the number of people coming to the UK, minus the number leaving. Net migration climbed to a record 906,000 in June 2023. It stood at 728,000 last year.

Starmer’s administration has framed the new immigration rules as a “clean break” from a system they see as overreliant on low-paid overseas labour.

A survey released by Ipsos last month revealed that immigration continues to be seen as the biggest issue facing the country, with 51 percent of Britons mentioning it as a concern. That is more than the economy (35 percent) or healthcare (26 percent).

However, at the same time, a YouGov poll found only 26 percent of people said immigration and asylum was one of the three most important issues facing their community.

Concern about immigration is a “manufactured panic”, a report published by the Best for Britain campaign group noted.

The group’s director of policy and research, Tom Brufatto, said that “the data clearly demonstrates that media exposure and political discourse are fanning the flames of anti-immigration sentiment in the UK, causing the government to lose support both to its right and left flank simultaneously.”

Is there opposition to the change within the Labour Party?

The left-leaning leaders of the Labour Party have condemned the “far-right”, “racist” approach of the British government’s moves to adapt the Danish model.

Labour MPs urged Home Secretary Mahmood to dial down her plans for a Danish-style overhaul of the immigration and asylum system.

Nadia Whittome, Labour MP for Nottingham East, told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme that she thinks that “this is a dead end – morally, politically and electorally”.

“I think these are policies of the far right,” she said. “I don’t think anyone wants to see a Labour government flirting with them.”

Whittome argued that it would be a “dangerous path” to take and that some of the Danish policies, especially those around “parallel societies”, were “undeniably racist”.

Clive Lewis, the MP for Norwich South, said: “Denmark’s Social Democrats have gone down what I would call a hardcore approach to immigration.

“They’ve adopted many of the talking points of what we would call the far right,” Lewis said. “Labour does need to win back some Reform-leaning voters, but you can’t do that at the cost of losing progressive votes.”

Meanwhile, members of Parliament from the traditional “Red Wall” constituencies, where the Reform UK party has a support base, are receptive to Mahmood’s plans.

The fissures grew more apparent after Lucy Powell, who won the Labour deputy leadership contest last month, challenged Starmer to soften his stance on immigration.

“Division and hate are on the rise,” Powell said last month. “Discontent and disillusionment are widespread. We have this one big chance to show that progressive mainstream politics really can change people’s lives for the better.”

How do immigration laws vary across Europe?

European countries differ widely in how they manage immigration. Some are major destinations for large absolute numbers of migrants and refugees, while others have adopted restrictive legal measures or strong integration policies.

In 2023, the largest absolute numbers of immigrants entering European Union countries were recorded in Germany and Spain, over 1.2 million each, followed by Italy and France, according to the EU’s latest Migration and Asylum report.

These four countries together accounted for more than half of all non-EU immigration to the EU.

EU member states operate within EU migration and asylum rules, and Schengen zone rules where applicable, and are bound by international obligations such as the UN Refugee Convention. But individual states apply national legislation that interprets those obligations, and in recent years, public sentiment has turned against immigration amid a cost-of-living crisis.

YouGov polling conducted in Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden found that respondents believe immigration over the past decade has been too high. In Britain, 70 percent of those surveyed said that immigration rates have been too high, according to the survey released in February.

On the other hand, countries like Hungary, Poland, and Austria, in addition to Denmark, have formed immigration policies focused on building border fences and restrictive family reunification rules, alongside expedited deportations and limits on access to social benefits.

Austrian and German ministers have referenced the Danish model as a source of inspiration for their own domestic policies.

Several EU states have also tried a version of externalising asylum processes, including Italy with Albania, Denmark with Rwanda, Greece with Turkiye, Spain with Morocco, and Malta with Libya and Tunisia.

Rights groups have criticised the EU for immigration policies that focus on border control and for policies to transfer refugees to third countries.

Nov. 9 (UPI) — China’s Commerce Ministry announced Sunday that it would suspend a ban on the export of some rare earth metals to the United States as trade tensions ease.

The affected metals include gallium and germanium, which are used to make advanced semiconductors for computing, as well as antimony, which is used to make explosives, and super-hard metals such as tungsten, which is used in armor-piercing ammunition. The fifth metal covered by the suspension of the ban is graphite.

China’s Commerce Ministry had announced the export ban in December 2024 ahead of the second administration of President Donald Trump, “in order to safeguard national security and interests and fulfill international obligations such as non-proliferation.”

It said in a statement Sunday that the ban on the five metals would be suspended until Nov. 27, 2026.

The move comes after Trump met with Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea last month ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.

The suspension is part of a broader economic deal struck during that meeting, which both governments described as a step toward stabilizing bilateral trade relations after several years of heightened tensions.

According to a White House fact sheet, China agreed to effectively eliminate its export controls on rare earth elements and other critical minerals, while issuing “general licenses” that allow shipments of gallium, germanium, antimony, tungsten and graphite to continue flowing to U.S. manufacturers and their suppliers.

The White House said the agreement would help ensure American companies have reliable access to essential materials used in advanced technologies, while Beijing would benefit from renewed purchases of agricultural goods and other exports.

The deal also included Chinese commitments to halt the export of fentanyl precursors, ease restrictions on U.S. semiconductor firms, and expand purchases of U.S. farm products.

China’s statement on Sunday did not reference the broader trade framework or the general licenses described by the White House. Instead, it said only that the suspension of the 2024 export ban would last for one year — marking a discrepancy in American and Chinese framing of the deal.

China controls the vast majority of the world’s supply of each of the five rare earth metals, and analysts have warned that prolonged export restrictions could disrupt global manufacturing tied to them.

As United States lawmakers fail to agree on a deal to end the government shutdown, around 750,000 federal employees have been furloughed, millions of Americans go without food assistance, and air travel is disrupted across the country.

The shutdown began on October 1, after opposing sides in the US Senate failed to agree on spending priorities, with Republicans rejecting a push by Democrats to protect healthcare and other social programmes.

Since then, both sides have failed to agree on 14 separate funding measures, delaying payment to hundreds of thousands of federal staff.

After 40 days, senators from both parties are working this weekend to try to end what has become the longest government shutdown in US history. But talks on Saturday showed little sign of breaking the impasse and securing long-term funding for key programmes.

On Friday, Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer offered Republicans a narrower version of an earlier Democratic proposal – a temporary extension of healthcare subsidies. Republicans rejected the offer, prolonging the record-breaking shutdown.

So what do we know about the shutdown, and how it has impacted Americans?

Flights disrupted

The shutdown has created major disruptions for the aviation industry, with staffing shortages among unpaid air traffic controllers.

More than 1,530 flights were cancelled across the US on Saturday, while thousands more were delayed as authorities ordered airports to reduce air traffic.

According to the flight tracking website FlightAware, Saturday’s cancellations marked an increase from 1,025 the previous day. The trend looks set to continue, with at least 1,000 cancellations logged for Sunday.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said staffing shortages were affecting 42 control towers and other facilities, leading to delays in at least a dozen major cities – including Atlanta, Newark, San Francisco, New York and Chicago.

The travel chaos could prove politically costly for lawmakers if disruptions persist, especially ahead of the holiday season. Reduced air traffic will also hit deliveries and shipping, since many commercial flights carry cargo alongside passengers.

The CEO of Elevate Aviation Group, Greg Raiff, recently warned that the economic impact would ripple outward. “This shutdown is going to affect everything from business travel to tourism,” he told the Associated Press.

“It’s going to hurt local tax revenues and city budgets – there’s a cascading effect from all this.”

Threat to food assistance

In recent weeks, US President Donald Trump has said he will only restore food aid once the government shutdown ends.

“SNAP BENEFITS, which increased by Billions and Billions of Dollars (MANY FOLD!) during Crooked Joe Biden’s disastrous term … will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government,” he wrote earlier this week on Truth Social.

The US Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps, provides low-income Americans with roughly $8bn a month in grocery assistance. The average individual benefit is about $190 per month, while a household receives around $356.

Health insurance standoff

Democrats blame the shutdown on Republicans’ refusal to renew expiring healthcare subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Talks stalled again on Saturday after Trump declared he would not compromise on the issue.

Democrats are pushing for a one-year extension of the ACA subsidies, which mainly help people without employer or government health coverage buy insurance. But with a 53–47 majority in the Senate, Republicans can block the proposal.

Trump intervened on Saturday via Truth Social, calling on Republican senators to redirect federal funds used for health insurance subsidies toward direct payments for individuals.

“I am recommending to Senate Republicans that the Hundreds of Billions of Dollars currently being sent to money sucking Insurance Companies … BE SENT DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE SO THAT THEY CAN PURCHASE THEIR OWN, MUCH BETTER, HEALTHCARE, and have money left over,” he said.

Roughly 24 million Americans currently benefit from the ACA subsidies. Analysts warn that premiums could double by 2026 if Congress allows them to expire.

Has this happened before?

This is not the first time Washington has faced such a standoff. The graphic below shows every US funding gap and government shutdown since 1976, including how long each lasted and under which administration it occurred.

The current federal budget process dates back to 1976. Since its creation, the government has experienced 20 funding gaps, leading to 10 shutdowns.

Prior to the 1980s, such funding lapses rarely caused shutdowns. Most federal agencies continued operating, expecting Congress to soon approve new funding.

That changed in 1980, when Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued legal opinions clarifying that, under federal law, agencies cannot spend money without congressional authorisation. Only essential functions (like air traffic control) were permitted to continue.

From 1982 onward, this interpretation has meant that funding gaps have more frequently triggered full or partial government shutdowns, lasting until Congress reaches a resolution.

What happens next?

No breakthrough was announced after the US Senate convened for a rare Saturday session. The chamber is now expected to reconvene at 1:30pm local time on Sunday.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters that the chamber will continue meeting until the government reopens. “There’s still only one path out – it’s a clean funding extension,” he said.

Some 1.3 million service members are now at risk of missing a paycheque, and that might put pressure on both sides to agree on a deal. Earlier this month, staff were paid after $8bn from military research and development funds were made available at the intervention of Trump.

But questions remain about whether the administration will resort to a similar procedure if the shutdown is prolonged. Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire told reporters on Friday that Democrats “need another path forward”.

Shaheen and several moderate Democrats are floating a proposal that would temporarily fund certain departments – such as veterans’ services and food aid – while keeping the rest of the government open until December or early next year.

It’s understood that Shaheen’s plan would include a promise of a future vote on healthcare subsidies, but not a guaranteed extension. It remains unclear whether enough Democrats would support that compromise. 

Thune, meanwhile, is reportedly considering a bipartisan version of the proposal. On Friday, he said he thinks the offer is an indication that Democrats are “feeling the heat … I guess you could characterise that as progress”.

Looking ahead, it remains unclear what Republicans might offer regarding healthcare.

For now, Democrats face a stark choice: keep pressing for a firm deal to renew healthcare subsidies and prolong the shutdown – or vote to reopen the government and trust Republicans’ assurances of a future healthcare vote, with no certainty of success.

Kenyan President William Ruto talks to Al Jazeera about the nationwide protests that left dozens dead, accusations of police brutality and enforced disappearances, and whether he’s betrayed the “hustler” generation that helped elect him. He also addresses Kenya’s economic challenges, its leadership role in Haiti, and regional accusations of interference in Sudan’s war. As scrutiny grows at home, Ruto insists Kenya’s democracy remains intact, and his promise of transformation, unbroken.

A week before California’s special election, Gavin Newsom made news by doing something practically unheard of. He told donors to stop sending money to pass Proposition 50.

It was a man-bites-piranha moment — a politician turning away campaign cash?!? — and amounted to a victory lap by California’s governor even as the balloting was still underway.

On Wednesday, less than 12 hours after the polls closed, Newsom sent another email. This one thanked backers for helping push the gerrymander measure to landslide approval — and asked them to open their wallets back up.

“Please make a contribution,” he pleaded, “to help us continue to go on the offense and take the fight to Trump.”

One campaign ended. Another seamlessly continued.

Though he’s been publicly coy, Newsom has been effectively running for president for the better part of a year, something even the most nearsighted observer can see. One envisions the restless governor, facing the end of his term, sitting in the Capitol and crossing days off his official calendar as he longingly gazes toward 2028.

Setting aside its dubious merits, Proposition 50 was an unequivocal triumph for Newsom.

He took a risk that an esoteric subject — congressional map-making — could be turned into a heartfelt issue. He gambled that voters would overlook the cost of a special election — close to $300 million — and agree to hand back the line-drawing powers they seized from Sacramento insiders and politicians who put their own interests first. In doing so, he further raised his national profile and bulked up an already formidable fundraising base.

None of which makes Newsom’s quest for the White House much more likely to succeed.

His biggest problem — and there’s no way to fix it — is that he comes from California, which, to many around the country, reads as far left, nutty and badly off track. Or, less harshly, a place that’s more secular, permissive and tax-happy than some middle-of-the-roaders are really comfortable with.

Take it from a Republican strategist.

“He’s obviously a talented politician,” said Q. Whitfield Ayres, a GOP pollster with extensive campaign experience in Georgia and other presidential swing states. “But if I were trying to paint a Democratic nominee as too liberal for the country, having the governor of California be the nominee would be an easy task … Too coastal. Too dismissive of ‘flyover’ country. Too much like the elites on both coasts that [President] Trump has run so successfully against for years now.”

That’s not just a partisan perspective.

The Democratic desire to win in 2028 “is very, very strong,” said Charlie Cook, a campaign handicapper who has spent decades impartially analyzing state and national politics. The presidential contest “will be determined by winning in purple states and purple counties and purple precincts,” Cook said, in places such as central Pennsylvania, rural Wisconsin and Georgia, where issues play differently than within California’s deeply blue borders.

(Newsom’s support for free healthcare for undocumented immigrants — to name but one issue — is an attack ad just waiting to be written.)

For many primary voters, Cook suggested, ideology and purity testing will yield to a more cold-eyed and pragmatic calculation: a candidate’s perceived electability. He minimized Newsom’s smashing Proposition 50 victory. “He’s got to impress people on the road,” Cook said. “Not just a home game in a state that’s really tilted one way.”

For what it’s worth, Newsom should savor his Proposition 50 afterglow as long as he can. (On Saturday, the governor was in Texas, basking.) Because it won’t last.

As Democratic strategist David Axelrod noted, “the nature of presidential politics is the bar gets raised constantly.” Once the race truly begins, Newsom will be probed and prodded in ways he hasn’t experienced since his last physical exam, all in full public view.

“There is an army of opposition researchers, Republican and Democrat, who are going to scour every word he’s spoken as a public official in California since his days as San Francisco mayor and every official action he’s taken and not taken,” said Axelrod, who helped steer Barack Obama to the White House. “Who knows what they will yield and how he’ll respond to that.”

At the moment, Newsom is giving off a very strong Avenatti energy.

For those who’ve forgotten, celebrity attorney Michael Avenatti was seen for a time as the Democratic beau ideal, a brawler who could get under Trump’s skin and take the fight to the president like few others could or would. He traveled to Iowa, New Hampshire, Florida and other states in a quasi-campaign before his extensive personal and financial troubles caught up with him. (Avenatti is currently residing in federal prison.)

Newsom, of course, is vastly more qualified than the Los Angeles attorney ever was. But the political vibe — and especially the governor’s self-styled role as Trump-troller-in-chief — is very similar.

Exit poll interviews in Virginia, New Jersey, New York and even California showed that economic concerns and, specifically, affordability were the main ingredient of Democrats’ success Tuesday. Not Trump’s egregious misconduct or fears for democracy, which was the grounding of the pro-Proposition 50 campaign.

“If you’re talking about democracy over the dinner table, it’s because you don’t have to worry about the cost of food on the table,” Axelrod said. “If you have to worry about the cost of food on the table or your rent or your mortgage, insurance, electricity and all these things, you’re thinking about that.”

To stand any shot at winning his party’s nomination, much less the White House, Newsom will have to build support beyond his fan base with a message showing he understands voters’ day-to-day concerns and offers ways to improve their lives. Success will require more than passing a Democratic ballot measure in a Democratic state, or cracking wise on social media.

Because all those snarky memes and cheeky presidential put-downs won’t seem so funny if JD Vance is inaugurated in January 2029.

Proposition 50 has passed, and with it goes the warm spotlight of never-ending press coverage that aspiring presidential contender Gavin Newsom has enjoyed. What’s an ambitious governor to do?

My vote? Take inspiration from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who not only pulled America through the Depression, but rebuilt trust in democracy with a truly big-tent government that offered concrete benefits to a wide and diverse swath of society.

It’s time to once again embrace the values — inclusiveness, equity, dignity for all — that too many Democrats have expeditiously dropped to appease MAGA.

Not only did FDR make good on helping the average person, he put a sign on it (literally — think of all those Work Projects Administration logos that still grace our manhole covers and sidewalks) to make sure everyone knew that big, bold government wasn’t the problem, but the solution — despite what rich men wanted the public to believe.

As he was sworn in for his second term (of four, take that President Trump!), FDR said he was “determined to make every American citizen the subject of his country’s interest and concern,” because the “test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”

Roosevelt created jobs paid for by government; he created Social Security; he created a coalition that improbably managed to include both Black Americans everywhere and white Southerners, northern industrialists and rural farmers. In the end, he created a United States where people could try, fail and have the helping hand to get back up again — the real underpinning of the American dream.

The similarities between Roosevelt’s day and now aren’t perfect, but they share a shoe size. FDR took office in 1933, when the Great Depression was in full swing. Then, like now, right-wing authoritarianism was cuddled up with the oligarchs. Income inequality was undeniable (and worse, unemployment was around 25%) and daily life was just plain hard.

That discontent, then and now, led to political polarization as need sowed division, and leaders with selfish agendas channeled fear into anger and anger into power.

Like then, the public today is desperate for security, and unselfish, service leadership — not that of “economic royalists,” as FDR described them. He warned then, in words sadly timeless, that “new kingdoms” were being “built upon concentration of control over material things.”

“They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction,” FDR said when accepting the presidential nomination for the second time.

“We’re in a similar moment now,” said New Deal expert Eric Rauchway, a distinguished professor of history at UC Davis.

But Roosevelt wasn’t just fighting what was wrong, he pointed out. He “wanted to show people that he was going to not put things back the way they were, but actually make things better.”

Like then, America today isn’t just looking to overcome.

Despite the relentless focus on cost of living, there is also hunger for a return to fairness. Even cowed by our personal needs, there is still in most of us that belief that Ronald Reagan articulated well: We aspire to be the “shining city upon a hill … teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace.”

Washington, D.C., resident Sean Dunn distilled that sentiment for the modern moment recently, standing outside a courthouse after being found not guilty of a misdemeanor for throwing a turkey sandwich at an immigration officer.

“Every life matters, no matter where you came from, no matter how you got here, no matter how you identify,” Dunn said. “You have the right to live a life that is free.”

But America needs to pay the bills and affordability is fairly the top concern for many. Voters want a concrete plan for personal financial stability — like FDR offered with the New Deal — grounded in tangible benefits such as healthcare, housing, jobs and affordable Thanksgiving turkeys that do not require lining up at a food bank.

The Republicans understand only part of this complicated mix — the affordability angle. Though, like the robber barons of the Roaring ‘20s, MAGA elite are finding it increasingly difficult to dismantle government and strip the American people of their wealth while simultaneously pretending they care.

Trump made a big to-do about the price of Walmart’s Thanksgiving meal this year, about $40 to serve 10 people (though it comes with fewer items than last year, and mostly Walmart house brand instead of name brands).

Walmart “came out and they said Trump’s Thanksgiving dinner, same things, is 25% less than Biden’s,” he said. “But we just lost an election, they said, based on affordability.”

Billionaire-adjacent Vice President JD Vance summed up that Republican frustration on social media after Democrats won not just Proposition 50, but elections in New Jersey, Virginia and even Mississippi.

“We need to focus on the home front,” Vance said, using weirdly coded right-wing nationalist language. “We’re going to keep on working to make a decent life affordable in this country, and that’s the metric by which we’ll ultimately be judged in 2026 and beyond.”

Vance is partially right, but FDR ultimately succeeded because he understood that the stability of American democracy depends not just on paying the bills, but on equality and equity — of everyone having a fair shake at paying them.

Despite all the up-by-the-bootstraps rhetoric of our rich, the truth is healthy capitalist societies require “automatic stabilizers,” such as unemployment insurance, access to medical care and that Social Security FDR invented, said Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor of economics at the New School and another expert on the New Deal.

Left or right, Republican or Democrat, Americans want to know that they won’t be left out in the cold, literally, if life deals them a bad hand.

Of course, Newsom isn’t president so all he can do is give us a vision of what that would look like, the way FDR did as governor of New York in the early years of the Great Depression, before moving to the Oval Office.

There’s the evergreen refrain that as governor Newsom should stay in his lane and focus on the state, instead of his ambitions. To which I say, that’s like shaking your fist at the rear of a bolting horse. Newsom is running for president like Secretariat for the Triple Crown. And since we do in fact need a president, why shouldn’t he?

Next is the equally tired, “Republicans can’t wait for him to run because everyone hates California. Wait until Newsom hits Iowa!” But regular people hate despair, poverty and Nazis far more than they hate California. And the people who actually hate California more than they hate despair, poverty and Nazis are never going to vote for any Democrat.

For once, thanks to MAGA’s fascination with California as the symbol of failure and evil, the Golden State is the perfect place to make an argument for a new vision of America, FDR-style. In fact, we already are.

At a time of increasing hunger in our country, California is one of a handful of states that provides no-questions-asked free school lunches to all children, a proven way to combat food insecurity.

With Trump not only destroying the scientific institutions that study and control environmental and health safety, California is setting its own standards to protect people and the planet.

California has fought to expand access to affordable healthcare; stop the military on our streets and push back against masked police; and it leads our country in livable wages, safety nets, social equality and opportunities for social mobility. The state is doing as much as one state can to offer a new deal to solve old problems.

What if Newsom built off those successes with plans for Day One executive orders? Expansion of trade apprenticeships into every high school? A pathway for “Dreamers” to become citizens?

How about an order requiring nonpartisan election maps? Or declaring firearm violence a public health emergency? Heck, I’d love an executive order releasing the Epstein files, which may be America’s most bipartisan issue.

But, Rauchway warns, Newsom needs to be more like FDR and “put a sign on it” when he puts values into action.

“That investment has to be conspicuous, positive and very clear where it came from,” he said.

We are not a nation of subtlety or patience.

If Newsom wants to stay relevant, he has to do more than fight against Trump. He needs to make all Americans believe he’s fighting for them as FDR did — loudly and boldly — and that if he wins, they will, too, on Day One.

LITTLE VILLAGE, Il. — The moment I got out of my Uber ride in this West Side Chicago neighborhood, the noise was everywhere.

Honks. Cursing. Screeching tires. Revving engines. Whistles. So many whistles.

Immigration authorities were sweeping through — again. And people weren’t having it.

Old, young, Latino, Black and white, folks shouted warnings from cars and from businesses like a game of Telephone across 26th Street, the heart of this historic Latino community. One of them was Eric Vandeford, who glanced in every direction for any sign of la migra.

“We all surrounded them earlier trying to get someone and they just left,” the 32-year-old said. He looked down 26th. “I gotta go,” he snapped and jogged off.

I arrived at 9:30 in the morning hoping to grab breakfast before interviewing Baltazar Enriquez. He’s president of the Little Village Community Council, a long-standing nonprofit that has added to its mission of organizing food drives and fighting against environmental racism to face off against Trump’s deportation machine.

Instead, I found myself in a chase to keep up with immigration agents.

Residents watch federal agents as they make a stop in the Brighton Park neighborhood of Chicago. Federal agents participating in Operation Midway Blitz engage in daily patrols through the city’s neighborhoods and surrounding suburbs searching for undocumented immigrants.

(Scott Olson / Getty Images)

Over the last two months, la migra has swept throughout Chicago but has swung its hammer with gusto on Little Village, known as La Villita by residents and considered the Mexican heart of the city. Imagine the density of Pico-Union with the small-town feel of Boyle Heights and the fierce pride of South L.A., then mix in murals and nationally known Mexican restaurants — Carnitas Uruapan, Taqueria El Milagro.

It’s a charming barrio, and it’s been under siege, like many other neighborhoods in the Windy City.

Immigration agents have staged operations in the parking lots of local schools before grabbing undocumented immigrants and citizens alike. When Border Patrol commander-at-large Gregory Bovino swung by in late October, he tossed a tear gas canister toward a group of protesters filming him, a move so reprehensible that a federal judge issued an injunction banning such force the morning I was in Little Village.

Now, the rumor was that Bovino was cruising around with a caravan.

He’s the man the Trump administration tasked with its deportation deluge in Southern California this summer before moving on to Chicago. In L.A., Bovino mostly mugged for the cameras, like the time he oversaw an invasion of an emptied MacArthur Park in July with the National Guard parked on Wilshire Boulevard. Bovino said it was necessary to stop transnational gangs, but he nabbed no one.

In Chicago, Bovino has dialed the cruelty and spectacle to 11. Residents have responded in kind in a way I haven’t seen in Southern California. Sure, Angelenos have organized block patrols and group chats and enlisted the help of politicians and nonprofit leaders just like Chicago.

But we don’t have the whistles.

They’ve become the fall soundtrack of the Windy City to the point organizers are holding “Whistlemania” events to hand them out by the thousands. Chicago has a radical legacy that predates L.A. by decades — anarchists, socialists and immigrants were fighting back against government-sponsored thugs when L.A. was still a relative cow town.

The suburban apathy that has kept too many Southern Californians on the sidelines as immigration agents sweep into our cities was nowhere to be felt in Little Village. People poured out of businesses and their residences. Others looked out from rooftops. The intensity of their pushback was more concentrated, raw and widespread than almost anything I’ve seen back home.

It wasn’t just the activists on call — block after block was ready.

Honks and whistles went off toward the west. I ran toward them and met Rogelio Lopez Jr. He was going inside grocery stores and discount marts to let people know that el hielo — ICE — was nearby.

Federal agents, including from Border Patrol and the Bureau of Prisons, stop a resident and request to see his proof of citizenship in Chicago. The man produced the required documents and was allowed to go free.

(Scott Olson / Getty Images)

The 53-year-old Little Village resident was enjoying lunch with his father at Carniceria Aguascalientes the day Bovino unleashed his mayhem nearby. He and other customers bolted to confront the Border Patrol bigwig.

“I’m sure he was thinking, ‘Here’s this guy standing in front of my force with a stupid little whistle in my territory.’ No, you’re in our territory.”

A minivan stopped near us and rolled down its window. “We lost them by Central and 26th!” shouted 32-year-old Mariana Ochoa from the back seat as she held her son on her lap. Joining us now was a masked 18-year-old college student who went by Ella and is a U.S. citizen along with her parents. She rattled off all the locations where her WhatsApp group had spotted ICE that morning. Lopez texted them to his own group.

Ella took a call from her mother.

“I’ll be back home soon, Ama,” the college student said in Spanish. “Love you. Stay inside.”

Angry residents gathered on street corners. Many had whistles — pink, black, orange, green — around their necks. Lopez handed one to Juan Ballena, who immediately used it — a shrill, reedy blast soon answered by others.

He waved up and down 26th Street. “Look at the buildings,” said the 61-year-old. “Closed. Closed. Closed. These migra are ruining a beautiful town.”

Nearby, 64-year-old Flavio Luviano stood outside his wife’s bistro with a whistle in one hand and a laminated know-your-rights card in the other. Business is down — and so is trust.

“I always have the door locked,” said the dual Mexican and U.S. citizen in Spanish. “People will come who aren’t from here and say, ‘Let me in’ and I tell them, ‘No, only with a warrant.’ They get angry, and I say, ‘I don’t care, we need to protect the people we know.’”

Three blocks toward the east, the horns and screams and whistles I had heard an hour ago were going off again. ICE had just passed by.

The stocky Enriquez stood in the middle of the street trying to clear cars whose drivers had tried to block off what they said were undercover immigration agents. People around him were scrambling in every direction while on their phones letting others know what had just happened. “I got their … license plates on my phone!” a woman yelled to no one in particular.

Most had whistles around their necks.

Wearing Crocs, a puffer jacket and sweats, Enriquez looked like a defensive end about to start a training session.

Soon, we were off again.

Border Patrol agent Gregory Bovino speaks with other federal agents during a gas station stop before resuming immigration arrests in Chicago.

(Jamie Kelter Davis / Getty Images)

Esparza and the driver, Lissette Barrera, sped up and down Little Village’s narrow tree-lined streets, many with signs that read “Hands Off Chicago” inside the city’s flag scheme. They alternated between blowing their whistles, pounding on the car horn and yelling “¡Anda la migra!”

Immigration agents always seemed a few minutes ahead. Reports via texts said they were asking people about their legal status. Some were detained.

We finally parked underneath the Little Village Arch, a colonial-style gateway crossing over the part of 26th Street where Uber dropped me off earlier. A crowd was waiting for Enriquez to hear his game plan: “No ramming, no throwing, no nothing. Just follow and film.”

A Chicago police officer passed by. “Ya se fueron [They’re gone],” he told Enriquez very matter-of-factly. “The whistles worked.”

Steven Villalobos pulled up in a raised truck with a giant Mexico flag flapping from its cab. It was his first-ever protest.

“I’ve been seeing this for months and enough was enough — I had to join,” said the Little Village lifer. Near him, Amor Cardenas nodded.

“It sucks that my mom can’t even go to … Ross, bro,” said the 20-year-old. She was still in her pajamas. “You don’t understand this feeling of terror until it’s in front of you. Then, there’s no turning back.”

Barrera and I jumped in the back seat of another car as Enriquez took the wheel. She opened a bag of Sabritones and passed it to two other passengers. The four of them had just returned home on an overnight bus from Washington, D.C., where they participated in an anti-Trump protest at the National Mall.

Enriquez drove slower. He and a volunteer named Lille logged on to Instagram and livestreamed from their respective phones to an audience of about a thousand.

“Those who have papers, come out and patrol,” he said in Spanish in a deep voice. “Those who don’t, stay inside.”

“Tell Baltazar that I’m going to buy him a caguama,” Lille said someone had commented. A tall boy of beer.

For the first time all morning, Enriquez smiled. “Make it two.”

The 46-year-old Enriquez was born in Michoacán, came to Chicago without papers as a child and received his American citizenship thanks to the 1986 amnesty. He cut his activist teeth with the Assn. of Community Organizations for Reform Now, better known as ACORN, before becoming the Little Village Community Council vice president in 2008.

A rapid responder blows a whistle to warn residents of an approaching caravan of federal agents in Chicago.

(Scott Olson / Getty Images)

Espinoza said the idea of using whistles to alert people about ICE in Chicago started in Little Village but came indirectly from Los Angeles. During a June Zoom call, Enriquez heard activists say they couldn’t communicate with one another while protesting outside the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown L.A. after their cellphones suddenly stopped working.

“So I thought we needed low tech to beat that if it happened here,” Enriquez said as we cruised past a city-owned lot where ICE had staged operations weeks earlier. Signs now said immigration agents weren’t allowed. “People at first thought the whistles were a joke. But then we used them once and la migra took off — and it spread like wildfire.”

We were now in nearby Brighton Park. He was following a tip that Bovino was approaching residents himself.

“They just tear-gassed someone!” someone yelled over the phone. “They’re taking people right now.”

The call cut short.

Enriquez tried to speed back to Little Village but hit construction traffic. Barrera jumped out of the car to grab two traffic cones. “To trap pepper balls when ICE fires them,” she explained.

Another call. “They got my son,” a woman quietly said in Spanish.

“Go to the [Little Village Community Council] office and we’ll help,” Enriquez replied.

“I can’t go out. I don’t have papers.”

When we passed an elementary school off Western Avenue, Barrera screamed in Spanish, “Take in the kids because la migra is driving around!” Teachers immediately blew their whistles and rushed their students inside.

Amid the Trump administration’s Operation Midway Blitz, residents watch a parade while celebrating Mexican Independence Day in Chicago’s Little Village neighborhood on Sept. 14.

(Brandon Bell / Getty Images)

ICE was out of Little Village — for now. Enriquez logged back on to Instagram Live.

“Good job, guys. Stay on their ICE nalgas.”

We took a right on 26th toward the Little Village Community Center’s small office. “We’re going to take a break,” Enriquez told his audience. We’ve gotta get pizza for everyone.”

Bilingual signs taped to the storefront window read “ICE OUT!” and “Free Whistles.”

“It was just supposed to be the bad people that they were going to target, they told us, but that didn’t happen,” said Nayeli Girón, a 24-year-old student. She wore a jacket that read “Southwest,” the name of a nearby neighborhood. “Every day it’s a different story. That’s why we need to stand up.”

Enriquez told everyone to gather around.

Time to learn how to defuse a pepper ball.

New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani attended Friday prayers at a mosque in Puerto Rico, where he was welcomed with cheers and shared a message inspired by Malcolm X about equality and justice.

Nearly 1.3 million members of the security forces and more than 26,500 internally displaced people are eligible to vote ahead of Tuesday’s polls.

Members of Iraq’s security forces and its internally displaced population have begun casting their ballots in the parliamentary elections – the sixth since a United States-led invasion toppled longtime ruler Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Polls opened at 7am (04:00 GMT) on Sunday for 1.3 million members of the security forces at 809 polling centres and will close at 6pm (15:00 GMT) before they are deployed for security purposes on the election day on Tuesday.

More than 26,500 internally displaced people are also eligible for early voting on Sunday across 97 polling stations at 27 places in Iraq, the Iraqi News Agency (INA) said.

Interior Minister Abdul Amir al-Shammari told INA that the special voting process is advancing “smoothly and in an organised manner”.

Nearly 21 million Iraqis are eligible to vote on Tuesday across 4,501 polling stations nationwide, the INA said.

More than 7,750 candidates, nearly a third of them women, are running for the 329-seat parliament. Under the law, 25 percent of the seats are reserved for women, while nine are allocated for religious minorities.

The current parliament began its term on January 9, 2022, and will last four years, ending on January 8, 2026.

An old electoral law, revived in 2023, will apply to the ongoing elections, with many seeing it as favouring larger parties. While about 70 independents won in the 2021 vote, only 75 independents are contesting this year.

Observers also fear that turnout might dip below the record low of 41 percent in 2021, reflecting voters’ apathy and scepticism in a country marked by entrenched leadership and allegations of mismanagement and endemic corruption.

There were widespread accusations of corruption and vote-buying before the elections, and 848 candidates were disqualified by election officials, sometimes for obscure reasons, including insulting religious rituals or members of the armed forces.

Past elections in Iraq have been marred by violence, including assassinations of candidates, attacks on polling stations, and clashes between the supporters of different blocs. While overall levels of violence have subsided, a candidate was assassinated in the run-up to this year’s election.

Influential Shia leader Moqtada Sadr urged his followers to boycott what he described as a “flawed election”.

Al-Sadr’s bloc won the largest number of seats in 2021, but later withdrew after failed negotiations over forming the government amid a standoff with rival Shia parties. He has since boycotted the political system.

Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, elected in 2022 with the backing of pro-Iran parties, is seeking a second term and is expected to secure a sizeable bloc.

Among the other frontrunners are influential Shia figures, including former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Muslim scholar Ammar al-Hakim.

By convention in post-invasion Iraq, a Shia Muslim holds the powerful post of the prime minister and a Sunni of the parliament’s speaker, while the largely ceremonial presidency goes to a Kurd.

Nov. 8 (UPI) — Federal officials on Saturday canceled more than 800 flights at airports across the United States as the federal government shutdown entered its record-long 39th day on Saturday.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford jointly announced a temporary 10% reduction in flights at 40 high-traffic airports.

They said the reduction in flights is necessary to ensure safety and ease the strain on air traffic controllers, who are working without pay.

“My department has many responsibilities, but our number one job is safety,” Duffy said.

“It’s safe to fly today, and it will continue to be safe to fly next week because of the proactive actions we are taking.”

More than 1,700 flights have been canceled through Sunday — and more than 800 were cancelled on Saturday alone — as commercial airlines reduced their respective flights by 4% at the nation’s busiest airports, according to CNN.

Washington’s Reagan National Airport is affected the most by the flight reductions, with 151 flights canceled among 869 initially scheduled there for a reduction of 17.4%, The New York Times reported.

Louisville, Ky., has an 8% reduction with 12 canceled among 150 flights, followed by Cincinnati, 7.2% and 18 canceled flights among 250 scheduled.

Houston Hobby has 20 of 336 flights canceled for a 6% reduction, followed by Indianapolis, with 17 of 297 flights canceled for a 5.7% reduction, to round out the five most impacted airports.

The flight reductions come after many air traffic controllers and other essential airport staff have called in sick due to increased stress, to work other jobs and to care for their children, among other reasons.

They have missed one paycheck and will again next week if the federal government is not funded and reopened by then, according to CNBC.

The reduced staffing levels are putting more pressure on commercial air operations, especially at the nation’s busiest airports.

“We are seeing signs of stress in the system, so we are proactively reducing the number of flights to make sure the American people continue to fly safely,” Bedford said.

“The FAA will continue to closely monitor operations, and we will not hesitate to take further action to make sure air travel remains safe.”

Nov. 8 (UPI) — No military-sponsored events, including flyovers, will take place at this week’s Veterans Day “Salute to Service” NFL games, because they have fallen victim to the federal government shutdown.

But there will be a veteran commemoration planned Sunday in Northern Virginia as will be President Donald Trump on hand for the game between the Washington Commanders and the Detroit Lions.

Veterans Day is Tuesday, and unlike previous years, there will not be honor guards and military service members unveiling American flags, in addition to the lack of a flyover, at the 13 NFL games on Sunday and Monday.

Before the shutdown, there was a flyover at Lambeau Field in Green Bay, Wis., on September 11 between the Packers and the Commanders as F-35 Lightning II jets from the Wisconsin Air National Guard’s 115th Fighter Wing flew over the stadium.

The campaign with the NFL began in 2011, according to Fox News.

The Pentagon’s press office said service members and Defense Department personnel are “prohibited from participating in official outreach activities.”

Those events are paid from the Pentagon’s annual budget, Fox News reported.

“Service members are permitted to wear military uniforms at Veterans Day events, in a personal capacity, as long as it follows their service-specific guidelines, and no official endorsement or involvement is implied by the Department,” the Pentagon said in a statement to The Washington Post on Thursday.

A guidance document by the Post said there will be no “jet and jump demonstration teams, bands and ceremonial unit appearances, port visits, service weeks and nonprofit and corporate leader outreach.”

In 2015, a flyover was estimated to cost $80,000 by then-Pentagon Press Secretary Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby.

“There is a minimal expense involved with the flyover,” he said during a Defense Department briefing on Jan. 30, 2015, noting aircraft fly from nearby bases with maintenance personnel at the site.

“It’s not an exorbitant cost, and I would, you know, obviously remind you that you know, we stand to gain the benefit. And there’s an exposure benefit from having the U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds fly over, a well-known, famous team, and that certainly helps us in terms of keeping our exposure out there for the American people,” he said.

Last year when Joe Biden was president, there were about a dozen flyover events at NFL games throughout November.

“While Salute to Service comes to life on-field each November — as it will again this year, starting this weekend — our long-standing efforts to support the military community continue throughout the year,” said Anna Isaacson, the NFL’s senior vice president of social responsibility said in a statement to the Post.

Trump will fly from Palm Beach County on Sunday to attend the game against the Detroit Lions at Northwest Field in Landover, Md.

He is expected to join owner Josh Harris in his suite for the game, as well as a halftime ceremony. Kickoff is scheduled for 4:25 p.m. EST.

“We are honored to welcome President Trump to the game as we celebrate those who have served and continue to serve our country. The entire Commanders organization is proud to participate in the NFL’s league-wide Salute to Service initiative, recognizing the dedication and sacrifice of our nation’s veterans, active-duty service members, and their families this Sunday,” the Commanders said in a statement.

Trump said he has opposed calling the team the Commanders after they changed their name from the Redskins, and often refers to them as the “Washington Whatevers.”

The last time Trump was at a football game was Super Bowl LIX in New Orleans, when the Philadelphia Eagles defeated the Kansas City Chiefs.

Chicago police officers responded to a call of gunshots fired at federal agents Saturday amid immigration enforcement operations that drew protesters into the streets, the department said.

There were no reports of anyone hit by gunfire, according to police, and the federal Department of Homeland Security said in a statement on the social platform X that the shots were fired by a man in a black Jeep who was targeting the agents.

The suspect and the vehicle have not been located, according to DHS.

Tensions are high as federal enforcement has grown increasingly aggressive some two months into an immigration operation in Chicago dubbed “Operation Midway Blitz.” Some residents have protested, at times following and confronting heavily armed agents.

A federal judge issued an extensive injunction this week restricting agents’ use of force after saying a top Border Patrol official repeatedly lied about threats posed by protesters.

Saturday’s Border Patrol operation in Little Village, a largely Mexican neighborhood, attracted protesters who blew whistles, honked car horns and yelled at agents to leave. Some confronted police officers they viewed as helping the federal agents.

One police vehicle had its taillight smashed and windshield damaged. DHS said some protesters threw a paint can and bricks at agents’ vehicles.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Raza writes for the Associated Press.

Gov. Gavin Newsom strode onstage in Houston on Saturday to a cheering crowd of Texas Democrats, saying Proposition 50’s victory in California on election day was a win for the nation and a firm repudiation of President Trump.

Newsom possessed the air of a politician running for president at the boisterous rally, a possibility the California governor says he is considering — and the location he chose was not happenstance.

Newsom accused Trump of pressuring Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to rejigger the state’s congressional districts with the goal of sending more Republicans to Congress, an action that triggered California’s Proposition 50. Newsom successfully pushed for a special election on the ballot measure to counter the efforts in Texas, which the governor said wasan attempt by Trump and the Republicans to “rig” the 2026 midterm election.

Cheers erupted from the friendly, union-hall crowd when Newsom belittled Trump as an “invasive species” and a “historically unpopular president.”

“On every issue, on the economy, on terrorists, on immigration, on healthcare, [he’s a] historically unpopular president, and he knows it, and he knows it,” Newsom said. “Why else did he make that call to your governor? Why else did he feel the need to rig the election before even one vote was cast? That’s just weakness, weakness masquerading as strength. That’s Donald Trump, and he had a very bad night on Tuesday.”

Newsom was the main political force behind Proposition 50, which California voters overwhelmingly approved in Tuesday’s special election. The statewide ballot measure was an attempt to counter Trump’s push to get Republican-led states, most notably Texas, to redraw their electoral maps to keep Democrats from gaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2026 midterms and upending his agenda. Newsom and California Democrats hope the change will net an additional five Democrats in California’s congressional delegation, canceling out any gains in Texas.

Newsom thanked Texas Democrats for putting up a fight against the redistricting effort in their state, saying it inspired an uprising.

“It’s dawning on people, all across the United States of America, what’s at stake,” Newsom told the crowd. “And you put a stake in the ground. People are showing up. I don’t believe in crowns, thrones. No kings.”

Newsom’s trip to Texas comes as the former San Francisco mayor has been openly flirting with a 2028 run for president. In a recent interview with “CBS News Sunday Morning,” Newsom was asked whether he would give “serious thought” after the 2026 midterms to a White House bid.

“Yeah, I’d be lying otherwise,” Newsom replied. “I’d just be lying. And I’m not — I can’t do that.”

In July, Newsom flew to South Carolina, a state that traditionally hosts the South’s first presidential primary. He said he wanted to help his party win back the U.S. House of Representatives in 2026. But South Carolina is a solidly conservative state and did not appear to have a single competitive race.

During that trip, South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, the highest-ranking Black member of Congress and renowned Democratic kingmaker, told The Times that Newsom would be “a hell of a candidate.” Newsom received similar praise — and encouragement — when he was introduced at the “Take It Back” rally in Houston.

Newsom now heads to Belém, Brazil, where representatives from 200 nations are gathering to kick off the annual United Nations climate policy summit. For Newsom, it’s a golden opportunity to appear on a world stage and sell himself and California as the antidote to Trump and his attacks on climate change policy.

The Trump administration this year canceled funding for major clean energy projects such as California’s hydrogen hub and moved to revoke the state’s long-held authority to set stricter vehicle emissions standards than the federal government.

It is, by both candidates’ admission, a Republican primary race without issues, conflict or many campaign dollars. The low-budget, low-profile contest does not bode well for the eventual nominee’s prospects against Democratic Assemblyman Terry B. Friedman of Tarzana in November.

Attorneys Tom Franklin of Beverly Hills and Edward Brown of Sherman Oaks are competing in the June 7 primary for the GOP nomination in the 43rd Assembly District. The affluent, heavily Democratic district stretches from Studio City to Topanga Canyon and over the Santa Monica Mountains to Beverly Hills, Westwood and Brentwood.

The campaign for the hearts and minds of the district’s 64,237 registered Republicans is being waged at GOP gatherings and door-to-door; neither candidate has raised enough money to mail any brochures or flyers. Both Franklin and Brown seek to contrast themselves with Friedman–who they maintain is too liberal for the district–rather than each other.

“I’m running against Terry Friedman,” Franklin said last week. “I don’t really know Mr. Brown’s interest in the major issues.”

Asked why Republican voters should choose him over Franklin, Brown replied, “I don’t know that they should. I’m not going to lower myself to some kind of mudslinging contest.”

Friedman, meanwhile, responds that his priorities of protecting the Santa Monica Mountains, upgrading education and aiding the elderly and underprivileged “are right in the mainstream of the district.” Democrats enjoy a 54%-to-36% registration advantage, although President Reagan carried the district in 1980 and 1984 and fellow Republican Gov. George Deukmejian won it in 1986.

Inside Track

Franklin, 29, appears to have the inside primary track because he has a base of support among Republicans in Beverly Hills, where he has been active, and has been more visible, according to GOP activists such as Shirley Whitney, chairman of the 43rd District Republican Committee. The committee does not endorse candidates in the primary.

Franklin has served as president of the Beverly Hills Republican Assembly, a 150-member volunteer organization that registers voters and supports candidates, and has been active in GOP politics since he was University of Southern California recruitment chairman for Reagan’s 1980 presidential bid.

The self-styled conservative has also garnered more campaign dollars than Brown, although Friedman has raised 100 times more money than each Republican. Franklin reported raising $1,395 and spending $531 as of March 22, when he filed a campaign statement with the secretary of state. He has a $15-a-person event scheduled Sunday at his parents’ Beverly Hills home but is well short of the pace he needs to attain his original goal of $200,000.

Brown, who says the subject of campaign finances is too personal to discuss, said he has raised less than $500. “I won’t take anything more than $10,” Brown said. “I don’t want to have any special pleading.”

He failed to file a campaign fund-raising report with the secretary of state in mid-March as required by state law, media director Caren Daniels-Meade said. He faces a possible fine, which would be determined by how much he has spent but not reported, she said.

Strongly favored to win a second term, Friedman reported raising $122,575 and having $127,678 on hand in his March 22 campaign statement. He said last week he subsequently took in $40,000 more at a fund-raiser. Many of his contributions are from fellow attorneys.

“Substantially, those are people who know me from my past work as executive director of Bet Tzedek Legal Services,” said Friedman, referring to the Los Angeles legal-service program for low-income elderly. “And from my work on several committees in the Legislature.”

Robert Townsend Leet of Tarzana, a Libertarian candidate, and Marjery Hinds of Los Angeles, the Peace and Freedom candidate, filed March campaign reports with the state stating they had not raised as much as $1,000 and didn’t expect to do so.

Brown, 58, is an ex-Democrat who unsuccessfully sought election to a municipal court judgeship and Congress in the 1960s and to the California Community Colleges Board of Governors in the early 1970s. He describes himself as a conservative who is also concerned about protecting individual constitutional rights.

Bush or Kemp

Franklin and Brown did differ in which candidates they favor for the 1988 Republican presidential primary. Franklin says he supports Vice President George Bush, the apparent nominee; Brown says U.S. Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.) is his choice.

Franklin and Brown concur, however, in criticizing Friedman’s opposition to a bill to allow local and state police to eavesdrop electronically on suspected drug dealers. Advocates called it a tool to combat gang violence. It passed the Assembly on a bipartisan 48-18 vote last month and was sent to the Senate, which had previously approved a more sweeping bill.

“I don’t think these punks call each other up to decide where they’re going to do a drive-by shooting,” said Friedman, who says the measure is marred by loopholes and inconsistencies and would be financially inefficient. “That’s not how they plan their evil.

“I believe that the police sweeps in South-Central Los Angeles have been much more effective than any attention-grabbing attempt in Sacramento to appear tough on crime.”

Franklin ridiculed Friedman’s reasoning.

“It’s common knowledge that many gang members bring their beepers with them into the classrooms and that’s how they are informed they have a pending drug deal to consummate,” Franklin said. “It just shows how out of the mainstream he is, even in his own party.”

Brown said, “I’d like to bring in the National Guard. Every four or five blocks you’ll have a cop standing there in a little shed and you won’t have any more gangs.”

WASHINGTON — It was the decision that launched a thousand lips.

In 1987, the Federal Communications Commission stopped requiring broadcasters to air contrasting views on controversial issues, a policy known as the Fairness Doctrine. The move is widely credited with triggering the explosive growth of political talk radio.

Now, after conservative talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage helped torpedo a major immigration bill, some in Congress have suggested reinstating the Fairness Doctrine to balance out those powerful syndicated voices.

That has unleashed an armada of opposition on the airwaves, Internet blogs and in Washington, where broadcasters have joined with Republicans to fight what they call an attempt to zip their lips.

Opponents of the Fairness Doctrine said it would make station owners so fearful of balancing viewpoints that they’d simply avoid airing controversial topics — the “chilling effect” on debate that the FCC cited in repealing the rule two decades ago.

“Free speech must be just that — free from government influence, interference and censorship,” David K. Rehr, president of the National Assn. of Broadcasters, wrote to lawmakers.

There’s little chance the fairness doctrine will return in the near future, as FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin publicly opposes it and the White House wrote to broadcasters last week assuring them that Bush would veto any legislation reinstating it. But the issue has renewed debate about how far the government should go in regulating the public airwaves.

Some Democrats say conservative-dominated talk radio enables Republicans to mislead the public on important issues such as the Senate immigration reform bill.

“These are public airwaves and the public should be entitled to a fair presentation,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who is considering whether the Fairness Doctrine should be restored.

Republicans say that the policy would result in censorship and warn that it could return if Democrats win the White House in 2008.

“This is a bad idea from a bygone era,” Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) said at a news conference last week with five other Republicans announcing legislation to block reenactment of the policy.

The FCC enacted the Fairness Doctrine in 1949 to ensure the “right of the public to be informed” by presenting “for acceptance or rejection the different attitudes and viewpoints” on controversial issues. The policy was upheld in 1969 by the Supreme Court because the public airwaves were a “scarce resource” that needed to be open to opposing views.

Broadcasters disliked the rule, which put their federal station license at risk if they didn’t air all sides of an issue. Michael Harrison, who hosted a weekend talk show on the former KMET-FM in Los Angeles from 1975 to 1985, said the policy kept him from giving his opinions on controversial topics.

“I would never say that liberals were good and conservatives were bad, or vice versa. We would talk about, “Hey, all politicians are bad,” or “It’s a shame that more people don’t vote,” said Harrison, who publishes Talkers magazine, which covers the talk radio industry. “It was more of a superficial approach to politics.”

The Fairness Doctrine ended during the Reagan administration. In a 1985 report, the FCC concluded the policy inhibited broadcasters from dealing with controversial issues and was no longer needed because of the growth of cable television.

“Many, many broadcasters testified they avoided issues they thought would involve them in complaints,” recalled Dennis Patrick, who was chairman of the FCC in 1987 when it repealed the policy. “The commission concluded that the doctrine was having a chilling effect.”

The decision was controversial. Congress passed a law in 1987 reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but Reagan vetoed it.

Shortly afterward, Limbaugh, then a little-known Sacramento disc jockey, emerged as a conservative voice on radio stations nationwide. Another failed congressional attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in 1993 was dubbed the “Hush Rush” bill.

A 1997 study in the Journal of Legal Studies found that the percentage of AM radio stations with a news, talk or public affairs format jumped to 28% in 1995 from 7% in 1987. Liberal talk radio efforts, such as Air America, have struggled to get ratings.

The Fairness Doctrine seemed dead and buried. Then in January, Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), who is running for president, announced that with Democrats back in the House majority, he planned to hold hearings on reviving the policy because media consolidation has made it harder for some voices to be heard.

And this spring, conservative talk show hosts unleashed a campaign against the Senate immigration bill, which would have given the nation’s 12 million illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. Their listeners flooded the Capitol with complaints, and the bill failed last month on a procedural vote.

Bill supporters immediately lashed out at talk radio.

“Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with the problem,” said Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.). And Sens. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said they favored restoring the Fairness Doctrine.

“We have more power than the U.S. Senate and they know it and they’re fuming,” conservative talk show host Savage said in an interview. The liberal bent of the mainstream media more than compensates for conservative dominance of AM talk radio, he said.

“We’re going to have government snitches listening to shows,” he said. “And what are they going to do, push a button and then wheel someone into the studio and give their viewpoint?”

But Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.) said the rest of the media presented a balanced view of controversial issues, and the Fairness Doctrine would simply reimpose that requirement on talk radio.

Hinchey is readying legislation to reinstitute the doctrine as part of a broad package of media ownership reforms.

“It’s important that the American people make decisions for themselves based upon the ability to garner all the information, not just on what somebody wants to give them,” he said.

Republicans have seized on comments like that.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), a former radio talk show host, proposed an amendment last month prohibiting the FCC from spending money to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine. It passed 309 to 115 after a parade of Republicans took to the House floor to blast calls to restore the policy. Democrats branded the vote a political stunt. Republicans tried to propose a similar amendment in the Senate last week, but Democrats blocked it .

Republicans vow to continue pressing the issue.

“The American people love a fair fight, and so do I,” Pence said. “But there’s nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine.”

[email protected]

Nov. 8 (UPI) — The federal government will extend its record-long close to 40 days after the Senate adjourned with no vote held on a possible budget deal on Saturday.

A small number of centrist Democratic Party senators have been negotiating with Republicans behind closed doors to try to craft a funding measure that would reopen the federal government, CNN reported.

They are making progress but said there disagreement remains over Democrats’ demand to extend Affordable Care Act credits that are scheduled to expire at the end of the year.

Senate Republicans are meeting at 12:30 p.m. EST on Sunday before resuming session.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., earlier said the Senate will work through the weekend to try to end the budget impasse and reopen the federal government, which shut down when the 2026 fiscal year started without a budget in place in Oct. 1.

Thune also said the Senate will continue to meet until a budget deal is approved.

The Senate was scheduled to be in recess around Veterans Day, which is Tuesday.

Instead, it convened after noon in a rare Saturday session, which was the fourth this year.

The last Sunday session was on Feb. 11, 2024, for a vote on emergency national security appropriations.

With the government closed for more than a month, around 900,000 workers are furloughed and another 700,000 are working without pay — a number that includes air traffic controllers, which has resulted in staffing issues and forced flight cancellations.

Food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program was paused for this month, although the Supreme Court is set to decide a case on whether the Trump administration is legally required to fund the program.

The issue holding up an end to the shutdown is an extension of subsidies available for some Americans who purchase health insurance through an Affordable Care Act exchange. The ACA is also referred to as Obamacare.

Republicans want a clean funding bill with health insurance to be considered later, while Democrats want the government’s subsidies to be extended into next year as part of a funding bill.

A record 24.3 million have purchased insurance through one of the exchanges, with nine out of 10 receiving some sort of financial assistance.

Open enrollment began on Nov. 1 for most policyholders, one month after the shutdown began.

Rates will rise 26% on average next year, according to a KFF analysis — not including the end of the subsidies. In all, costs will more than double, according to a separate KFF analysis of data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Thune, of South Dakota, said both sides negotiated overnight on a possible short-term spending bill, while bipartisan negotiations also have been ongoing but not fruitful.

“I’m frustrated like everybody is,” GOP Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas told reporters on Saturday. “Every American is frustrated. Nobody wins in a shutdown, especially one that is this long.

Asked whether there could be a deal, he responded, “None. None at all. I’m almost speechless. What has not been said?”

Thune said a 15th vote on advancing the House-passed continuing resolution is not currently scheduled, but could come up later in the day.

In past votes, a few Democrats have approved the bill but 60 votes are needed. The Republicans have a 53-47 edge in the chamber.

“There’s still only one path out — it’s a clean funding extension,” Thune said on the Senate floor Saturday.

Senators have been told they will be given 24 hours to read the text of an agreement, a GOP aide told CNN.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma told reporters that consensus has emerged in the Republican conference around a Jan. 30 funding end date.

GOP senators have pushed for the funding with the goal of including longer-term appropriations bills and extending the deadline for funding, in exchange for a future vote on healthcare.

“The question is whether we can have everything ready to go,” Thune told reporters. “We’re getting close to having it ready. Ideally, it’d be great to set it up so we could vote today, but we have to … have the votes to actually pass it.”

On Friday, Republicans shot down a Democratic push toward a deal featuring a one-year tax credit extension on health insurance. Thune said the tax extension would be considered after the shutdown ends.

“That’s what we’re going to negotiate once the government opens up,” Thune said Friday.

Minor Leader Chuck Schumer of New York criticized Republicans for rejecting the idea.

“Yesterday, we offered Republicans a perfectly reasonable compromise to get out of this horrible shutdown that they installed on the American people,” Schumer said on the House floor. “We offered three things: we all vote to reopen the government, we all approve a one-time temporary extension of current ACA premium tax credits, and then after we reopen we negotiate.”

“I know many Republicans stormed out the gate to dismiss this offer, but that’s a terrible mistake,” he added.

Schumer said it doesn’t need to be negotiated because the idea “is not a new policy, this is not negotiating a shutdown.”

Thune has been adamant that he can’t guarantee Democrats a tax extension process.

President Donald Trump, who is at his estate in South Florida, has been pressing to end the filibuster rule and instead have bills pass by a majority of the 100 senators. Most Republicans are opposed to this “nuclear” option, fearing Democrats will do that when they are in power.

“Democrats are cracking like dogs on the Shutdown because they are deathly afraid that I am making progress with the Republicans on TERMINATING THE FILIBUSTER!,” Trump posted on Truth Social on Saturday afternoon. “Whether we make a Deal or not, THE REPUBLICANS MUST ‘BLOW UP’ THE FILIBUSTER, AND APPROVE HUNDREDS OF LONG SOUGHT, BUT NEVER GOTTEN, POLICY WINS LIKE, AS JUST A SMALL EXAMPLE, VOTER ID (IDENTIFICATION). Only a LOSER would not agree to doing this!”

End Obamacare?

Trump also told Republicans to end Obamacare, something he has attempted to do since he first became president in 2017.

He called it the “worst Healthcare anywhere in the World.”

On Saturday morning in a post on Truth Social, he said money used for the program should be sent directly to the public instead of “money sucking Insurance Companies in order to save the bad Healthcare provided by ObamaCare.

“In other words, take it from the BIG, BAD Insurance Companies, give it to the people.”

Medicare, mainly for seniors, has Part A and B that don’t go through insurance companies and are run by the U.S. government’s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, an ally of Trump, touted the proposal.

“We’re not going to extend this program for a year because that would be unfair to the taxpayer,” Graham said on the Senate floor. “That would continue a healthcare system that’s out of control. It would enrich health insurance companies even more. We’re not going to do that. We’re going to replace this broken system with something that is actually better for the consumer to meet the goal of lowering health care costs.”

Graham said he spoke with Trump on Saturday morning and that the president told him he would “like to sit down and see if we can come up with a better solution. I know we can, but we’re not going to do it while the government’s shut down.”

Graham also urged Democrats to “end this madness.”

“To my Democratic colleagues, let’s open up the government and act like adults and see if we can get this problem in a better spot. We’ll never do it with the government shut down,” he said.

With his million-dollar donation to the pro-Obama “super PAC,” Bill Maher has established himself among the top Democratic mega-donors, a field dotted with boldface Hollywood names.

Donors from the entertainment industry gave $2.2 million through January to Priorities USA Action, according to the Center for Responsive Politics — half of the group’s overall fundraising since it formed last spring.

Much of that came from a single donation by Dreamworks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg, who wrote a $2-million check to the group last May. His former producing partner, director Steven Spielberg, contributed $100,000 in July.

Director/producer J.J. Abrams and his wife, Katie McGrath, kicked in a combined $100,000 to the group in June.

Each new round of Federal Election Commission filings have revealed a new set of million-dollar donors, although the vast majority have given to super PACs supporting Republican candidates or the GOP as a whole.

And none of those prolific givers have made their pledges quite as public as Maher, who brandished a gigantic check onstage at his comedy special CrazyStupidPolitics.

Maher’s past political giving has been relatively modest – a total of $4,850 given since 2004, mainly to the Democratic presidential campaigns of Sen. John F. Kerry, former Sen. John Edwards and then-Sen. Barack Obama, as well as to the successful 2008 Senate run for fellow comedian Al Franken.

Reporting from Washington — President Trump, as he often does, had a few things to say.

After admitting that he had been lonely over the holidays, Trump took advantage of his first public appearance of the new year Wednesday to air lingering grievances, make multiple false claims and reinforce recent decisions that have rattled financial markets and his party’s leaders.

As he held forth for more than 90 minutes before a small pool of reporters and photographers, members of his Cabinet, ostensibly called to the White House for a meeting, sat quietly around a long conference table.

Trump defended his decision last month to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria and sharply cut the deployment to Afghanistan, moves that disturbed Republican allies in Congress and prompted the resignation of Defense Secretary James N. Mattis. In doing so, he contradicted his own recent claim that the U.S. had achieved its objectives of total victory over Islamic State militants in Syria.

“Syria was lost long ago,” he said.

“Look, we don’t want Syria,” he continued. “We’re talking about sand and death. That’s what we’re talking about. We’re not talking about vast wealth. We’re talking about sand and death,” he said, seemingly contrasting the war-wracked country with Iraq and its vast oil reserves.

Iran “can do what they want there, frankly,” he added, a comment likely to unnerve officials in Israel, who have worried that a U.S. withdrawal from its positions in eastern Syria would allow Iran to expand its influence there.

“It’s not my fault,” he said. “I didn’t put us there.”

Trump offered little further clarity on the U.S. withdrawal from Syria, which he initially said would take place in 30 days, saying now that the pullout will “take place over a period of time.”

Later, in a long riff about Afghanistan, Trump seemed to endorse Moscow’s 1979 invasion of the country — an act that the U.S. viewed as an attempt to spread communism and waged a long, covert operation to combat during the Carter and Reagan administrations.

“The reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia,” Trump said, making a case to leave the policing of hot spots in the Mideast and Central Asia to countries in the region. “They were right to be there. The problem is it was a tough fight.”

The Soviet Union eventually was bankrupted by its Afghan war, Trump added. “Russia used to be the Soviet Union. Afghanistan made it Russia, because they went bankrupt fighting in Afghanistan.”

Historians generally agree that the Russian invasion and subsequent occupation of much of Afghanistan was one of several factors that contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, although the country never went bankrupt.

For years, Republicans have credited President Reagan with bringing an end to the Soviet Union by his aggressive increase in U.S. military spending.

Trump’s comments stood in stark contrast to the view Mattis espoused in the resignation letter he presented last month after failing to convince the president to hold off on withdrawing from Syria.

“We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances,” Mattis wrote.

Mattis’ comments clearly stung Trump, who responded last month with criticism of his former Pentagon chief. On Wednesday, he stepped that up, claiming that he fired Mattis.

“What’s he done for me? How had he done in Afghanistan? Not too good,” Trump said. “As you know, President Obama fired him, and essentially so did I.”

Obama did not fire Mattis, although the general did retire several months early in 2013 from his position as the head of the military’s Central Command after dissenting from Obama administration policy decisions.

Tuesday was Mattis’ final day at the Pentagon. Trump, in a fit of pique after the resignation letter became public, had moved up Mattis’ termination date

In addition to his foreign policy comments, Trump also downplayed December’s stock market losses, which erased all positive gains for the year, as “a little glitch” and asserted — wrongly — that there are “probably 30-35 million” immigrants in the U.S. illegally. The nonpartisan Pew Research Center estimates that as of 2016, there were 10.7 million unauthorized immigrants living in the country, a number that has declined in recent years.

Trump repeated his call for Democrats to agree to $5.6 billion in funding for a border wall, and expressed surprise not to have received overtures from them over the holidays to negotiate an end to the government shutdown.

“I was in the White House all by myself for six or seven days,” he said. “It was very lonely. My family was down in Florida. I said, ‘Stay there and enjoy yourself.’ I felt I should be here just in case people wanted to come and negotiate the border security.”

Trump, who met later in the day with congressional leaders away from TV cameras, has already dismissed a funding proposal from House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi that includes $1.3 billion in border security funding.

While leaving the door open to a compromise, Trump continued to argue for the importance of a wall, pointing to other examples of barriers. He incorrectly asserted that Obama’s Washington residence is surrounded by a 10-foot wall and cited the Vatican, which he said “has the biggest wall of them all.”

“When they say the wall is immoral, then you better do something about the Vatican,” he said. “Walls work.”

As Trump spoke, a “Game of Thrones”-style movie poster teasing Iran sanctions — “SANCTIONS ARE COMING,” it read — lay unfurled across the table directly in front of him. But he made no remarks on the subject.

He did, however, comment on Sen.-elect Mitt Romney of Utah, who wrote in the Washington Post on Tuesday that he was troubled by Trump’s “deep descent in December” and that his deficit in “presidential leadership in qualities of character … has been most glaring.”

“I wish Mitt could be more of a team player,” Trump said. “And if he’s not, that’s OK too.”

Seeming to warn Romney about the fate that lies ahead for Republican lawmakers who vocally criticize him and his presidency, Trump boasted that he “got rid of” former Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Bob Corker of Tennessee, both of whom opted not to seek new terms last year.

Accusing both men of seeking publicity in taking stands against him, Trump suggested that Flake would be seeking a job as a paid cable news contributor — or perhaps in another profession that Trump himself once plied.

“Jeff Flake is now selling real estate or whatever he’s doing,” he said dismissively.

The latest from Washington »

[email protected]

@EliStokols

Nov. 8 (UPI) — President Donald Trump said the United States will not participate in the upcoming G20 conference in South Africa due to that nation’s alleged racial policies and killings of Afrikaners.

The G20 is scheduled Nov. 22 and 23 at the NASREC Expo Centre in Johannesburg, but the president cited the treatment of Dutch, French and German settlers and migrants as a cause for boycotting the event.

“It is a total disgrace that the G20 will be held in South Africa,” Trump said in a Truth Social post on Friday.

“Afrikaners … are being killed and slaughtered, and their land and farms are being illegally confiscated,” the president said. “No U.S. government official will attend as long as these human rights abuses continue.”

Afrikaners have experienced rising hostility from some politicians and others in South Africa, including those who encourage violence and land confiscation.

The nation’s Expropriation Act of 2024 enables the South African government to confiscate land for public use, and without paying in some instances, in order to address matters involving equity, according to Fox News.

Many view the act as a mechanism to target white South African farmers and take their land without compensation, and Trump has accused South Africa of engaging in genocide.

The South African foreign ministry denied any racial oppression had occurred in a prepared statement shared with the BBC.

“The South African government wishes to state, for the record, that the characterization of Afrikaners as an exclusively white group is ahistorical,” the foreign ministry said.

“Furthermore, the claim that this community faces persecution is not substantiated by fact.”

When South African President Cyril Ramaphosa visited Trump at the White House in May, the president raised the matter of genocide against Caucasians in South Africa.

Ramaphosa denied any genocide has occurred and cited prior oppression of South Africans.

“We cannot equate what is alleged to be genocide to what we went through in the struggle because people were killed because of the oppression that was taking place in our country,” Ramaphosa told the president.

Trump then played a video that allegedly showed white crosses placed along a South African highway to mark where the bodies of white farmers are buried, Fox News reported.

Ramaphosa asked where the white crosses were located and said he never had seen the alleged video evidence.

Trump has granted refugee status to Afrikaners despite the South African government earlier saying claims of genocide are “widely discredited and unsupported by reliable evidence,” the BBC reported.

The G20 is a collection of 19 nations, plus the European Union, and was formed in 1999 to promote global economic stability in the wake of Asian financial troubles.

The G20 collectively represents 85% of the world’s economic output and two-thirds of its population and meets annually to discuss matters affecting member states and the world.

The United States is scheduled to host the annual event next year in Miami.

Opposition party Chadema said that its deputy secretary-general, Amani Golugwa, was arrested early on Saturday.

Police in Tanzania have arrested a senior opposition official after more than 200 people were charged with treason over a wave of protests against last month’s general election.

Opposition party Chadema said that its deputy secretary-general, Amani Golugwa, was arrested early on Saturday. He is the third senior Chadema official in detention, after leader Tundu Lissu and deputy leader John Heche were arrested before the October 29 vote.

The arrest comes a day after more than 200 people were charged with treason for alleged involvement in the protests triggered by the disputed election.

Lawyer Peter Kibatala told the news agency AFP that more than 250 people “were arraigned in three separate cases … and they’re all charged with two sets of offences.”

“The first set of offences is a conspiracy to commit treason. And the second set of offences is treason itself,” he said.

President Samia Suluhu Hassan, who took office in 2021 after the death of her predecessor, won the poll with 98 percent of the vote, according to the electoral commission, but Chadema has branded the election a “sham”.

It said in a statement on X that the government intended to “cripple the Party’s leadership” and “paralyse its operations”, adding that police were now targeting “lower levels”, with some being “forced to confess to organising demonstrations”.

Police confirmed the arrest of Golugwa and nine other people in connection with an investigation into the unrest, which saw security forces launch a crackdown on protesters.

“The police force, in collaboration with other defence and security agencies, is continuing a serious manhunt,” the police said in a statement, adding that Chadema’s Secretary-General John Mnyika and the party’s head of communications, Brenda Rupia, were on its wanted list.

High death toll

Protests erupted on October 29 in the cities of Dar-es-Salaam, Arusha, Mwanza and Mbeya, as well as several regions across the country, police said in Saturday’s statement, laying out the extent of the unrest for the first time.

The authorities have so far declined to release the death toll.

The Catholic Church in Tanzania has said that hundreds of people were killed. Chadema has claimed that more than 1,000 people were killed and that security forces had hidden bodies to cover up the scale of the brutality.

The Kenya Human Rights Commission, a watchdog group in the neighbouring country, asserted in a statement on Friday that 3,000 people were killed, with thousands still missing.

The commission provided a link to pictorial evidence in its possession showing many victims “bore head and chest gunshot wounds, leaving no doubt these were targeted killings, not crowd-control actions”.

The African Union said this week that the election “did not comply with AU principles, normative frameworks, and other international obligations and standards for democratic elections.”

AU observers reported ballot stuffing at several polling stations, and cases where voters were issued multiple ballots.

Single-party rule has been the norm in Tanzania since the advent of multiparty politics in 1992. But Hassan is accused of ruling with an iron fist that does not tolerate opposition.