McOsker said Mayor Karen Bass’ Inside Safe program has been effective in clearing homeless encampments and moving the residents inside. He supports reducing costs by doubling people up in rooms and cutting underutilized contracts.
“It’s unsustainable as it is to spend this much, and I think everyone recognizes that,” he said.
McOsker said he supports “no encampment” zones, per Municipal Code 41.18, around places like schools, day care centers, libraries and homeless shelters.
It’s especially important to keep encampments away from shelters, he said, so people can get help without distractions nearby.
“We really need to make that break and give folks an opportunity to put their lives together,” he said.
Rivers equated the no-encampment zones to federal immigration operations in the city, arguing that they enable law enforcement to snatch people off the street without giving them a place to go.
“Just moving homelessness doesn’t all of a sudden solve it,” he said.
Instead, Rivers wants to establish “safe shelter” zones where people can get their needs met instead of being chased out.
Rivers believes that Inside Safe contractors should be audited and that there should be “full transparency” in the amount of money spent to house each person.
“We need to actually have a track record of where these funds are going to,” so it’s clear the money actually is helping to resolve homelessness, he said.
NEW ORLEANS — A federal appeals court has restricted access to one of the most common means of abortion in the U.S. by blocking mailing of mifepristone prescriptions.
Friday’s unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is requiring that the abortion pill be distributed only in person and at clinics, overruling regulations set by the federal Food and Drug Administration.
The ruling, which is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, is the biggest jolt to abortion policy in the U.S. since the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe vs. Wade and allowed states to enforce abortion bans.
In the ruling, Judge Kyle Duncan, who was appointed by President Trump, agreed with the state of Louisiana’s contention that allowing the drug to be mailed there makes moot the state’s ban on abortion at all stages of pregnancy.
“Every abortion facilitated by FDA’s action cancels Louisiana’s ban on medical abortions and undermines its policy that ‘every unborn child is a human being from the moment of conception and is, therefore, a legal person,’” the ruling states.
Commonplace treatment
Mifepristone was approved in 2000 as a safe and effective way to end early pregnancies. It is typically used in combination with a second drug, misoprostol.
Surveys have found that the majority of abortions in the U.S. are provided via pills and that about 1 in 4 abortions nationally are prescribed via telehealth.
One survey of abortion providers last year estimated that more women in states where abortion is banned obtained abortions that way than by traveling to other states.
Some Democratic-led states have laws that seek to protect providers who prescribe via telehealth to patients in places with bans.
That rise in prominence is why abortion opponents have targeted the pills in legislation and litigation.
Little precedent
There is little precedent for a federal court overruling the scientific regulations of the FDA, and it wasn’t immediately clear how quickly or completely the decision would affect mailing of the drug throughout the country.
Judges have long deferred to the agency’s judgments on the safety and appropriate regulation of drugs.
FDA officials under Trump have repeatedly stated that the agency is conducting a new review of mifepristone’s safety, at the direction of the president.
The judges, all nominated by Republican presidents, noted in their ruling that the FDA “could not say when that review might be complete and admitted it was still collecting data.”
Because of rare cases of excessive bleeding, the FDA initially imposed strict limits on who could prescribe and distribute the pill — only specially certified physicians and only after an in-person appointment where the person would receive the pill.
Both requirements were dropped during the COVID-19 emergency. At the time, FDA officials under President Biden said that after more than 20 years of monitoring mifepristone use, and reviewing dozens of studies involving thousands of women, it was clear that women could safely use the pill without direct supervision.
GenBioPro, which makes generic mifepristone, said in a statement that the court’s decision “ignores the FDA’s rigorous science and decades of safe use of mifepristone in a case pursued by extremist abortion opponents.”
Broader impact
In a court filing, Louisiana’s attorney general and a woman who said she was coerced into taking abortion pills requested that the FDA rules be rolled back to when the pills were allowed to be prescribed and dispensed only in person.
A Louisiana-based federal judge last month ruled that those allowances undermined the state’s abortion ban but stopped short of undoing the regulations immediately.
Friday’s ruling is in effect as the case works its way through the courts and extends beyond Louisiana and other states with abortion bans.
Telehealth prescriptions have become common even in states where abortion is allowed — and the ruling blocks them there, too.
“This is going to affect patients’ access to abortion and miscarriage care in every state in the nation,” said Julia Kaye, an ACLU lawyer. “When telemedicine is restricted, rural communities, people with low incomes, people with disabilities, survivors of intimate partner violence and communities of color suffer the most.”
The National Right to Life Committee said the ruling “restores a critical layer of oversight” in women’s health.
“Women deserve better than an abortion-by-mail system that prioritizes ideology over safety,” said Carol Tobias, the group’s president.
Next step
Friday’s ruling sets up a likely appeal to the Supreme Court.
“I look forward to continuing to defend women and babies as this case continues,” Louisiana Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill, a Republican, said in a statement.
The conservative-majority high court overturned abortion as a nationwide right in 2022 but unanimously preserved access to mifepristone two years later.
That 2024 decision sidestepped the core issues, however, by ruling that the antiabortion doctors behind the case didn’t have legal standing to sue.
Representatives for the FDA and the U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday evening.
In the meantime, antiabortion groups are celebrating Friday’s ruling. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, applauded the ruling as “a huge victory for victims and survivors of Biden’s reckless mail-order abortion drug regime.” She also criticized the Trump administration for taking time to conduct its own review of mifepristone, saying its slow movement has forced states to take action.
“Women and children suffer and state sovereignty is violated every day the FDA allows abortion drugs to flood the mail,” Dannenfelser said.
Mulvihill and Schoenbaum write for the Associated Press. AP writers John Hanna, Matthew Perrone and Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this report.
Voters with disabilities have additional options, including Remote Accessible Vote-By-Mail and curbside voting. The remote system allows voters to make their ballot selections using compatible technology in the privacy of their home.
To use the system you’ll need to:
Download the system application
Mark the ballot selections on the app
Print the ballot
Sign the envelope provided with the vote-by-mail ballot or the voter’s own envelope
Return the printed and signed selections either by mail or by dropping it off at a voting location
Information about how to request this option can be found here.
Curbside voting allows voters to park as close as possible to the voting area, and election officials will bring you a roster to sign, a ballot and any other voting materials you may need.
All polling places and voting centers are required to be accessible to voters with disabilities and will have accessible voting machines.
More information on voting options can be found here.
Three seats — two contested — are on the June 2 primary ballot for the seven-member Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education.
The nation’s second-largest school system, with close to 400,000 students, faces evolving challenges and uncertainties that could alter the direction of the district for years.
In mid-April L.A. Unified officials barely averted a strike by agreeing to significant employee raises, rescinding about 200 layoffs and agreeing to hundreds of new hires of counselors, school psychologists and other student support staff. The contracts with three district unions, including teachers, will cost nearly $1.2 billion a year, and board members now must find a way to pay for them amid budget pressures.
Standardized test scores have trended upward since the nadir of the COVID-19 pandemic, recovering faster than the state average, but the pace remains too incremental for critics.
The future of L.A. schools Supt. Alberto Carvalho is uncertain. He’s on paid administrative leave following FBI raids of his San Pedro home and downtown office. At least part of the investigation centers on a failed chatbot project that was supposed to revolutionize and individualize education.
Carvalho said he’s done nothing wrong and would like to return to work. If he does not return — and cannot serve out his new four-year contract — board members would select a superintendent.
L.A. Unified also faces declining enrollment — which reduces state funding and increases pressure to save money by closing many campuses.
Heightened federal immigration enforcement also has affected enrollment and attendance while creating anxiety that spills over into the classroom. Officials responded by declaring L.A. Unified a sanctuary district — both for immigrants and for the LGBTQ+ community, which also has been a target of some conservative groups.
Carvalho’s central focus on improving test scores has led to increased tutoring, repeated diagnostic measures and phonics training. In addition, the district put a successful school bond on the ballot to continue renovations, worked to lower student absenteeism and emphasized greener campuses.
The board majority consists of candidates elected with the endorsement of the powerful teachers union — United Teachers Los Angeles. This election will not change that balance because five seats are held by union-friendly incumbents. But the outcome will determine whether UTLA can further strengthen its hand or whether other constituencies will gain a measure of power at the union’s expense.
UTLA is the most reliable funder of school board campaigns — and the union’s spending is not controlled by candidates.
Also exerting influence in recent elections is the district’s other largest union: Local 99 of Service Employees International Union. It represents some 30,000 bus drivers, teacher aides, custodians, gardeners, cafeteria workers and technical support staff. This union has yet to endorse candidates.
A potential but diminished source of election-funding firepower would be charter school advocates — who once routinely outspent the unions. Retired businessman Bill Bloomfield — a charter school ally who makes his own calls about whom to support — has been a big spender in recent elections, typically as a counter to teachers-union-endorsed candidates. He has not committed to being involved in this school board election cycle.
The material below was assembled through reporting and surveys provided to candidates. Some responses are paraphrased for clarity or condensed for brevity.
A nonprofit advocacy group, Social Equity LA, organized with local cannabis business owners to oppose the measure in letters to Mayor Karen Bass.
Luis Rivera, executive director of the nonprofit, said Measure CB risks legitimizing the illegal cannabis industry while linking city finances to the tax revenue the businesses would generate. The measure also would undermine Proposition 64, the state law that requires cannabis businesses to be licensed, he said. And amid the city’s struggles to track and close illegal cannabis businesses, Rivera said it will be difficult to force them to pay up.
“There’s no guarantee or mechanism to assure that illegal operators will pay the taxes or fulfill their obligations,” Rivera said.
Even if they pay taxes, illegal operators could undercut legal businesses by selling unregulated products and avoiding requirements, such as code inspections and safety tests for merchandise, that legal businesses must fulfill to keep their licenses, he said. For an already struggling industry, the answer isn’t taxing more businesses, he said — it’s lowering taxes.
US President Donald Trump has said that all state permits for the 2026 recreational red snapper fishing season have been approved, a move he says will expand access for anglers across southeastern coastal states.
In a post shared on Truth Social on Friday, Trump described the decision as a “huge win” for fishermen in states including Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina.
“For years, our Great Fishermen have been punished with VERY short Federal fishing seasons despite RECORD HIGH fish populations and the States begging to oversee these permits,” he added.
The policy centres on coordination with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which regulates fisheries and sets quotas and seasons in federal waters.
Recreational red snapper fishing
For years, recreational red snapper fishing has been tightly controlled at the federal level, often limited to brief seasonal openings that critics say restrict access.
At its lowest point in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the red snapper spawning stock fell to about 11 percent of its historical level, prompting strict conservation measures under a long-term rebuilding plan set to run through 2044.
Several southeastern states have since pushed for more flexibility, seeking a greater role in setting fishing seasons and expanding the number of days anglers can fish.
Catch limits and size requirements would still apply, with anglers typically limited to one fish per day in the South Atlantic.
Supporters argue the changes better reflect what they describe as a recovering red snapper population and would improve access for recreational fishermen.
“State management and expansion of Gulf snapper season have been a major boon for our Gulf of America communities, allowing so many Floridians and visitors to enjoy the Red Snapper our waters have to offer,” said Governor Ron DeSantis in a release of November 2025.
“I was proud to announce that Florida anglers will soon be able to enjoy more Atlantic Red Snapper fishing as well. The Trump Administration has taken action to rein in the bureaucracy and return this power to the states, where it belongs,” he added.
A similar approach has already been rolled out in the Gulf of Mexico, where states have taken on a larger role in managing recreational red snapper seasons.
But Ocean Conservancy, a US-based ocean conservation nonprofit, says there are growing warning signs under that system, including what it describes as a decline in the average size of fish and reports from anglers who say they must travel farther to catch a keeper.
The group also notes that recent Gulf Council meetings have included public testimony from fishermen raising concerns about a downturn in the stock.
The group says the Gulf population is about 10 times larger, meaning management approaches that appear sustainable there may not translate to smaller, more vulnerable stocks.
Concerns over overfishing risks
Marine scientists and conservation groups warn that loosening federal oversight could increase the risk of overfishing, particularly if monitoring and enforcement vary across states.
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, regulators must set annual catch limits to prevent overfishing, but critics say longer fishing seasons could undermine those safeguards.
“These exempted fishing permits are an end run around sustainable management,” said Meredith Moore of Ocean Conservancy in a release shared with Al Jazeera.
“Just last year, NOAA’s own analysis showed a two-day season was needed to prevent overfishing. There is no doubt that allowing months-long seasons will lead to overfishing, while unproven data collection means we may not realise the damage until it is done.”
Others warn the impact could be felt beyond stock levels, affecting the long-term future of the fishery.
“Overfishing means sacrificing the chance to teach the next generation to fish in order to fill coolers this season,” added JP Brooker, the group’s Florida conservation director.
“Red snapper is a favourite of Floridians and out-of-state anglers. No one likes short fishing seasons, but if we don’t follow the science and let these fish recover, we could soon lose this cherished fishing season for good,” he added.
Ocean Conservancy estimates highlight the scale of concern. Federal regulators have set the South Atlantic recreational catch limit at 22,797 fish, yet a recent two-day season in Florida alone landed 24,885 fish.
The group estimates that catches could reach 485,000 fish over a 39-day season, more than 20 times the annual limit and potentially in breach of federal law.
Lindsey Horvath was a West Hollywood city councilmember in 2022 when she ran for L.A. County supervisor in a six-person primary that featured a pair of state senators, Bob Hertzberg (D-Van Nuys) and Henry Stern (D-Malibu).
As a supervisor, Horvath helped lead a historic push to remake county government. Measure G, passed by voters in 2024, will nearly double the size of the Board of Supervisors and create an elected chief executive position as well as an independent ethics commission. But the passage of Measure G had the unintended effect of wiping out Measure J, which funds anti-incarceration programs, leaving county officials scrambling for solutions.
Tonia Arey is a real estate agent who said she decided to “enter public service out of concern for the direction of Los Angeles County and a desire to bring stronger accountability to local government.”
She calls herself a “Jewish woman challenging the incumbent” and is centering her campaign on public safety, including law enforcement, fire and probation, emergency preparedness and confronting antisemitism.
Tomás Sidenfaden is a software developer and startup founder who has lived in Los Angeles for nearly three decades.
“Three generations of my family have called this region our home, and I’m tired of waiting around for other people to fix it,” he said.
Carmenlina Minasova is a San Fernando Valley reform advocate who did not respond to requests for comment.
WASHINGTON — House Speaker Mike Johnson has lamented he would like to preside over a “normal Congress,” but the chamber the Republican is leading is anything but.
All-night sessions. Hours of dead zones with no action on the floor. Legislation being written on the fly, behind closed doors. Sudden votes scheduled. Spectacular failures. And, as happened this week, stunning turnarounds in which the House actually passes bills.
“Sometimes it’s an ugly process, sometimes it’s a long process,” Johnson said after House passage of a bipartisan bill to fund much of the Department of Homeland Security, ending the longest agency shutdown in history. “But we got it done.”
Republicans, who face an uphill climb this election year to keep hold of their paper-thin House majority, appear at times as if they are still learning on the job, years after having returned to power in 2022, while they are also about to ask voters in November to rehire them for another term.
This week’s starts and stops — for example, five hours of delay as Johnson huddled behind closed doors to salvage his agenda, then a sudden vote tally near 11 p.m. — would typically have been the kind of situation that shocked the political and procedural senses. Now, it’s just another Wednesday.
Or two weeks ago, when a routine House Rules Committee hearing ended up becoming a midnight forum to debut a just-produced 14-page bill to revise a surveillance bill, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, before it was rushed to the floor for a 2 a.m. vote. It failed.
“House Republicans have shown again that they can’t govern,” said Rep. Ted Lieu of California, part of Democratic leadership.
“They routinely pass bills to the Senate that are way too extreme, then it ends up that we have all these floor session days where we’re just doing nothing,” he said.
House GOP’s slim majority makes leader’s job challenging
Johnson, who took over for the ousted Kevin McCarthy more than two years ago, is presiding over one of the slimmest House majorities in modern times, leaving him no room to spare if he’s trying to pass legislation on party-line votes, without Democrats.
The speaker is juggling not only President Trump’s priorities but also those of the various factions that make up his majority, from the conservative House Freedom Caucus to what remains of the GOP’s more pragmatic conservatives.
And Johnson’s own future is always in question, after Republicans chased other speakers, including McCarthy, John Boehner and Newt Gingrich, to early exits.
Last year Johnson, of Louisiana, led passage of the party’s signature achievement, a big bill of tax breaks and safety net cuts, which Trump signed into law. At the time, he quipped about the difficulty of getting it over the finish line.
“I do so deeply desire to have just a normal Congress,” the speaker said in July.
“But it doesn’t happen anymore,” he said. “Our way is to plow through and get it done.”
What’s ahead as House GOP tries to stay in power
Ahead of the fall elections, Johnson and other Republican lawmakers have discussed an agenda that includes the promise of another GOP-only budget package like the tax cuts bill that they could push through the House and the Senate, without Democratic votes.
Budget Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) said Thursday that he expects “the centerpiece” of that package “will be supporting our troops” with more than $100 billion in funding for the war against Iran as well as money to replenish defense munitions and other Pentagon-related needs.
Despite the turbulent week in the House, Arrington said what they’re calling “Budget reconciliation 3.0” should be the “next order of business.”
Yet GOP lawmakers may decide it’s better to skip the hard work of legislating, and the dramatic upheavals that tend to come with it, and hit the campaign trail to win over voters instead.
Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), the chairman of the House GOP’s campaign arm, the National Republican Congressional Committee, acknowledged that trying to pass legislation with such a tight majority “can be rough. It’s ugly.”
“I’d be fine with letting us go home and campaign,” Hudson said. “But we’ve got a lot of important work still to do.”
Some of Johnson’s most ardent sparring partners, those most conservative Republican lawmakers, turned their blame for the messy process not on Johnson’s leadership but on their own GOP allies across the Capitol in the Senate, who often dismiss the House’s work.
“Yeah, sometimes, it gets a little tense,” said Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas. “But we’re still getting stuff done. We’re sending it over to the Senate. So we look forward to them doing their job.”
Katy Young Yaroslavsky is running for L.A. City Council District 5.
(Campaign of Katy Young Yaroslavsky for City Council)
Yaroslavsky, 45, was named the council’s budget committee chair at the beginning of last year, a job that carries immense influence over city spending and that requires her to balance lofty political expectations with fiscal reality.
Yaroslavsky began her career as a land use attorney and lobbyist and later worked as a top aide to former Los Angeles County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl for more than six years. She is the daughter-in-law of former Fifth District City Councilmember Zev Yaroslavsky, who later served on the county board of supervisors.
“We need people in office who are interested in problem solving, not focused on gotcha politics. Who are not super ideological but are just really there to solve problems. And that’s what I’m there for,” Yaroslavsky said.
Henry Mantel is running for L.A. City Council District 5.
(Handout from Matt Mantel)
Mantel, 33, has worked on a handful of political campaigns, according to his campaign website, including Carolyn Ramsay’s unsuccessful campaign for the 4th District council seat in 2015. Mantel graduated from the McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento in 2020. As a lawyer, he says he has represented tenants in disputes with landlords, including contesting evictions.
“The extent of the crisis really weighed on me, and watching the City Council continue to refuse to do nothing was just unbearable,” Mantel said.
Morgan Oyler is running for L.A. City Council District 5.
( Cory Aycock)
Oyler, 42, is a longtime accountant for Haus of Portraiture, a fine art portrait studio in Santa Monica. He was born and raised in L.A., attending high school in Santa Monica, and returned to live in Westwood about a decade ago. He sought election to the Washington statehouse in 2010 and 2012, running as a Republican and losing both times. He says he became a Democrat a decade ago, after becoming uneasy with President Trump’s influence on the GOP.
Oyler felt compelled to run because he sees Yaroslavsky’s policies as a barrier to sustainable housing growth.
MIAMI — A former Miami congressman and longtime friend of U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was convicted Friday in connection with a secret $50-million lobbying campaign on behalf of Venezuela during the first Trump administration.
Jurors found Republican David Rivera and an associate, Esther Nuhfer, guilty on all counts, including failing to register as a foreign agent with the Justice Department and conspiracy to commit money laundering as part of their work for former President Nicolás Maduro’s government.
The seven-week trial offered a rare glimpse into Miami’s role as a crossroads for foreign influence campaigns aimed at shaping U.S. policy toward Latin America, one highlighting the city’s reputation as a magnet for corruption and anti-Communist crusaders among its sizable exile population.
It included testimony from Rubio, Texas Congressman Pete Sessions and a top Washington lobbyist — all of whom testified that they were shocked to learn belatedly of Rivera’s consulting contract with a U.S.-based affiliate of Venezuela’s state oil company, PDVSA.
In an 11-count indictment unsealed in 2022, prosecutors alleged that Rivera was tapped by then Foreign Minister Delcy Rodríguez — now Venezuela’s acting president — to work Republican connections from Rivera’s time in Congress to get the first Trump administration to abandon its hard-line stance and ease crippling sanctions on Venezuela.
As part of the charm offensive, prosecutors alleged, Rivera and Nuhfer, a political consultant, manipulated influential friends, including Rubio and Sessions, like “pawns on a chess board.” The goal: to try to normalize relations with the new Trump administration at a time when the Maduro government was buffeted by serious accusations of human rights violations.
“As long as the money kept coming in, they didn’t care from where,” prosecutor Roger Cruz said of the defendants during closing arguments.
‘Massive secret’ threatened to damage Rivera’s political career
But the two held onto the “massive secret” and didn’t disclose their lobbying work as required, for fear it would have ended Rivera’s political career as an anti-Communist stalwart, Cruz said.
To hide his work, prosecutors allege, Rivera also set up an encrypted chat group called MIA — for Miami — with his main conduit to the Maduro government: Venezuelan media tycoon Raúl Gorrín, who was subsequently charged in the U.S. with bribing top Venezuelan officials.
Members of the group used playful code words to discuss their activities: Maduro was the “bus driver,” Sessions “Sombrero,” Rodríguez “The Lady in Red,” and millions of dollars “melons,” according to copies of text messages presented to the jury.
“It was all about la Luz,” Cruz said, referring to the Spanish word for light, which Rivera and others repeatedly used to discuss payments from Caracas.
Attorneys for Rivera and Nuhfer said the two acted in good faith and believed they were under no requirement to disclose their work. The three-month, $50-million contract with Rivera’s one-man consulting firm, they say, was focused exclusively on luring oil giant ExxonMobil back to Venezuela — commercial work that is generally exempt from the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
Wholly distinct from that consulting work, they say, were Rivera’s meetings with Rubio and Sessions, which occurred after the consulting contract had expired and was focused on ushering in leadership in Venezuela that would be less hostile to the U.S.
“He was working every possible angle to get Nicolás Maduro out,” defense attorney Ed Shohat said during closing arguments. “There was not a word in the chats about normalizing relations.”
Nuhfer’s attorney, David Oscar Markus, likened the government’s case to the 17th century Salem witch trials, presuming ill intent that was belied by the flimsiest of evidence.
“My client does not have a dark heart,” he said.
Exxon meetings for Rodríguez
Prosecutors said Rivera used the contract with New York-based PDV USA as cover for illegal lobbying.
Once exposed, the partners tried to hide the work — backdating documents and coming up with sham agreements like one to justify a wire transfer of $3.75 million to a South Florida company that maintained Gorrín’s luxury yacht.
The political activity included setting up meetings for Rodríguez in New York, Caracas, Washington and Dallas. As part of the effort, the two roped in Sessions, who later tried to broker a meeting for Rodríguez with the CEO of ExxonMobil that had succeeded Trump’s then-secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. After a secret meeting in Caracas with Maduro, Sessions also agreed to deliver a letter from the Venezuelan president to Trump.
The outreach quickly unraveled, however. Within six months of taking office, Trump sanctioned Maduro and labeled him a “dictator,” launching a “maximum pressure” campaign to unseat the president.
However, nearly a decade later, Rodríguez has emerged as the second Trump administration’s trusted partner after the U.S. military’s ousting of Maduro.
Before being elected to Congress in 2010, Rivera was a high-ranking Florida legislator. During that time, he shared a Tallahassee home with Rubio, who eventually became the Florida House speaker.
Rivera has previously faced controversy, including allegations that he secretly funded a Democratic spoiler candidate in a 2012 congressional race. Last year, federal prosecutors dropped the case after an appeals court threw out a sizable fine imposed by a lower court. Rivera was also investigated — but never charged — for alleged campaign finance violations and a $1-million contract with a gambling company while serving in the Florida legislature.
Poll finds that Americans are concerned about impact of the war on the cost of living and sceptical of success thus far.
Published On 1 May 20261 May 2026
A new poll has found that a large majority of people in the United States believe that the decision to take military action against Iran was a mistake, as the war roils the global economy and fuels cost-of-living concerns in the US.
A Washington Post-ABC-Ipsos poll released on Friday shows that 61 percent of respondents believe the use of military force against Iran was a mistake, with just 36 percent saying it was the right decision.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
The poll is the latest to find low levels of support for the war launched against Iran by the US and Israel in late February, which has killed thousands of people across the Middle East and sent global energy prices surging.
Asked if they had changed their behaviour due to higher gas prices, 44 percent of respondents said they had cut back on driving, and 42 percent said they had done the same for household expenses. Those figures increased to 56 percent and 59 percent for respondents making less than $50,000 per year.
Those concerns come at a time when President Donald Trump’s approval ratings have dropped to new lows, with voters expressing frustration over economic issues and the cost of living.
The war has also been depicted as a contrast with Trump’s promise to keep the country out of unnecessary foreign wars, and 46 percent of respondents said the decision to attack Iran was inconsistent with the position Trump took during his presidential campaign.
Despite relatively low casualty figures among US forces, the poll found that the war on Iran is as unpopular as the Iraq War was during a period of heightened violence in 2006 and the Vietnam War was in the early 1970s.
Asked whether US military actions against Iran have been successful thus far, 39 percent said they had been unsuccessful, while 19 percent said they had been successful. A plurality of 41 percent said it was too soon to tell.
Support for the war remains robust among members of Trump’s Republican Party, however. Nearly 80 percent of Republicans said that the decision to attack Iran was the correct one, even as they were split evenly between rating operations as successful or stating that it was too soon to tell.
A Supreme Court decision striking down a majority Black congressional district in Louisiana has amplified an already intense national redistricting battle by providing Republican officials in several states new grounds to redraw voting districts.
Louisiana has suspended its May 16 congressional primary to allow time for lawmakers to approve new U.S. House districts. Meanwhile, President Trump is pressuring other states to redistrict — potentially still ahead of the November midterm elections that will determine whether Republicans maintain control of the closely divided House.
Trump urged Texas Republicans last year to redraw U.S. House districts to give the party an advantage. Democrats in California responded by doing the same. Then other states joined the battle. Lawmakers, commissions or courts have adopted new House districts in eight states.
That total could grow following the Supreme Court’s decision that significantly weakened a provision in the federal Voting Rights Act.
Here’s a look at how some states are responding to the Supreme Court ruling:
Louisiana
Current House map: two Democrats, four Republicans
Early in-person voting was to begin Saturday for Louisiana’s primaries. But Republican Gov. Jeff Landry moved quickly Thursday to postpone the congressional primary while allowing elections for other offices to go forward.
A federal lawsuit filed later Thursday, on behalf of a Democratic congressional candidate and voter, asked a court to block Landry’s order and allow the House primary to occur as originally scheduled. Among other things, the lawsuit asserted that tens of thousands of absentee ballots already have been mailed to people and a substantial number have been filled out and returned.
Separately, a three-judge federal court panel that heard the case that was appealed to the Supreme Court also issued an order Thursday suspending Louisiana’s congressional primary.
Republican state House and Senate leaders said they are prepared to pass new U.S. House districts — and set a new primary election date — before their legislative session ends in a month.
Alabama
Current House map: two Democrats, five Republicans
Alabama officials on Thursday filed an emergency motion with the Supreme Court seeking an expedited review of a pending appeal in a redistricting case.
A federal court in 2023 ordered the creation of a new near-majority Black district in Alabama, resulting in the election of a second Black representative to the U.S. House. Alabama is under a court order to use the new map until after the next census in 2030.
An appeal pending before the Supreme Court argues that the map is an illegal racial gerrymander, a claim similar to that made in Louisiana.
The state is seeking to lift an injunction blocking the use of the 2023 map drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature that did not include the new district.
The state’s primaries are set for May 19. Republican Gov. Kay Ivey said Wednesday that the state is “not in position to have a special session at this time” on redistricting.
Florida
Current House map: eight Democrats, 20 Republicans
Hours after the Supreme Court’s decision, Florida’s Republican-led Legislature approved new U.S. House districts that could help the GOP win up to four additional seats in November.
Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis called a special legislative session without knowing when the Supreme Court would issue its opinion in the Louisiana case. But DeSantis expressed confidence that the court would rule as it did. Among other things, the new map reshapes a southeastern Florida district that DeSantis said was created to help elect a Black representative in an attempt to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act.
A Florida constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2010 prohibits districts from being drawn to deny or diminish the ability of racial or language minorities to elect the representatives of their choice. DeSantis said he considers that amendment a violation of the U.S. Constitution. That question is expected to be decided by the courts.
Tennessee
Current House map: one Democrat, eight Republicans
The Tennessee General Assembly recently ended its annual session. But pressure is growing to bring lawmakers back to revise the state’s congressional districts.
Trump posted on social media Thursday that he had spoken with Republican Gov. Bill Lee, who he said would work hard for a new map that could help Republicans gain an additional seat. Democrats currently hold only one seat, a district centered in Memphis, which is majority Black.
Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton, a Republican, said he is in conversations with the White House and others while reviewing the court’s decision.
The state’s candidate qualifying period ended in March. The primary election is scheduled for Aug. 6.
Mississippi
Current House map: one Democrat, three Republicans
Mississippi held its U.S. House primaries in March. But the Supreme Court’s decision could affect elections for other offices.
Republican Gov. Tate Reeves announced previously that he would call a special legislative session to redraw voting districts for the state Supreme Court that would begin 21 days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Louisiana case. That would put the special session’s start at around May 20.
A federal judge last year ordered Mississippi to redraw its Supreme Court voting districts after finding that they violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters. Mississippi lawmakers had been waiting on a decision in the Louisiana case before moving forward, but their legislative session ended in April.
Reeves said in his proclamation that the Supreme Court’s decision would provide guidance to lawmakers on whether “race-conscious redistricting” violates the U.S. Constitution.
Georgia
Current House map: five Democrats, nine Republicans
Early in-person voting began April 27 and continues for the next few weeks ahead of Georgia’s primary elections on May 19.
Republican Gov. Brian Kemp said it’s too late for Georgia officials to try to change congressional districts for this year’s elections, because voting already is underway. But he said the rationale in the Supreme Court’s decision “requires Georgia to adopt new electoral maps before the 2028 election cycle.”
Lieb writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Jeff Amy and Kim Chandler contributed to this report.
Jason Gibbs: Republican, Santa Clarita City Council member, mechanical engineer
Gibbs has been a member of the Santa Clarita City Council since 2020 and was chosen by his peers to serve as the city’s mayor in 2023. He earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in mechanical engineering at Cal Poly and went on to work in the aerospace industry, according to his campaign website. He has lived in Santa Clarita for nearly a decade while raising two young children, his bio says, and has served on the local boards of the Boys and Girls Club, the Valley Industry Assn. and the Salvation Army.
George Whitesides: Democrat, incumbent
Whitesides defeated Republican incumbent Mike Garcia to represent the 27th Congressional District in 2024. Whitesides worked on President Obama’s transition team in 2008 and served as NASA chief of staff during the Obama administration, according to his campaign bio. He was the first chief executive of Virgin Galactic, co-founded Megafire Action, a nonprofit that advocates for legislation to address the growing problem of massive wildfires, and was a board member for the Antelope Valley Economic Development and Growth Enterprise, his bio says.
Sen. Flavio Bolsonaro (C), son of former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, celebrates with members of Congress a vote that could reduce the sentences for coup attempts imposed on his father and others, in Brasilia, Brazil, on Thursday. Photo by Andre Borges/EPA
May 1 (UPI) — Brazil’s Congress approved legislation that could significantly reduce prison sentences for former President Jair Bolsonaro and several supporters convicted over the 2023 attempted coup.
Both chambers of Congress voted Thursday by wide margins to overturn a veto by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, allowing changes to how sentences are served for crimes linked to coup attempts.
Local media described the vote as further evidence of tensions between Lula’s government and a Congress dominated by conservative factions.
Newspapers, including Estadão and Folha de S.Paulo, said lawmakers dealt a “double blow” to Lula in less than 24 hours after the Senate also rejected, for the first time in 130 years, a presidential nominee for Brazil’s Supreme Court.
The legislation would directly benefit Bolsonaro, who was sentenced to 27 years in prison for leading the alleged coup plot, as well as dozens of former officials and hundreds of demonstrators linked to the Jan. 8, 2023, assault on government institutions in Brasília.
After the congressional vote, Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro, the former president’s son and a presidential candidate, wrote on X that the decision “is the first step toward full justice for the political persecution victims of Jan. 8.”
“The defeat of the Workers’ Party is the victory of Brazil,” he added.
The measure focuses on changes to sentencing rules. By overturning Lula’s veto, lawmakers established that convicts would no longer serve cumulative sentences for each individual offense, such as criminal association or damage to public property.
Instead, courts would apply only the sentence tied to the most serious crime, sharply reducing total prison time.
In Bolsonaro’s case, the change would cut his sentence from 27 years to a maximum of 12 years. Under Brazilian law, inmates may qualify for legal benefits after serving part of their sentence, potentially allowing the former president to seek parole or the end of his house arrest within an estimated two to four years.
The law is expected to face challenges before the Supreme Federal Court on grounds that Congress may have overstepped judicial authority and violated constitutional principles by altering sentences tied to crimes against the state.
While the court reviews the measure’s constitutionality, judges could suspend its implementation, preventing any immediate reduction of Bolsonaro’s sentence until a final ruling is issued.
Bolsonaro, who has been under temporary humanitarian house arrest since March 27 after suffering bilateral pneumonia, was admitted Friday to DF Star Hospital in Brasília after authorization from Supreme Federal Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, according to local outlet G1 Globo.
The 71-year-old former president is scheduled to undergo shoulder surgery to repair a torn rotator cuff and related injuries.
The judicial developments come amid early campaigning ahead of Brazil’s October presidential election, where Flávio Bolsonaro is emerging as Lula’s main challenger. Several polls show the two tied in a potential runoff election.
LONDON — President Trump sang the praises of King Charles III after the monarch’s state visit this week. He even lifted some tariffs on Scotch whisky as a favor to the British monarch.
The king delivered a diplomatic master-class on the trip, mixing praise for his host with subtle criticism. It’s unclear, though, whether it will make a major difference to a trans-Atlantic relationship troubled by divisions over issues including the Iran war.
“In the short term probably yes, in the long term probably no,” said Kristofer Allerfeldt, a University of Exeter professor specializing in American history. But he said Charles had “definitely clawed back some of the prestige of the monarchy” in his homeland with his assured performance.
“He’s done us proud,” Allerfeldt said.
Like all royal visits, the four-day trip to Washington, New York and Virginia by the king and Queen Camilla was a carefully choreographed diplomatic event carried out at the request of the U.K. government. Timed to help mark the United States’ 250th birthday, it was a chance to heal rifts between the U.K. government and the Trump administration.
Trump has criticized Keir Starmer
The president has lambasted Prime Minister Keir Starmer — whom he once praised — over his unwillingness to join U.S. military attacks on Iran, dismissing Britain’s leader as “not Winston Churchill,” the World War II prime minister who coined the phrase “special relationship” for the U.K.-U.S. bond.
It’s part of a wider split between Trump and the United States’ NATO allies, whom he has called “cowards” and “useless” for not joining action against Iran.
None of that has soured Trump’s fondness for the British monarchy, which seems to have been deepened by the president’s unprecedented second state visit to the U.K. in September.
Some U.K. opposition politicians had called for the king’s reciprocal trip to be canceled, lest the president do or say something to embarrass the monarch.
In the end, there was much warmth and few awkward moments — though Trump did not always adhere to the convention that conversations with the monarch should remain private.
At a white-tie state dinner on Tuesday, Trump said “Charles agrees with me, even more than I do” that Iran must never have nuclear weapons.
Trump also said that “if that were up to him,” the king “would have followed the suggestions we made with respect to Ukraine.”
Buckingham Palace appeared relaxed about Trump’s Iran comment, noting that “the king is naturally mindful of his government’s longstanding and well-known position on the prevention of nuclear proliferation.”
The king’s speech chided Trump policies
On Ukraine, however, differences were clear. The U.K. has been one of Kyiv’s strongest supporters in its fight against Russia’s invasion, and in a speech to Congress the king underscored the importance of the need for “unyielding resolve” to support Ukraine.
It was one of several implicit rebukes to the “America first” U.S. administration in the speech, the centerpiece moment of the trip.
With regal understatement and in a cut-glass accent, Charles stressed the essential role of NATO, the importance of checks on executive power, the threat posed by climate change and the strength drawn from “vibrant, diverse and free societies.” He spoke of his pride at having served in the Royal Navy, a force Trump has disparaged.
“It’s difficult to imagine he could have gone much further in what he said and what he didn’t say,” historian Anthony Seldon told The Guardian. “He judged it incredibly well: very brave, very smart, very clever.”
Allerfeldt noted the “extraordinary” reception from both sides of the political aisle to the speech, which drew multiple standing ovations.
“Apart from the section on the natural world and the environment, both Republicans and Democrats stood up and applauded,” he said.
In a less formal speech at the state banquet, the king even drew laughs when he joked about British troops burning down the White House in 1814.
The king alluded to Epstein’s victims
The trip was judged a success despite the shadow of the king’s younger brother Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who has been stripped of his royal title of Prince Andrew, exiled from public life and put under police investigation over his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. He has denied committing any crimes.
Epstein victims had urged the king to meet with them and other sexual abuse survivors. He didn’t, but he did refer obliquely to the issue in his speech to Congress, mentioning the need to “support victims of some of the ills that, so tragically, exist in both our societies today.”
Andrew Lownie, author of a biography of the former Prince Andrew called “Entitled,” praised the speech as “the best defense of the monarchy in years.”
After the royal couple left the U.S., Trump announced he was lifting certain tariffs on Scotch “in honor of the King and Queen of the United Kingdom.”
Buckingham Palace toasted the announcement, saying the king “sends his sincere gratitude for a decision that will make an important difference to the British whisky industry and the livelihoods it supports.”
Trump called the king “a phenomenal representative” for his country, before turning back to a familiar theme: criticizing Starmer.
The president told Sky News that Charles is “a much different person than your prime minister.
“Your prime minister has to learn to deal the way he deals, and he’ll do a lot better,” he said.
The military government in Myanmar announced former leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, seen here in 2019, has been moved from prison to house arrest. File Photo by How Hwee Young/EPA
May 1 (UPI) — The military government in Myanmar announced former leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who was ousted in 2021, has been moved from prison to house arrest.
Military leader Min Aung Hlaing released a statement to state media saying 80-year-old Aung San Suu Kyi, who was sentenced to 27 years in prison after the military coup, will serve the remainder of her sentence on house arrest at an undisclosed location.
Aung San Suu Kyi’s party came to power in 2015. She had previously spent decades as a pro-democracy activist, leading to her spending more than 15 years under house arrest. She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts in 1991.
Her whereabouts since being convicted on charges including corruption and election fraud in 2021 have not been confirmed, but it is believed that she was being held at a military prison in Nay Pyi Taw, the nation’s capital.
The former leader’s son, Kim Aris, said he is skeptical of the announcement. He said a photo of his mother recently released by the military is “meaningless” as it was taken in 2022.
“I hope this is true. I still haven’t seen any real evidence to show that she has been moved,” Kim Aris told the BBC. “So, until I’m allowed communication with her, or somebody can independently verify her condition and her whereabouts, then I won’t believe anything.”
WASHINGTON — When Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin was questioned by senators during his confirmation hearing about his vision for implementing President Trump’s mass deportation agenda, he said his goal was to keep his department off the front pages of the news.
To some degree, he has. Gone are the social media video clips of now-retired Border Patrol commander Greg Bovino clashing with protesters. Mullin’s predecessor, Kristi Noem, made her first trip as secretary to New York City to make arrests with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In contrast, Mullin went to North Carolina to review hurricane recovery efforts.
The Republican administration appears to be recalibrating its approach to a centerpiece policy that helped bring Trump back to the White House, moving in many ways away from aggressive, public-facing tactics toward a quieter approach to enforcement. Despite that shift, the administration insists it is not backing down from its lofty deportation goals.
“Clearly they’ve stepped back from the, for want of a better word, the Bovinoist tactics of before,” said Mark Krikorian, the president of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for immigration restrictions. “But it’s not clear this means they’re actually stepping back from immigration.”
The Trump administration launched a series of immigration enforcement operations last year in mostly Democratic-led cities, which drove up arrests in large-scale sweeps. The crackdown sparked clashes between protesters and enforcement officers and led to the shooting deaths in Minneapolis of two U.S. citizens.
Since then, the president’s hard-line anti-immigration agenda has lost popularity with voters and there have been no new high-profile city-based operations launched, raising questions about the administration’s strategy.
“We’re still enforcing immigration laws. We’re still deporting illegals that shouldn’t be here. We’re still going after the worst of the worst — but we’re doing it in a more quiet way,” Mullin said in an interview April 16 with CNBC.
Immigration arrests have dropped, but deportation goals remain
ICE arrests have fallen in recent months, and the number of people in immigration detention has dropped from a high of roughly 72,000 in January to 58,000 this week, according to data obtained by The Associated Press.
But in a sign of its continued determination, ICE in budget documents says it plans to remove 1 million people this fiscal year and the next compared with roughly 442,000 people last year. The agency also has plenty of money to carry out its mission, with Congress granting the Department of Homeland Security more than $170 billion for Trump’s immigration agenda last year.
The administration aims to have enough space to detain roughly 100,000 people this fiscal year, which would more than double the average daily number held in ICE detention last year. The administration has already expanded its detention capacity with the purchase of 11 warehouses across the country.
“They are working on really building a juggernaut of a system,” said Doris Meissner, who headed the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, a predecessor to ICE, during President Bill Clinton’s Democratic administration and is now a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute.
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said there had been no change to Trump’s strategy.
“President Trump’s highest priority has always been the deportation of illegal alien criminals who endanger American communities,” Jackson said.
ICE did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
Stripping away legal protections to ramp up deportations
Advocates for immigrants are bracing for the Trump administration to turn its attention more intently to stripping away protections for migrants with temporary legal status to remain in the U.S. while their cases are being adjudicated.
In one example of this, the number of green cards approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services dropped by half over the course of a year under the Trump administration, according to an analysis by the Cato Institute, which supports immigration into the U.S. Humanitarian visas for refugees or people who qualified for asylum saw the biggest declines.
USCIS spokesman Zach Kahler said the drop was due to increased vetting of applicants by the administration.
The Trump administration has also pushed to strip Temporary Protected Status from hundreds of thousands of people, with a key case weighing whether it’s overstepped its power to do so being heard at the Supreme Court this week.
Advocates see it as a way to send a chilling message to immigrant communities and make more people vulnerable to deportation. It also enables the department to operate without the public spectacle of workplace raids or home arrests.
ICE has also focused over the past year on creating agreements with jurisdictions around the country that allow local and state law enforcement to carry out an expanding array of immigration enforcement tasks, ranging from checking the immigration status of people in their jails to incorporating immigration checks during routine traffic stops.
These agreements, known as 287g, have grown from 135 in 20 states before Trump took office to more than 1,400 in 41 states and territories now.
Some states, most noticeably Florida and Texas, have mandated various forms of cooperation between local law enforcement and ICE.
Meissner, from MPI, said Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, is likely to prioritize further discussions about how cities and states can cooperate with ICE.
“At the end of the day, some of this may very well succeed in increasing the numbers,” Meissner said.
Calls to enforce work restrictions
Conservatives who want more deportations say the only way to truly crack down on illegal immigration is to make it so difficult for the migrants to work that they’ll leave on their own.
The Trump administration has already taken steps to make life harder for people in the country illegally including limiting who can live in public housing by immigration status, sharing Medicaid information with ICE and requiring people in the country illegally to register with the federal government.
Krikorian, of the Center for Immigration Studies, said the Social Security Administration could send out letters alerting employers when an employee’s name doesn’t match their Social Security number. Authorities could repeatedly and consistently carry out audits of I-9 forms, which companies are supposed to fill out and submit to the federal government showing that new hires are legally able to work. And they could require banks to collect citizenship information on customers.
Whatever the strategy going forward, the administration is facing heavy pressure not to back away from its goals.
“The numbers are too low,” said Mike Howell, part of the Mass Deportation Coalition, which launched a playbook for how the administration can actually get to a million deportations a year by using tactics such as worksite enforcement.
“The deportation numbers are just too low,” Howell said, “and they need to be much higher, and they can be much higher.”
Santana writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Lisa Mascaro and Will Weissert contributed to this report.
Across the country, debates over voter identification laws have become a flash point in broader fights about election security and voting access.
Supporters of voter ID laws say they are needed to prevent election fraud and ensure only eligible voters cast ballots. Critics argue there is little evidence of noncitizens voting and say the requirements instead would reduce voter participation in elections.
Under California law, voters in the state are not required to show or provide identification when casting a ballot in person or by mail. The state does require ID when registering to vote, and residents must swear under penalty of perjury that they are eligible to vote and they are a U.S. citizen.
Weber has opposed proposals that would require voters to show identification in order to cast a ballot. She and many Democratic leaders argue that voter ID laws can create barriers for eligible voters, particularly those who may not have easy access to government-issued identification.
Weber believes Voter ID efforts are meant to sow doubt in the integrity of the elections system.
“When you really get to it, Voter ID is a smoke screen for trying to create the idea that this is a corrupt system,” she said.
Weber instead supports policies aimed at expanding participation among eligible voters, including vote-by-mail ballots and automatic registration.
Conversely, Wagner wants the state to require voters to show ID at the polls. He argues that requiring identification would strengthen public trust in election results and align California with practices used in many other states. He said it’s patronizing to minorities when critics argue it’s hard for them to get identification.
“You need an ID to drive,” he said. “You need an ID to fly in a plane. You need one to buy alcohol. You need it to buy tobacco.”
Wagner has been working with proponents of the Voter ID ballot measure to raise money and helped gather signatures. That statewide ballot measure would require state or local elections officials to verify that Californians registering to vote are U.S. citizens by “using government data,” which according to supporters could include information in the federal Social Security Administration database, jury summons information and other government records.
“What I’m pledging the people of California is that if they pass voter ID, I will protect it. I will sue if I have to,” Wagner said. “If I am secretary of state, I will implement it and hold the registrars accountable and hold my office and myself accountable for doing the will of the people.”
In an era of 150-page novels in 14-point font, and books on Venezuela’s recent history that feel like overly long opinion pieces, Ulises Milla’s Editorial Alfa opted for something entirely different: a chronicle of how chavismo took over the Venezuelan State between 1999 and 2004, the product of ten years of research, divided into two volumes totaling more than 1,400 pages.
It is titled La oscuridad no llegó sola (no English translation yet), taken from a line by a Colombian poet, and has a subtitle that speaks volumes: “chronicle of a Venezuelan tragedy.” Yes, it is a chronicle in the broadest sense of the term, a systematic and multifaceted account that protects a series of events from oblivion in a specific era. It is also a Venezuelan tragedy, one among many, in which everything leads to an unhappy ending that seems inevitable, as in those of Aeschylus or Sophocles.
There is a classical feel to Mirtha Rivero’s new work, not only because she has drawn on literary genres that are over two millennia old, but also because it is a book that took a long time to write, one made to transcend time. For this reader, it is another essential text about our past, like José Domingo Díaz’s chronicles of the First and Second Republics or Lisandro Alvarado’s Historia de la Revolución Federal, and certainly like Rivero’s previous work: the bestseller La rebelión de los náufragos, published in 2010. It does not attempt to impose a personal thesis, defend one side or one figure, or propose a solution to the nation’s ills. It is an effort to understand how things happened, on a scale vast enough to allow the patterns of behavior developed by political actors over those years to emerge.
For those of us who experienced these events firsthand, through the media, La oscuridad no llegó sola still reveals aspects of the story we didn’t know, thanks to the quantity and quality of its sources. For those who were too young, it is an unparalleled document on how the traditional political class underestimated chavismo, how chavismo took advantage of the negligence and frivolity of its adversaries to seize control of institutions, and how the anti-politics we saw explode in La rebelión de los náufragos helped demolish what little remained of that democracy, which committed suicide, or allowed itself to die. A tragedy that, with its variations, has happened before. And that will very likely happen again. La oscuridad no llegó sola by Mirtha Rivero is available on Amazon and in bookstores in Spain. From Monterrey, Mexico, where she has lived for several years, the economics journalist who is showing how Venezuela’s contemporary history must be written spoke with Caracas Chronicles.
I want to start with the moment when La rebelión de los náufragos was published, had the impact it did, and you began the journey that led to these two volumes. You addressed this in the preface to La oscuridad no llegó sola, but what was the process like for defining not only the 1999-2004 timeframe, but also the questions you wanted to answer?
After La rebelión de los náufragos was published, I didn’t immediately consider any other topics. It was the third book I had written, but it was the first one that was published, and its reception changed my way of working. It was like a shock. For a year and a half, I couldn’t think about another “topic” because I was adapting to that new reality. It was in mid-June 2011 that another topic emerged. I wanted to answer a question: What happened in the 2004 recall referendum? For me, it was personally very important because, as a result, my husband and I began looking for a new place to live. Did voting fraud occur or not? What was it like? How did we get to that point? So I marked the period: from Chávez’s inauguration on February 2, 1999, until the day of the referendum, August 15, 2004.
It wasn’t so much that chavismo was pressuring the Supreme Court, but rather that a large part of society favored a Constituent Assembly.
I had to go back quite far because Chávez didn’t appear out of nowhere. Nor did other figures: the architects who helped him set up his political machine, those who accompanied him from that day forward, and those who had been with him even before the 1992 uprisings didn’t appear out of nowhere. They all have a past and a reason for being there, just like the people who kept appearing in my research. I confirmed along the way that during those years, the foundations were laid and the entire structure that allows chavismo to endure was built. As I guide my narrative, I realize that I not only have to look back, but that I often force myself to project into the future. For example, I look back when I discuss the oil industry, which is an important topic in my chronicle, but I also look forward when someone talks about the changes in the judicial sphere that the 1999 Constitution imposed, and I’m going to the trial against Judge Afiuni in 2009.
I see. For me, La oscuridad no llegó sola is a twin of La rebelión de los náufragos, in its structure, its tone, and its intention: first, you show how the political class sacrificed democracy with Carlos Andrés Pérez and paved the way for chavismo, and now we see how it overestimated its own strength and underestimated Chávez. Was describing this hall of mirrors the plan, or did it emerge during the research?
It wasn’t the plan. I didn’t see it as a continuation, nor as a hall of mirrors: it turned out that way, the story led me there. Exploring the recall referendum was actually a pretext for me to delve into that era, which I was afraid of. What was important was what happened before the referendum. How the referendum was repeatedly postponed until Chavismo had all institutions and powers under its control, which culminated in the expansion of the Supreme Court, and how it was able to regain popular support through direct subsidies via the social missions. How the opposition promoted the recall referendum without having a candidate to challenge Chavismo if Chávez lost and elections were held.
What did you learn, while writing this book, about the ability of the various opposition leaders to interpret reality? Do you share the common opinion that popular support for Chávez was underestimated in 1998 and 1999?
I was very surprised by their inability to see what was right in front of them. We had already seen how short-sighted the political parties were, their reluctance to form and renew themselves, since the 1980s. This is evident in the conspiracy against Carlos Andrés Pérez in 1993, based on a check from the secret fund that had been annulled in 1989 and was used against him in 1992; in the corruption accusations made by (future chavista minister) José Vicente Rangel; in the resistance to the reforms of the Presidential Commission for State Reform; and in the insistence of the old leaders on remaining political bosses.
There were people who knew who this Hugo Chávez they were opposing really was, but even so, there were those clumsy last-minute maneuvers in the 1998 campaign, and they weren’t prepared for the scenario in which Congress would be eliminated, as Chávez himself had said would happen. They acted with great carelessness in the face of Chávez’s rise: society, the political parties, and even a political animal like Teodoro Petkoff underestimated him. I was very surprised that they didn’t know how to confront the lieutenant colonel, the authoritarian tendencies that came with him, the power-hungry Left that accompanied him, the people who applauded the military coup attempts of 1992. They offered no resistance when Chavismo abolished Congress, taking advantage of the anti-political sentiment that had also been brewing since the 1980s. The lack of vision, and even of any statesman-like discourse, on the part of the politicians, did surprise me greatly.
One of the book’s many achievements was to unearth and trace a somewhat forgotten but key episode: how the Supreme Court accepted the Constituent Assembly’s suspension of the Legislative Branch. Did that also surprise you, how they paved the way for the dissolution of the separation of powers? How much pressure was chavismo exerting on the Supreme Court?
It didn’t surprise me that much, because we experienced it firsthand. The chavistas had just come to power and were barely learning how to use it, and they couldn’t exert pressure before Chávez took office on February 2, 1999. It wasn’t so much that chavismo was pressuring the Supreme Court, but rather that a large part of society favored a Constituent Assembly, even though a constitutional reform would have sufficed. Many people believed that this Constituent Assembly would save the country, to create a new, bright, efficient nation. Everyone was riding that wave. As Simón Alberto Consalvi said, we cannot absolve the people of their decisions.
Some of your interviewees, as expected, fall into hindsight bias: assigning to certain moments a meaning that we see today but that wasn’t easy to discern then. For example, everyone in your book says they knew the 2002-2003 strike was a bad idea, but that “the majority decided”: Didn’t you yourself fall into hindsight bias? Because when I write about those years, I have to tell myself, “Remember what you thought then about the 2002 general strike, not what you think today.”
One can always fall into that bias because one isn’t objective, pristine, but I was very careful about that and made an effort to compare the accounts. Because many interviewees told me things that didn’t happen as they said; they were mixing what others had told them with what they would have liked to have happened. My own interpretations of a particular moment fell apart as I investigated. Sometimes the same scene had six different testimonies, and I had to cross-reference them, sometimes going back to the witnesses to confirm or discuss parts of their story. The good thing is that I encountered very little reluctance from the interviewees, although of course there were people who didn’t want to talk, who stood me up, and I even made trips for nothing.
Both the oil workers and the dissident military officers were convinced they were right and that they could convince some people, while these people already had a plan in place.
With those I did talk to, I sometimes confronted them, because now it turns out, for example, that nobody agreed with the national civic strike, or as we called it then, the “oil strike.” But the investigation was able to determine who truly resisted, and how society pressured for a repeat of what happened on April 11, even though it was so unlikely to have any effect.
April 11, 2002, is like the novel Rashomon; the same event is seen differently depending on many perspectives. But it’s quite well documented; much less known is what happened within PDVSA, and you contributed a lot to those of us who aren’t familiar with the oil world. How do you see today the role played by the oil executives when they decided to step outside their bubble?
Within that bubble were people like Edgar Paredes and Juan Santana who, having been involved in university politics, were politically savvy. They knew their place and what might happen, but also what they needed to do. They created that protest movement to rescue PDVSA. Society joined them because, in reality, it used the PDVSA conflict as an excuse to protest many other things, but the oil workers were trying to defend their company because, ever since Chávez was elected in ’98, they saw him as a threat. Naively, they believed they could change the policies because they came from a school of thought where debate and consensus were reached. But even during the 2002 strike, they continued fighting to rescue PDVSA. They were fighting for the country too, but to rescue the country, they believed, PDVSA had to be rescued. The same was true for the soldiers in Plaza Altamira. Right or wrong, they wanted to rescue the FAN (National Armed Forces) where they had made their careers, without understanding that they couldn’t, because the first political prisoners of chavismo were military personnel.
The idea that Chávez also provoked the April 11th march, or the movement to crush it, is a narrative he fabricated after those events.
Both the oil workers and the dissident military officers were convinced they were right and that they could convince some people, while these people already had a plan in place. They thought that the truth would prevail and that the people would act for the good of the country. But that wasn’t meant to happen. They suffered a lack of understanding of the country’s political history, of what the 1992 coups meant. Because they were caught up in their own business, in what they knew. In fact, not all the oil workers or the military saw Chávez as a threat and voted for him in 1998, like a large part of the country.
Reading the book, I came to feel more empathy for what the oil workers and even certain military personnel, did than for what the politicians did.
Because they actually did more than the politicians in terms of trying to rescue their respective organizations. With all their naiveté, the oil workers and the military did force others to act. They gave their all to try to save not only their professional world, but democracy itself.
The book makes it clear that Chávez sought out conflicts, he provoked them. Even the massacres, not to mention the strikes: he sought out battles because he saw them (and he was right) as opportunities to wipe out pockets of resistance. Right? Do you see this as a pattern that connects everything from the 2001 enabling legislation to the recall referendum?
Chávez sought out battles because it was his way of life. He always said, like Pinochet, that he was a soldier. I believe he launched the enabling legislation package in 2001 to impose his agenda, not to provoke, because I don’t think he knew it would generate such strong resistance, even though there had already been protests since 2000. He introduced those laws at the last minute and without consulting anyone because he was an authoritarian who believed he was the center of the world. The idea that he also provoked the April 11th march, or the movement to crush it, is a narrative he fabricated after those events. He knew there were disaffected military officers and expected a classic coup, which he planned to counter with civilians, but he didn’t provoke it, because in fact, his intelligence services ultimately failed him. Just as there are people who, after the strike failed, said they never agreed with it, he rewrote history to impose the narrative that everything was his agenda. But many things surprised him, even though he eventually managed to navigate each situation. However, after April 11th, he did dedicate himself to provoking conflicts, now with the advice of Fidel Castro, and surrounded by radicals like Alí Rodríguez Araque.
Another pattern I noticed is the persistence of anti-politics, how distrust of political parties shaped different situations. And you get the feeling that this still resonates with people, that three decades after the 1990s, anti-politics continues to define us, right?
The parties were already badly weakened, following a decline that began in the mid-1980s, and even more so after what happened with Pérez II. Their crisis became impossible to hide by the second year of Chávez’s presidency, but anti-politics was very much present during Chávez’s election itself, before that night of April 11, 2002, when decisions were made driven by the desire to remove politicians from important matters. Although politicians met, participated in discussion groups, and sought solutions on their own, such as promoting Adán Celis as transitional president, anti-politics was pervasive across all sectors and prevailed among the main actors who attempted to remove Chávez from power in 2002. The book includes testimonies from politicians who recount how the media favored the opinions of emerging civil society actors who viewed politicians as corrupt and stuck in the past. And yes, as you say, this continues today. Those in power still promote this idea of politicians as a corrupt caste that led the country to ruin. Because it’s very easy to blame politicians for something in which the citizenry also played a part.
Vote-by-mail ballots will not be forwarded to a new address, so your ballot will be returned to your local county election office if you haven’t updated your voter registration.
The Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk recommends voters who have been impacted or displaced by wildfires update their mailing address or request a replacement ballot be sent to their temporary address or new permanent address. Los Angeles County residents can follow a guide created for Pacific Palisades and Altadena fire survivors online. Residents can also make updates by phone by calling the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office at (800) 815-2666, Option 2.
You also can update your mailing address by re-registering to vote online. In the “residential address” section, enter your former place of residence and in the “mailing address” section, check the box that says your mailing address is different from your home address and then enter your temporary mailing address.
