WASHINGTON — House lawmakers were digging into Jeffrey Epstein’s sprawling financial portfolio on Wednesday as a committee deposed his former accountant and tried to understand his connections to some of the world’s wealthiest men.
Richard Kahn, who worked closely with Epstein for years and now serves as an executor of his estate, appeared for the closed-door deposition on Capitol Hill. He told lawmakers that he had not personally seen evidence of Epstein’s sexual abuse, but provided a fuller picture of how Epstein acquired his wealth. The wealthy financier made hundreds of millions of dollars over two decades, during which he struck up friendships with some of the world’s most powerful men.
Kahn “was under the impression that Epstein made his money as a tax advisor and a financial planner,” said Rep. James Comer, the Republican chair of the House Oversight Committee. Lawmakers argued that a fuller picture of Epstein’s finances could help the public understand how, for years, he was able to get away with trafficking and sexually abusing underage girls.
“Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking ring would not have been possible without Richard Kahn, who managed Epstein’s money for years, authorized payments, including payments to victims and survivors,” said Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), who added that Kahn told them he was unable to recall details of some of the transactions and communications that he was asked about.
Kahn has said that he was unaware of Epstein’s sexual abuse and had not seen any of his victims.
Comer (R-Ky.) also said that lawmakers confirmed during the deposition that Epstein received significant amounts of money from former retail shopping chain executive Les Wexner, hedge fund manager Glenn Dubin, tech entrepreneur Steven Sinofsky, investor Leon Black and the Rothschilds, a wealthy banking family.
None of those people have been accused of wrongdoing in their relationships with Epstein, but Democrats on the committee argued that anyone with ties to the wealthy financier should be scrutinized. Wexner was deposed by the committee last month, and Comer has also called on Black, among several others, to appear for transcribed interviews.
Kahn also told lawmakers that Epstein had financial ties to Ehud Barak, who was the prime minister of Israel from 1999 to 2001, according to Democratic Rep. Suhas Subramanyam. Barak has not been accused of wrongdoing and has said he regrets his friendship with Epstein.
Comer also said Wednesday that the committee has reviewed over 40,000 documents that it subpoenaed from JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank. Epstein was connected to at least 64 business entities, according to Comer.
Republican President Trump has strongly denied any wrongdoing in his own ties to Epstein, and Comer said that Kahn had never seen any financial transactions between Epstein and Trump. Comer said that Kahn is the latest witness to testify that they had never seen Trump doing anything wrong with Epstein.
“The investigation’s about getting the truth to the American people, trying to figure out how the government failed, answer questions we all have,” Comer said.
SANTA FE, N.M. — Democratic-led states alarmed by the prospect of federal immigration officers patrolling the polls during this year’s midterm elections are taking steps to counter what they see as a potential tactic to intimidate voters.
New Mexico this week became the first state to bar armed agents from polling locations in response to President Trump’s immigration crackdown, a step being considered in at least half a dozen other Democratic-led states.
The moves highlight a deep distrust toward the Trump administration from blue states, which have been the target of his aggressive immigration tactics while threatened with military deployments and deep cuts in federal funding. Their concerns were heightened after the president suggested he wants to nationalize U.S. elections, even though the Constitution says it’s the states that run elections.
The Trump administration said it has no plans to deploy immigration agents to polling locations. Last month, the heads of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol told a congressional committee “No, sir” when asked if they had any plans to guard polling places. The Department of Homeland Security’s deputy assistant secretary for election integrity, Heather Honey, recently told secretaries of state it “is simply not true” that immigration agents will be at the polls this year.
But a group of eight secretaries of state wants that in writing from the nominee to succeed Kristi Noem as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. In a letter Monday to Trump’s new pick to lead the agency, Markwayne Mullin, the group pressed for assurances “that ICE will not have a presence at polling locations during the 2026 election cycle.”
Federal law already prohibits the deployment of armed federal forces to election locations unless “necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States,” but Democratic lawmakers, election officials and governors remain concerned.
“The fear is that the Trump administration will attempt to evoke a national emergency or execute some other deployment of federal agents or military troops in order to interfere with elections and intimidate voters,” said Connecticut Democratic state Rep. Matt Blumenthal, co-author of a state bill to establish a 250-foot buffer from federal agents at local polls and other restrictions on federal intervention. “And we’re not going to let that happen.”
A potential clash between states and the federal government
Other bills seeking to ban immigration agents at the polls are pending in Democratic-led states, large and small, from California to Rhode Island.
In Virginia, lawmakers are weighing legislation that could prevent federal civil immigration officials from making arrests within 40 feet of any polling place or courthouse. But the provision on polling sites remains under negotiation, and it’s unclear whether it will be in the final bill.
The newly signed law in New Mexico prohibits orders that put any armed person in the “civil, military or naval service of the United States” at local polling locations and related parking areas, or within 50 feet of a monitored ballot box, from the start of early voting.
Under New Mexico’s new law, which takes effect in May and will be in place for the state’s June 2 primary, people who experience intimidation or obstruction at the polls from federal agents or military personnel can file a civil lawsuit seeking relief in state courts. State prosecutors and local and state election officials also can sue, and the courts can apply fines of up to $50,000 per violation.
It also prohibits changes to voting qualifications and election rules and procedures that conflict with New Mexico law, as Trump prods the U.S. Senate to approve a bill to impose strict new proof-of-citizenship requirements in elections nationwide.
Any state measures intended to counter federal election law will face legal hurdles because of the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution, which says federal law supersedes state law.
“It could set up a direct clash between state governments and the federal government. We don’t know exactly how that’s going to go,” said Richard Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at the UCLA School of Law. “Given the supremacy clause, there’s only so much states can do.”
‘We will hold free and fair elections’
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said her own distrust of the Trump administration in election oversight stems from ongoing Department of Justice efforts to get detailed state voter data without explaining why and Trump’s continuing false claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
“Do I believe the federal government and people in the White House? No,” said Lujan Grisham, who terms out of office at the end of 2026.
“We are sending a message to everyone: We will hold free and fair elections, and New Mexicans will be safe in every ballot location and that’s our responsibility,” the Democrat said Tuesday during a news conference. “The Constitution says the states run their elections, and that bill makes that painfully re-clear to the federal government.”
Federal seizure of ballots and election records is a growing concern
New Mexico Republicans, who are in the minority in the legislature, voted in unison against the bill.
“I would question strongly why we have to do this other than just to have to poke the president in the eye,” state GOP Sen. Bill Sharer of Farmington said during floor debate.
State Sen. Katy Duhigg, an Albuquerque Democrat who was a co-sponsor of the legislation, said it’s “better safe than sorry with democracy.” She said she wanted to “make sure that there was some sort of tool that our local law enforcement would have at their disposal if something does happen, if the federal government does in some manner try to interfere with our elections.”
Connecticut’s bill, scheduled for a hearing later this week, also takes aim at federal attempts to seize ballots or other election material. It would require that state officials receive notification of such a move.
Blumenthal said state lawmakers can’t prevent seizures such as the January search by the FBI on an election center in Fulton County, Ga., a Democratic stronghold that includes Atlanta. But he said, “there might be an opportunity for our state attorney general’s office or the secretary of the state’s office to challenge that.”
Lee and Haigh write for the Associated Press. Haigh reported from Hartford, Conn. AP writer Oliva Diaz in Richmond, Va., and David A. Lieb in Jefferson City, Mo., contributed to this report.
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (pictured) and right-wing Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro are each polling 41% in a potential runoff election. Photo by Sebastiao Moreira/EPA
March 12 (UPI) — Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and right-wing Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro are tied for the first time for a potential runoff after the Oct. 4 presidential election, according to a poll released Wednesday. A runoff would be Oct. 25.
The survey found each candidate with 41% support in a hypothetical second round.
Bolsonaro, a member of the Liberal Party and son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, leads among voters who identify as independent, a shift that could give him an edge.
Among independents, Bolsonaro gained 6 percentage points and would lead Lula 32% to 27% in a runoff scenario. Another 36% said they would not vote and 5% were undecided.
The gap between the two candidates has narrowed steadily, from 10 points in December to seven in January, five in February and zero in March, according to the survey conducted by polling firm Quaest and commissioned by Genial Investimentos.
Similar trends have appeared in other recent polls. A Datafolha survey published Saturday showed Lula with 46% support compared with 43% for Bolsonaro.
Quaest tested first- and second-round scenarios with eight potential candidates. In first-round simulations, Lula leads in two scenarios and is statistically tied with Bolsonaro in five others. Lula’s support ranges between 36% and 39%, while Bolsonaro’s support ranges between 30% and 35%.
Felipe Nunes, Quaest’s director, said Bolsonaro’s gradual rise began after his father publicly named him as a potential candidate in December.
“Flávio has managed to consolidate Bolsonaro’s electorate. He has grown among right-wing voters and improved his performance among independent voters,” Nunes said, according to news website O Globo.
The poll also showed worsening public assessments of the government and the economy.
Both Lula and Bolsonaro face high rejection rates, with 56% of respondents saying they would not vote for Lula and 55% saying the same about Bolsonaro.
“The shift over time is striking. In December, Lula had much greater potential and lower rejection. Now, both have similar levels,” Nunes said.
The survey found 48% of Brazilians believe the economy has worsened over the past 12 months, while 24% say it has improved. In February, negative perceptions stood at 43%.
WASHINGTON — Republican and Democratic senators vented their frustrations with the lack of progress in funding the Department of Homeland Security, which is resulting in more Americans enduring long lines at airports around the country. It’s a problem that is expected to intensify as the impasse enters its fourth week.
Democrats stressed they were willing to fund some of Homeland Security, but not Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well as Customs and Border Protection, without changes in their operations. Republicans made clear that some of the Democratic demands were a non-starter. The result was that each party blocked the other’s proposal for temporarily resolving the standoff during an hours-long debate Wednesday on the Senate floor.
The stark divide over a shutdown that began on Feb. 14 was acknowledged by members on both sides of the political aisle.
“We are in a negotiation. However, we are not close,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said at one point. “You may think this is some issue that we think we’re going to turn to our political advantage, but I promise you, when we saw Renee Good and Alex Pretti killed, this became an issue that was beyond politics.”
“And there are a lot of us who are not going to provide resources to this agency that is acting in such a ways that makes citizens of the United States so unsafe.”
Some Republicans were just as adamant that they oppose some of the changes Democrats are seeking to make.
“Let me be clear, we are going to do nothing — nothing — that kneecaps ICE’s ability to enforce our immigration laws,” said Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.).
Following the longest federal shutdown in the country’s history last year, Congress completed work on 11 of this year’s 12 appropriations bills. Only the bill for Homeland Security remains outstanding.
Democrats are seeking several changes at the department that include prohibiting ICE enforcement operations at sensitive locations like schools and churches, allowing independent investigations into alleged wrongdoing, requiring warrants to be signed by judges before federal agents can forcibly enter private homes or other nonpublic spaces without consent, and requiring agents to wear identification and remove their masks.
A push for more talks
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said his side has made repeated overtures to Democrats on a funding bill. He said the last offer on Homeland Security funding came from the White House nearly two weeks ago and there has been no response from the Democrats.
“Usually, around here, in order to get a deal, there has to be a negotiation where the two sides sit down together,” Thune said. “And my understanding is that has been completely rebuffed by the senator from Washington.”
The senator Thune was referring to, Sen. Patty Murray, the lead Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said she’s continued to talk with Republican colleagues, but those aren’t “real negotiations.” The White House needs to be at the table for that to occur. She said she needed assurance that Stephen Miller, the influential White House deputy chief of staff, would not upend any agreements that senators reach.
“I am willing to talk to people, but I’m not willing to sit in a room, have coffee, give away a few things and have Stephen Miller override whatever we all agree to,” Murray said. “ … We need to know the White House is serious.”
Homeland Security has been central to President Trump’s sweeping changes in immigration enforcement. Under Trump, the number of people ICE arrests and detains each month has climbed dramatically. The tactics that ICE has employed have generated alarm among Democrats, and some Republicans have also called for a more “strategic” approach.
During bipartisan negotiations earlier this year, appropriators agreed to a Homeland Security funding bill that did include more resources for de-escalation training and $20 million to outfit immigration enforcement agents with body-worn cameras. But that deal unraveled after the Pretti shooting in Minneapolis.
“My side was not going to stand down and say, ‘oh well, nothing happened,’” Murray said.
For the second time in two weeks, Murray offered a proposal to fund all of Homeland Security except for ICE and Customs and Border Protection, but Republicans objected.
Similarly, Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) offered a proposal to fund all of Homeland Security for two weeks so that federal workers could get paid and government operations could continue while the two sides negotiate their differences on immigration enforcement. This time, Democrats objected.
The result was the standoff continues, but lawmakers were at least talking to each other, perhaps one small sign of progress.
Shutdown strains air travel
The large majority of the more than 260,000 employees at Homeland Security continue to work but are going unpaid. It’s the second time in recent months they’ve had to work without pay after last fall’s record, 43-day shutdown. The most visible sign of the shutdown has been a shortage of Transportation Security Administration screeners at airports.
Houston’s secondary airport weathered the worst problems, with lines consistently lasting over three hours for much of Sunday and Monday. Passengers also had to wait more than an hour to get through security at several other airports, including in New Orleans and Atlanta.
Homeland Security in a social media post Wednesday blamed Democrats for a shutdown that “has led to HOURS long security lines at airports across the country, leading Americans to miss their spring break flights.”
Trade groups are also worried about the economic impact of the travel delays. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce called on Congress to quickly approve a funding bill and end the department’s shutdown.
“Blocking operational funding and paychecks for those who help us travel safely is wrong and strains the air travel system,” said Neil Bradley, the business group’s executive vice president and chief policy officer.
A longer version of this piece in Spanish was published on Marisela’s Substack.
After the systemic rupture that the US incursion of January 3 represents, chavismo has embarked on its third great metamorphosis, carrying out a profound reengineering in a context of tutelage and transactional pragmatism. In my view, the Venezuelan State is undergoing a deep transformation rather than facing an imminent transition to democracy. Nevertheless, the government of Delcy Rodríguez is pursuing this transformation with remarkable speed and bluntness.
The survival of the chavista system has required the sacrifice of its original forms, forcing a mutation that uses economic opening as social anesthesia and the sophistication of repression as a guarantee of stability.
From the oil embargo on Cuba to microeconomic measures that we will discuss in the following lines, these milestones are the material proof of a power that has chosen to fill itself with realism, and to sacrifice its traditional epic narrative.
The case of Alex Saab and friends
A most scandalous event over which public officials have remained silent is the alleged arrest of Alex Saab. Saab was removed as Minister of Industries and National Production on January 17. Although Delcy initially presented the move as a departure to assume new responsibilities, it ultimately marked the beginning of his demise in Venezuela. According to reports from The New York Times, La Nación, and Infobae, SEBIN agents detained Saab and businessman Raúl Gorrín, the owner of TV network Globovisión, who has long navigated sanctions and power and lost his media and political shield almost simultaneously with the capture of Maduro. The novel element in this second arrest of Saab is that reports describe an operation carried out with the knowledge and cooperation of the FBI. It would appear that the new leadership in Caracas is willing to hand over key figures to US authorities in exchange for validation and stability.
Both men immediately disappeared from the public radar. Two weeks later, the Spanish broadsheet ABC claimed that the Trump administration has demanded judicial cooperation from Delcy regarding nine figures close or formerly close to the government, including Maduro’s son (known as Nicolasito), Tareck El Aissami (arrested by Maduro in 2024) and, of course, Alex Saab and Raúl Gorrín. The report describes Saab as “the man who knows where the money is.” The dismissal on February 23 of Saab’s wife, Camilla Fabri (appointed vice minister for international communication a year earlier) reinforces the hypothesis of Saab’s detention.
In the mining sector, foreign capital has abandoned concessions due to the absence of minimal infrastructure and the suffocating control of armed groups.
In theory, the US would be seeking access to Saab’s testimony and archives in order to finish dismantling the money laundering and drug trafficking networks surrounding Maduro’s inner circle. Following his arrest in Cape Verde in 2020 and a prolonged legal battle in Florida over his alleged diplomatic immunity, Saab was released and sent back to Venezuela in December 2023 through a complex prisoner exchange. Upon arrival, he was granted a high political profile and appointed president of the International Center for Productive Investment, positioning him as the key operator for attracting foreign capital under sanctions.
The Saab-Gorrín case demonstrates that chavismo’s ongoing metamorphosis involves sacrificing the financiers who helped evade sanctions in previous years. Even after leading an intense campaign for Saab’s release in 2023, National Assembly president Jorge Rodríguez has shown no hesitation in serving in a government that makes him disappear on the orders of a foreign power. Ruling chavismo now seeks to present itself before Trump as a renewed, pragmatic actor and, above all, one unified under a centralized command without visible fractures. The official silence surrounding this issue stems from the fact that the capture of strategic allies buys the Rodríguez siblings time to manage the internal divisions this would inevitably generate.
Supervised economic liberalization
Since early January, the government has accelerated decrees and measures of economic opening that were previously unthinkable, such as the Hydrocarbons Law’s reform. The objective is to accelerate economic timelines in order to demobilize political demands. However, while the government is betting on a rapid economic rebound to pre-empt any possibility of opposition reorganization, a deep gap is beginning to emerge between the rhetoric of hope and the reality of purchasing power, which continues to deteriorate.
To assess the supposed implementation of these measures, I spoke with economist Manuel Sutherland to unpack the speculation that currently dominates public debate. According to his analysis, the exchange rate system has not undergone structural change: the allocation of foreign currency remains discretionary. Financial flows reveal a complex triangulation in which oil revenues are deposited in a fund in Qatar and then routed to an account at the US Treasury Department. From there, major banks acquire foreign currency through auctions restricted to the purchase of American goods. This process, executed in an opaque environment by private banks, occurs alongside discussions of tax exemptions for certain goods, such as vehicles.
Contrary to public perception, there has been no acceleration of privatization, while in the mining sector, foreign capital has abandoned concessions due to the absence of minimal infrastructure and the suffocating control of armed groups. What initially appeared to be a fast-tracked path toward economic recovery under American supervision now seems to be advancing at the same pace as, or even behind, political changes. The dissonance that once represented a danger for democratization (rapid economic liberalization coexisting with political stagnation) is not occurring. On the contrary, the slow economic rebound is unable to keep pace with the acceleration of political dynamics, which has gained renewed vigor through the mobilization of relatives of political prisoners. While the economy remains trapped in inertia and opacity, the political chessboard is being shaken by social pressure that the government appears not to have anticipated in its calculations for stability.
Amnesty and softer repression
By managing to adapt to this new scenario, chavismo shows it retains room of maneuver to ensure its permanence. This continuity is guaranteed by opening strategic pressure valves in response to the two main sources of coercion: internal social pressure and external pressure. The tactical softening of repression manifests itself as an unfolding of chavismo toward more sophisticated forms of exercising power. During the opening of the judicial year, the acting president delivered a striking speech announcing an amnesty law. The timeframe established for the law (1999-2025) functions as a symbolic rupture with the era that precedes her. All of this seeks to project renewed leadership based on the pillars of efficient technocracy and a pacifist façade.
The Amnesty Law thus operates as both a pacification mechanism and a transactional trophy for the Trump administration. A trophy meant to reduce the political cost of external pressure without implying any real dismantling of the repressive apparatus. It is a functional mutation that attempts to stabilize the system through a new version of authoritarian peace that can only be challenged if social pressure and mobilization manage to move beyond the mirage of this merely symbolic rupture.
Venezuela has ended up suffocating Cuba more effectively than the Helms-Burton Act.
However, attempts to “unify” the country through this law have had the opposite effect. Instead of extinguishing the spirit of struggle, it has revived it. On February 6, while the amnesty bill was still being debated, National Assembly president Jorge Rodríguez appeared at an infamous detention center before the mothers of political prisoners who were on vigil. Rodríguez established a novel form of blackmail: if the law were approved within a record seven days, their children could be released. None of this happened. The discussion was delayed, and once the law was enacted, the release process proved extremely slow. In addition, new cases of abductions and disappearances have emerged, while those who have been released leave prison without fear and determined to remain in the streets. None of this had been anticipated by Jorge Rodríguez.
This whole process, which is still ongoing, has brought the tacit recognition of political prisoners, the implementation of mass release measures, and the positioning of political prisoners within the public discourse—an issue the Maduro government always preferred to deny.
Oil embargo on Cuba and sales to Israel
The abrupt halt in crude shipments to Cuba—confirmed through maritime tracking by specialized firms—has also not been officially acknowledged by Venezuela. Reuters has been the leading outlet reporting the drop in shipments. According to its investigations, based on internal documents from the state oil company PDVSA and export data, Venezuela has prioritized cargoes destined for companies such as Chevron in order to secure foreign currency flows, leaving supply to Cuba in operational limbo. What is new? The beginning of a phase of energy suffocation for Havana led by Venezuela.
Despite the evidence of reduced shipments, neither Caracas nor Havana has issued statements acknowledging a suspension. What has been officially reported, however, is the dismantling of Cuban missions in Venezuela. Official Gazette No. 6,885 published decrees ordering the intervention, restructuring, and liquidation of emblematic social programs such as Mission Barrio Adentro and the Housing Mission.
In addition, international correspondents in Caracas, such as Sarah Kinosian, have reported the departure of Cuban medical personnel and military advisers. These reports cite internal sources in ministries and testimony from health workers who have been notified that their contracts are ending and that they must return immediately to the island.
Within a span of only a few minutes, the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry published and then deleted from all its platforms a statement expressing solidarity with the Islamic Republic of Iran following recent bombings.
How long can the rupture between Caracas and Havana remain hidden in discourse? And what implications does it hold for the Latin American left, which has remained silent about Venezuela’s authoritarian drift in order to preserve a utopian narrative? The only official source regarding the oil embargo on Cuba came from Miguel Díaz-Canel, who admitted that “we are going to live through difficult times” and announced a plan to deal with “acute fuel shortages,” acknowledging that no crude has arrived since December. As one of history’s paradoxes, Venezuela has ended up suffocating Cuba more effectively than the Helms-Burton Act.
Another shift that also lacks official confirmation is the presumed resumption of oil sales to Israel, reported only by Bloomberg and maritime tracker Kpler. Although the government has dismissed these reports as fabricated news through its communications minister, the flow of roughly 200,000 barrels toward the Haifa refinery suggests a reality consistent with the scenario of tutelage and its geopolitical ramifications (Venezuela severed relations with Israel in 2009).
The erosion of the anti-imperialist narrative
An episode that occurred on March 1 offers a window into the speed with which the government has decided to push through a compliant policy shift and how it appears to be redefining its strategic ties. Within a span of only a few minutes, the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry published and then deleted from all its platforms a statement expressing solidarity with the Islamic Republic of Iran following recent bombings.
The episode suggests a latent tension between the discursive inertia of certain officials and the logic of tutelage guiding the government’s current decisions. More than a mere coordination error, the incident could be interpreted as a symptom of constant monitoring of Venezuelan foreign policy by the US embassy in Caracas, or of unclear internal guidelines regarding this shift, where preserving negotiation channels with Washington must prevail over historical ideological loyalties.
The novelty of this shift lies not only in the rhetorical distancing, but in the fact that the internal fissure has become visible. For the first time in decades, the opportunity cost of maintaining a symbolic alliance with Tehran appears to be perceived by the political leadership as greater than the benefit of ideological consistency. This exercise in digital cleansing reinforces the hypothesis of a system that will prioritize the stability of financial flows guaranteed by American tutelage over the rhetoric of confrontation, marking a drastic departure from the alliances that once sustained chavismo.
The reality is that there has been a change in governmental behavior. Not only has the government implemented measures that clash with the historic conduct of a regime attached to the ideological agenda of the revolution, but it has also shown clear difficulty in the communication management of these measures. This suggests they may respond to a strategy of obedience to the occupying power while exploiting certain windows of opportunity for remaining in power.
Delcy Rodríguez’s government knows that exposing the measures recently adopted could generate even deeper cracks within the internal structures of chavismo. So now, in many instances, we just have silence.
WASHINGTON — Cuba’s top diplomat in Washington says Havana is prepared to enter diplomatic talks with the United States, reiterating the country’s willingness to engage even as tensions escalate with President Trump asserting that the island nation’s government could soon collapse.
“We are ready to engage with the U.S. on the issues that are important for the bilateral relation, and to talk about those in which we have differences,” Ambassador Lianys Torres Rivera, who leads Cuba’s mission in Washington, told The Times on Wednesday.
Any dialogue would need to respect Cuba’s sovereignty and its “right to self-determination,” the ambassador said.
“We are sure that it is possible to find a solution,” she said.
Her comments in a wide-ranging interview come at a particularly volatile moment for Cuba, which is under mounting economic pressure after the Trump administration imposed an oil blockade that has choked off the island’s energy supplies.
The measures have deepened a humanitarian crisis and prompted Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel to call for an “urgent” overhaul to the country’s economic model.
The situation in Cuba worsened after U.S. forces removed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January, allowing Washington to later cut off oil shipments from Venezuela to its longtime ally. The Trump administration later pressured other suppliers, including Mexico, to reduce deliveries.
“We are doing our best, and we are being very creative, but it has a serious impact,” Torres Rivera said of the blockade. “It is a collective punishment against the Cuban people.”
The White House this week framed Cuba’s worsening economic and humanitarian conditions as a potential opening to pressure Havana into negotiations.
“The country is obviously in a very weak place, economically speaking, the people are crying out for help, and the president believes and knows the Cuban regime wants a deal,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a news briefing Tuesday.
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Florida) told the Miami Herald on Wednesday that the Trump administration had been having secret, high-level conversations with several people in former President Raul Castro’s inner circle, a similar approach that was taken in Venezuela before Maduro’s capture. (The operation to seize Maduro killed 32 Cuban officers stationed in the country.)
Cuban President Miguel Díaz -Canel, fourth from right, holds up a Cuban flag during a rally in Havana on Jan. 16, 2026, to protest the killing of Cuban officers during the U.S. operation that captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
(Ramon Espinosa / Associated Press)
Another report by the USA Today this week said the Trump administration was close to announcing an economic deal with Cuba that would ease travel restrictions, among other things. A representative with the Cuban government declined to comment on the report.
The White House has not specified what a deal may look like. But Trump has said the United States is interested in a “friendly takeover” and has suggested that the move would allow Cubans to visit the island, a place that many Cuban exiles have worried about returning to while the current regime is in place.
“It is just a question of time before a lot of unbelievable people are going back to Cuba,” Trump said at an event last week.
Several news outlets have reported that the Justice Department is examining possible federal charges against officials within Cuba’s government, a move that could prompt a change in the island’s government.
Torres Rivera said she is aware of the reports but said the “judicial accusations” are an “instrument of political coercion without any legitimacy.”
“It is not something we are losing sleep over,” she said.
As for the potential negotiations, Torres Rivera did not provide specifics but talked about restoring diplomatic ties somewhat to how they existed during the Obama administration.
“We are neighbors,” she said. “We have common challenges, common threats, and we can speak about all that, and we can speak on the basis of respect for each other’s sovereignty and each other’s right of self-determination. We are ready for that.”
President Trump has approached diplomacy with Cuba with a harsher tone.
“As we achieve a historic transformation in Venezuela, we’re also looking forward to the great change that will soon be coming to Cuba,” Trump said Saturday, one week after U.S. and Israeli forces attacked Iran and killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
He added: “Cuba’s at the end of the line. They’re very much at the end of the line. They have no money. They have no oil. They have a bad philosophy. They have a bad regime that has been bad for a very long time.”
Trump said that he has put Secretary of State Marco Rubio in charge of leading the talks with Cuba and that he believes a “deal would be made very easily with Cuba.”
Torres Rivera did not offer an opinion on Rubio being tapped to lead the negotiations. Rubio is the son of Cuban immigrants who came to Florida three years before Castro’s brother, revolutionary Fidel Castro, rose to power in 1959. She reiterated that Cuba is “ready to engage” in talks regardless of who is leading them.
“We are not talking about persons, we are talking about the government and we are ready to engage with the U.S. to talk about the very important issues that we have in bilateral relations,” she said.
President Trump was uncommonly lucky in his first term, neither inheriting nor provoking a crisis of the sort that tests U.S. presidents, until COVID struck in his final 10 months. (He failed that test, contributing to his 2020 reelection defeat.) Trump 1.0 was bequeathed a growing economy from President Obama, and the incoming president assembled a roster of capable advisors who often acted to prevent him from doing nutty things at home and abroad.
Trump 2.0 made sure that no such human guardrails populated his second Cabinet, only genuflecting enablers. Unrestrained, he has presided over one crisis on top of another, all of his own making. Tariff mayhem and high prices. Armed agents and troops in American cities. Repeated violations of court orders. Demolition at federal agencies and the White House.
And now Trump has taken the nation to war against Iran in league with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. Depending on the moment and the audience, a contradictory Trump is either claiming the war is “very complete” or that much remains to be done to “decimate” Iran. On Wednesday he blithely told Axios, “Any time I want it to end, it will end,” even as U.S. officials planned further actions.
In any case, Trump’s war of choice and the killing of the supreme leader of Iran’s terroristic theocracy now has spawned another potential crisis, counterterrorism experts warn: the risks of retaliatory terrorist threats at home. And that is a threat, whether from homegrown extremists or sleeper cells of the sort that came alive for 9/11, that is likely greater because of the initial self-induced crisis of Trump’s second term: his whacking of the federal government.
Trump authorized Elon Musk’s destruction of the bureaucracy in the name of “government efficiency” and continues to exact retribution against any federal employee who had anything to do with investigating and prosecuting him during his interregnum. Longtime agents and operatives have been eliminated at the FBI, Justice Department, Department of Homeland Security, CIA and elsewhere. Especially at the FBI, counterterrorism experts with centuries of collective experience are gone and many who remain have been diverted to Trump’s top priority: mass deportations.
Consequently, the president who promised to “Make America Safe Again” has arguably made Americans less safe.
I raised this scary prospect just over a year ago as Trump’s teardown of the purported Deep State was underway. And now a Mideast war that Trump promised never to start has further incentivized Iran and its jihadi proxies to hit back, just as he’s diminished the nation’s early-warning systems.
Enough intelligence remains, however, that even in the days before Trump ordered the first strikes against Tehran, government analysts were picking up “worrisome signs” of Iranian plotting against U.S. targets, the New York Times reported. After the U.S.-Israel onslaught and death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Feb. 28, the government intercepted a possible Iranian “operational trigger” to “sleeper assets” outside Iran, according to ABC News.
Counterterrorism expert Colin P. Clarke, executive director of the Soufan Center, which focuses on global security and transnational terrorism, wrote this week in the Atlantic that U.S. agencies’ record of disrupting Iranian-backed plots in America was in jeopardy given the recent changes in funding, personnel and priorities. “Because of this,” he concluded, “the U.S. homeland is arguably more vulnerable than it has been in a long time.”
In a follow-up exchange of emails, Clarke told me, “Many of this administration’s moves have been myopic — shifting counterterrorism resources to immigration, firing FBI agents working counterintelligence, etc. A week before the U.S. went to war with Iran, the FBI Director Kash Patel was off gallivanting in Milan at the Olympics [where he struggled to chug a Michelob Ultra, a firing offense in its own right] when he should have been preparing for the potential for an Iranian response on U.S. soil.”
Patel’s preposterous partying with the U.S. men’s hockey team while war-planning was underway in Washington was widely, justifiably mocked. But it stands as a metaphor for the entire Trump administration’s cavalier attitude toward homeland security. Its abusive focus on both migrants and citizens protesting on the migrants’ behalf is a distraction from actual threats to the country.
Patel, like his boss at the Justice Department, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, has made plain in words and actions that the president’s political enemies are the real public enemies No. 1. One of Bondi’s first acts was creation of a “weaponization working group” to identify, fire or prosecute those in her department who’d investigated and prosecuted Trump, many of whom also had experience in domestic and transnational terrorism. The association representing FBI agents called her purges “dangerous distractions” from the work “to make America safe again.”
Days after starting the Iran war, when homeland security should have been on red alert, Trump fired his secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem. Her costly cosplaying as the homeland’s heroine on horseback in anti-migrant videos, along with her penchant for luxury jets allegedly to transport deportees, was too much even for him.
Yet all three “national security” officials — Noem, Bondi and Patel — simply reflect Trump’s own warped approach and blasé attitude toward the homefront.
When Time magazine last week asked the commander in chief whether Americans should be worried about potential terrorist strikes at home, he replied, “I guess.”
“We plan for it,” he added. “But yeah, you know, we expect some things. Like I said, some people will die. When you go to war, some people will die.”
The administration is planning for it all right. An extraordinary number of senior Trump officials have taken up residence in houses on military bases, including Bondi, Noem, the secretaries of State and Defense, Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth, and White House consigliere Stephen Miller.
The rest of us just have to keep our fingers crossed. I guess.
The avian power couple follows her home, keeping her company as she cooks dinner.
“We live in such a busy world, and things are always being thrown at our face, so sometimes it’s nice to just have a gentle reminder of nature and what else is out there in the world,” Wagner told me last week.
You’re reading Boiling Point
The L.A. Times climate team gets you up to speed on climate change, energy and the environment. Sign up to get it in your inbox every week.
She is just one of many devoted fans; the eagles had the highest view count of any year-round nature livestream active on YouTube between last fall and this spring, said Rebecca Mauldin, an assistant professor at the University of Texas at Arlington who studies social connectedness.
While the eagles’ following is singular, it’s part of a broader trend: surging interest in webcams that broadcast nature, unadulterated, minute by minute, in all its messy glory.
The number of 24/7 livestreams created per year swelled by about 3,000% between 2019 and 2025, Mauldin’s data show.
Jackie and Shadow’s livestream exemplifies “Slow TV,” a genre that began with a 2009 Norwegian broadcast of a seven-hour train trip. It took off, with other marathon programs featuring chopping firewood and knitting.
The appeal makes intuitive sense. In a world of quick camera cuts, sound bites and troubling headlines, Mother Nature’s rhythms can be a salve. And with many of us wound up in concrete urbanity, the livestreams offer instant transportation to the wild.
Following Jackie and Shadow takes patience. If they’re not hanging out at the nest, it’s a waiting game until they come back. Even when they’re there, there may not be much going on.
Entertainment “can be very artificial, it can be very packaged, and it can be very short,” said Jenny Voisard, media manager for Friends of Big Bear Valley, the nonprofit that operates the cameras broadcasting the eagles. “This is long and slow and calm.”
Yet nature is unpredictable, another draw for viewers. This nesting season alone has brought plenty of drama, from the lovebirds losing their eggs to ravens to laying more not long after. Last week, I wrote about the couple’s shocking origin — it involves a love triangle! — and their rise to reality stardom.
Last year, Jackie and Shadow raised two chicks that went on to fledge: Sunny and Gizmo
(Friends of Big Bear Valley)
Research backs the vibes. Those who watch nature livestreams — from platypi to osprey — report a host of benefits, from uplifted mood to relaxation, said Mauldin, citing a literature review she-coauthored.
Others get jazzed about learning about a particular species, she said.
There may be limitations, though.
In terms of connecting to nature, “I lean toward the effect is stronger if you’re actually outdoors, or, you know, you’ve got a little ant crawling on your finger and watching it,” Mauldin said.
She highlighted another dimension I didn’t think of: Many “talk about how they’re developing strong online relationships, and you can see it in the chats or in the comments.”
Someone might comment that they had a bad day and are glad to be watching their favorite birds again, and another viewer will rally to support them. Then there are people who watch on their own, but gab about it later with a friend.
Friends of Big Bear Valley, with 1.2 million followers on Facebook, offers more than just updates on the eagles. It’s a buzzing community center where fans can share their thoughts and engage with one another.
Animals may also get something out of being watched: protection.
The eagle cam, for example, “sort of stokes the public’s imagination and interest in conservation,” said Thomas Leeman, deputy chief of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s migratory bird program in the Pacific Southwest. “They start to really care about whichever particular birds that they’re watching.”
Wagner, of Chicago, said her husband and 14-year-old son sometimes give her a hard time about how invested she is in Jackie and Shadow.
But her cat, Oscar, shares her fascination.
She recently posted a photo of the feline on Jackie and Shadow’s Facebook — looking intently at a TV where an eagle hunkered down on the nest.
“My new cat is just as obsessed as all of us,” she wrote.
More recent wildlife news
Big Bear’s celeb eagles continue to keep us on our toes. Jackie recently vanished from the nest for nearly 24 hours, sending fans into a panic — but eventually reunited with her eggs and mate, reports USA Today’s Michelle Del Rey.
While we’re on the subject of avian kind: Last week, I wrote about a pair of condors that appear to be nesting in Northern California, something not seen for a century. The Yurok Tribe is leading the effort to bring the large, endangered vultures back to their historic homeland in Humboldt and Del Norte counties.
As conservationists celebrate that win, the story for birds nationwide is not so rosy. A recent study found that North America is rapidly losing birds, and the loss is accelerating, largely due to intensive agriculture and warming temperatures, writes the Associated Press’ Seth Borenstein.
A few last things in climate news
Trump’s war on Iran has disrupted global oil and gas supplies. The conflict has kept ships that carry millions of barrels of oil a day stranded in the Persian Gulf, and key Middle East facilities have sustained damage, reports the Associated Press.
Oil prices have spiked, and Californians are paying the highest price at the pump in the nation. As my colleague Iris Kwok explains, that’s due to the state’s higher taxes and stricter requirements for cleaner, more expensive gas that pollutes.
This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.
The National People’s Congress signals firm stance against corruption as China’s 15th five-year plan is approved.
Published On 12 Mar 202612 Mar 2026
Share
China’s annual legislative meeting is wrapping up after setting the country’s lowest economic growth target in nearly 30 years, excluding during the COVID-19 global pandemic.
Nearly 3,000 delegates participating in the National People’s Congress (NPC) were due on Thursday to formally approve an economic growth target of “4.5 to 5 percent”, as set out in China’s latest five-year plan.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
The 15th iteration of the five-year plan, an economic roadmap for 2026 to 2030, also set targets for inflation, the fiscal deficit ratio and urban unemployment.
China has set the longterm goal of becoming a “moderately developed” country by 2035 and raising gross domestic product (GDP) per capita to $20,000. The figure was $13,303 in 2024, according to the World Bank.
Planners in Beijing also continue to grapple with deep economic problems driven by the collapse of the property sector, low consumer confidence and a prolonged period of deflation.
China’s targets for the next five years include industrial self-reliance and increased state support for industries such as AI, aerospace, aviation, biomedicine and integrated circuits, as well as the development of “future energy, quantum technology, embodied artificial intelligence, brain-computer interfaces, and 6G technology”, according to China’s state-run Xinhua news agency.
Beijing also aims to expand the use of the digital yuan, known as the e-CNY, to improve cross-border payments, according to the Reuters news agency. The digital currency is currently under development by the People’s Bank of China, the country’s central bank.
Among the most closely watched elements of the NPC over the past week has been the release of government “work reports” from China’s many government ministries, which give insight into China’s progress in meeting its goals and the direction of its future policy.
The NPC’s Standing Committee released a work report indicating that China will soon pass a law on combatting cross-border corruption, Xinhua said.
The measure is seen as an extension of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s long-running anticorruption drive across the Chinese state, military and private sector.
The campaign appears to be gaining momentum as the Supreme People’s Court, China’s highest court, reported a 22.4 percent increase in corruption cases last year involving 36,000 individuals, according to Xinhua.
The state also recovered 18.14 billion yuan ($2.63bn) as part of its anticorruption crackdown in 2025, Xinhua said.
China’s military also identified combatting corruption as an important target in its annual work report, as well as ensuring political loyalty to Xi and the Chinese Communist Party.
The NPC typically runs for a week, and it is held alongside the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, a political advisory body.
The meetings are known as the “Two Sessions”, and they bring thousands of delegates to Beijing to approve short- and mid-term policy measures.
March 11 (UPI) — Gen. Joshua Rudd was confirmed by the Senate to lead the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command Tuesday.
Rudd is already the deputy chief of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command. The Senate voted to confirm him in a 71-29 vote.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., voiced his objections to Rudd because he doesn’t have cybersecurity experience. He had put a procedural hold to block Rudd’s confirmation but the chamber was able to get around it.
“He is not qualified for this job,” Wyden wrote in a letter addressed to President Donald Trump that was submitted to the Congressional Record. “And, when it comes to the cybersecurity of this country, there is simply no time for on-the-job learning. The threat is just too urgent for that. For these reasons, I oppose the nomination.”
The position of NSA director had been vacant since April, when retired Gen. Timothy Haugh and his civilian deputy Wendy Noble were ousted.
Lt. Gen. William Hartman has been acting head and plans to retire when Rudd is sworn in. No date has been announced yet.
“General Rudd is a war hero with a lifetime of service to our nation. He is the right choice to lead the protection of our nation from cyberattacks by Iran, Russia and China,” Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said in a statement.
During nomination hearings before Senate committees, Rudd defended Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a data-collection law that is set to expire in April.
A video circulating online appears to show signature collectors paying people to sign initiative petitions under other people’s names, according to officials, and now the state has opened an investigation.
The video, filmed by videographer JJ Smith, shows a long queue leading to a table set up at 6th and Mission streets in San Francisco. A man in line says they are being offered $5 to sign petitions. At the table, where there are lists with the information of apparent registered voters, a woman confirms the payment and — using a highlighter — instructs a person on the name and address that she is supposed to use.
“I get $5 too?” the videographer asks.
“Yeah,” says the woman.
“And what is it?”
“Just sign it,” she says.
Share via
Petitions connected to at least three ballot campaigns — including the billionaire-backed effort to thwart California’s proposed billionaire tax — appear in the video.
“I approached some people and asked them what they were there for,” Smith told The Times. “They told me they didn’t know what they were signing for, that they just wanted the $5.”
Smith said he watched the scene for hours and estimated that a few hundred people cycled through the line over roughly two hours.
Those running the table did not ask for anyone’s identification and gave no explanation of what was actually being signed, he said.
The video showed voter data from San Luis Obispo County that was both visible and, as details were spoken aloud, audible in the footage.
The county acted immediately after becoming aware of the video and initiated an investigation through the fraud unit of the California secretary of state’s office, said Erin Clausen, public information officer for the San Luis Obispo county clerk’s office.
Clausen noted that, although voter registration data can be legally requested from county election offices, the data in this case may have been used inappropriately. The county is also planning on reaching out directly to voters who were specifically mentioned or identified in the video, according to Clausen.
“The activity shown in the video, if verified, would violate California election law,” County Clerk-Recorder Elaina Cano said in a formal statement released Wednesday morning.
The secretary of state’s office confirmed it had opened a formal investigation.
“Under California law, it is illegal to give money or other valuable consideration to another in exchange for their signature on an initiative petition,” a spokesperson said in a statement. “ Those who abuse our system will be held accountable.”
The office is working with local officials and encouraged anyone with information to file a complaint.
One political committee, Californians for a More Transparent and Effective Government, confirmed its petitions were among those whose signature gatherers were allegedly paying people to sign and moved quickly to distance itself from the activity.
“Under no circumstance do we tolerate this type of activity in the signature gathering process,” said spokesperson Molly Weedn. “We’ve taken immediate action and have demanded that the signature gathering firm identify these circulators and reject their petitions.” Weedn said the collectors were subcontractors, not campaign employees, and that attorneys were contacting authorities.
That committee is funded by another group, Building a Better California, which was also among campaigns that appeared in the video. The other was for a proposed initiative called the Retirement and Personal Savings Protection Act of 2026. Representatives for the latter two have not responded to requests for comment.
Smith said this was not the first time he had witnessed this type of activity in the area.
“I saw something similar with ballots three days ago,” he said.
The investigation is ongoing. Anyone with information can submit a complaint to the Office of the California Secretary of State or contact their local county elections office.
Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.
The big question surrounding last year’s Academy Awards was whether the show would address the L.A. wildfires, which had rattled the city mere months prior.
This year, the elephant in the room is the ongoing Iran war, which like last year’s wildfires, puts a celebration like the Oscars in sharp relief. But for Conan O’Brien, balancing gravity and levity is part of his job description as host.
“My job is to always try and hit this very, very thin line between entertaining people and also acknowledging some of the realities,” O’Brien said during a Wednesday news conference with the Oscars creative team.
“It’s a dance that goes on up until the show begins,” the former talk show host said, adding that he and his team of writers are still revising material ahead of the show to ensure their content is as relevant as possible.
“Between us,” he said, referencing Oscars telecast executive producers Katy Mullan and Raj Kapoor, “we will find the right tone.”
O’Brien also during the news conference recalled Johnny Carson’s turn hosting the Oscars during the Iran hostage crisis, when 52 Americans, including diplomats and other personnel, were held hostage at the U.S. embassy in Tehran from 1979 to 1981. The comedian remembered the television host parodying ABC’s “Nightline” with his joke, “It’s day 444 of the Oscars.”
“It was such a funny, topical joke that touched on something everyone was thinking about, and at the same time, got a big laugh and was unifying,” O’Brien said. “That was meaningful to me.”
Kapoor said during the news conference that the production team is putting systems in place to alleviate attendees’ safety concerns amid the tense global situation and reported threats to California.
“Every year, we monitor what’s going on in the world,” the showrunner said, adding that the ceremony has the support of the FBI and LAPD. “This show has to run like clockwork.”
He added, “Everybody that is coming to this show, that is witnessing this show, that is even a fan of the show when they’re standing outside the barricades — we want everybody to feel safe and protected and welcome.”
As for the telecast’s creative direction, the team cited “human touch” as a unifying theme — a not-so-subtle slight to AI.
“We’re celebrating human touch, human connection and what I like to call actual intelligence, as opposed to artificial,” said music director Michael Bearden. “We want to get back to the communal … and so the music will reflect that.”
That spirit of celebration will be especially tangible in the “KPop Demon Hunters” performance, Kapoor said. That performance will be complemented by a “Sinners” moment featuring Miles Caton and Raphael Saadiq as well as guests Misty Copeland, Eric Gales, Buddy Guy, Brittany Howard, Christone “Kingfish” Ingram, Jayme Lawson, Li Jun Li, Bobby Rush, Shaboozey and Alice Smith.
“We have this lovely story celebrating Korean culture with authentic Korean drummers and singers and even choreography,” the producer said. “So again, we’ve expanded our reach, and we’re telling these global stories, celebrating international films that have had a global impact and doing things in a really different way.”
Mullan and Kapoor closed the news conference by teasing a pair of reunions featuring cast members from “Bridesmaids” and the Marvel Cinematic Universe. “Bridesmaids” alum Rose Byrne is nominated for a lead actress Oscar for her role in “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You,” which marked O’Brien’s dramatic acting debut. (If Byrne wins, he said, “half that Oscar’s mine.”)
“We’re gonna have superstars, superheroes, and there is also going to be an extraterrestrial on the stage, so you can figure that one out,” Mullan said.
The 2026 Oscars will air live Sunday on ABC, with streaming available on Hulu, YouTube TV, AT&T TV and FuboTV.
Spencer Pratt, a conservative reality TV star, came in second to Bass, at just over 10%. City Councilmember Nithya Raman, a former Bass ally who shook up the field with her last-minute entry, polled at slightly more than 9%. Tech entrepreneur Adam Miller was supported by just over 4% of those polled, with leftist candidate Rae Huang at about 3%.
Although Bass had the most support among the candidates in the June 2 primary election, the poll showed that nearly half of Angelenos are unhappy with her performance. She was weakened politically by her handling of the devastating Palisades fire but has touted reductions in homicides and homelessness.
About 25% of those polled said they approve of the job Bass is doing as mayor, while about 47% disapprove. About 28% said they have no opinion or felt neutral.
The poll, based on interviews with 350 likely voters March 7-9, revealed just how up for grabs the mayoral election is, with less than three months before the primary.
“This is a wide open race,” said Zev Yaroslavsky, a former city council member and L.A. County supervisor who runs the Los Angeles Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. “The general narrative [of the poll] is that the mayor is not popular for somebody going into reelection, but the majority of people have not made up their mind whether they’ll come back to her or go to someone else.”
City Councilmember Nithya Raman meets with reporters after filing paperwork to run for mayor of Los Angeles.
(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)
Bass campaign spokesperson Doug Herman did not respond directly to the poll. But he said in a statement that the mayor “took on the challenge to change Los Angeles after decades of decline from long ignored issues; resulting in first ever back to back drops in homelessness, 60 year lows in homicides and an unprecedented 40,000 affordable housing units accelerated.”
Pratt said through a campaign spokesperson, “The Emerson poll confirms what we’ve been seeing on the ground — this is a two-person race for Mayor of Los Angeles between me and Karen Bass. Angelenos are frustrated with the direction of the city and it’s reflected in her low approval numbers. Our campaign is gaining real momentum as more voters look for new leadership focused on results and accountability. This race is just getting started.”
Raman’s campaign, however, said she’s the one gaining momentum.
“It’s clear that voters want change, and we’re gaining momentum for our campaign to make L.A. more affordable and to govern with urgency and accountability,” the campaign said in a statement.
The field of candidates did not take shape until the week of the February filing deadline. Billionaire developer Rick Caruso and L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath both flirted with a run before deciding against it, and former L.A. schoolsSupt. Austin Beutner dropped out after the death of his 22-year-old daughter. With no other major candidate opposing Bass, Raman filed her paperwork with hours to spare.
With petitions still being verified, 13 mayoral candidates have qualified for the June ballot. If no one gets 50% of the vote in the primary, the top two finishers will head to a runoff in November.
“This race could shift dramatically come June,” Spencer Kimball, executive director of Emerson College Polling, said in a statement.
Kimball cited the large percentage of undecided voters of all stripes — 67% of independents, 49% of Democrats and 37% of Republicans are undecided. Pratt is a Republican, and the other major candidates are Democrats in a heavily blue city.
Pacific Palisades resident Spencer Pratt, who lost his home in the Palisades fire, stands with supporters after announcing his run for Los Angeles mayor on the one-year anniversary of the Palisades fire in the Palisades Village on Jan. 7, 2026.
(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)
The poll is not the first to show negative views of Bass.
Last year, after the Palisades fire, a poll of L.A. County residents by the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs found that 37% held favorable views of the mayor, while 49% held unfavorable views.
The Emerson poll also featured questions on issues such as public safety and homelessness.
More than 82% of Angelenos in the poll said they feel very safe or somewhat safe in their communities, while about 17% said they feel not too safe or not safe at all.
On homelessness, the view was grimmer. Only 15% of Angelenos polled said that homelessness is getting better, while more than 55% said it is getting worse. Almost 30% feel it is staying the same.
Los Angeles has seen significant reductions in street homelessness for the last two years, after years of steady increases.
Bass has attributed the declines to her signature Inside Safe program, which clears encampments and places homeless people in short term housing.
“There is no doubt that Inside Safe, by bringing thousands of people inside and reducing street homelessness by 17.5 percent, has saved lives and helped drive this decline,” Bass said in a statement Tuesday.
The Emerson poll also asked California residents about the governor’s race. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) had the most support at slightly more than 17%, followed by Republicans Steve Hilton at just over 13% and Chad Bianco at more than 11%. Billionaire Tom Steyer came in at about 11%.
Nearly a quarter of California voters were undecided, according to the poll.
Paul Mitchell, a political data expert, called the Emerson poll flawed. Not enough Angelenos were polled, and the sample skewed too heavily toward young people, when older residents are more likely to vote, he said.
Mitchell called the poll an “amuse-bouche.”
“This tells all of the candidates [they] should be doing a poll,” he said.
A Christian engineer with L.A. County claims his bosses discriminated against him by forcing him to pass by a Pride flag on the way to his office, the latest legal challenge to the government’s policy of requiring many government buildings display the flag throughout June.
Eric Batman, a 24-year veteran of the Department of Public Works, sued the county March 10 for refusing to let him work remotely in June, when the rainbow-striped flag hangs in front of his department’s Alhambra headquarters.
It’s the second lawsuit to target the county’s 2023 policy ordering the raising of the “Progress Pride Flag,” a modified version of the traditional rainbow flag with additional stripes representing people of color and transgender and nonbinary people.
In May 2024, Jeffrey Little, an evangelical Christian county lifeguard, sued the county for requiring he work feet away from the flag. That case, filed by conservative Catholic legal group Thomas More Society, is ongoing.
Batman said he first asked to work remotely for the month of June in 2024 to avoid the flag, which he found “highly offensive,” according to the suit.
A supervisor rejected his request, according to the filing, noting the county was “committed to fostering an inclusive workplace, including for our LGBTQ+ employees.” The supervisor suggested he use another entrance, Batman’s suit claimed.
“They wouldn’t give it to him because the county said ‘Our interest is in inclusivity — regardless of whether or not that includes you,”’ said Daniel Schmid, an attorney with Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal group representing Batman.
Liberty Counsel frequently takes on high-profile plaintiffs who oppose same-sex marriage, including the case of Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to provide marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
A spokesperson for the county’s public works department said she could not comment on the suit as it had not yet been served.
Attacks on multiple commercial ships in the waters around Iran on Wednesday increased global energy concerns, pushed nations to unleash strategic oil reserves and sparked fresh critiques of the Trump administration’s readiness for a war it started.
As Trump administration and U.S. military officials continued to claim increasing success and advantage in the conflict — and authorities downplayed a reported threat of drone attacks on California — leaders around the world scrambled to respond to the latest attacks and the International Energy Agency’s call for the largest ever release of strategic oil reserves by its members to help stem energy price spikes.
President Trump also faced renewed questions about a deadly strike on an Iranian elementary school at the start of the war, after the New York Times reported Wednesday that a military investigation had determined the U.S. was responsible.
“I don’t know about it,” Trump said when asked about the report.
In an address Wednesday morning, IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said energy shipments through the Strait of Hormuz had “all but stopped” amid the conflict, driving massive global competition for oil and gas in wealthier countries and fuel rationing in poorer nations.
He said the IEA’s 32 member nations have brought a “sense of urgency and solidarity” to recent discussions on the matter, and had unanimously agreed to “launch the largest ever release of emergency oil stocks in our agency’s history,” making 400 million barrels of oil available.
However, he said the most needed change is the “resumption of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.”
A vendor pumps petrol from Iranian fuel oil tankers for resale near the Bashmakh border crossing between Iraq and Iran.
(Ozan Kose / AFP/Getty Images)
Several countries, including Germany, Austria and Japan, had already confirmed their plans to release reserves.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on any U.S. plans to release its strategic reserves, or how much would be released. The U.S. is an IEA member.
Trump told reporters Wednesday that the U.S. has hit Iran “harder than virtually any country in history has been hit,” including by wiping out its naval fleet and eliminating other vessels capable of laying mines, and that he believes oil companies should resume shipments through the strait despite the recent attacks.
U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum backed the idea of releasing oil reserves in a Fox News interview.
“Certainly these are the kinds of moments that these reserves are used for, because what we have here is not a shortage of energy in the world; we’ve got a transit problem, which is temporary,” Burgum said. “When you have a temporary transit problem that we’re resolving militarily and diplomatically — which we can resolve and will resolve — this is the perfect time to think about releasing some of those, to take some pressure off of the global price.”
Burgum said that while Iran is “holding the entire world hostage economically by threatening to close the strait,” Trump has made the consequences of such actions “very clear,” and “there’s a lot of options between ourselves and our allies in the region, including our Arab friends in the region, to make sure that those straits keep open and that energy keeps flowing for the global economy.”
The IEA did not provide details as to the release of the 400 million barrels, part of a broader reserve of some 1.2 billion barrels held by its members. It said the reserves “will be made available to the market over a time frame that is appropriate to the national circumstances of each Member country and will be supplemented by additional emergency measures by some countries.”
The agency said an average of 20 million barrels of crude oil and oil products transited the strait per day in 2025, and that options for bypassing the strait are “limited.”
While some tankers believed linked to Iran were still getting through the Strait of Hormuz, which under normal circumstances carries about 20% of the world’s oil and natural gas, Iranian officials threatened attacks on other vessels — saying they would not allow “even a single liter of oil” tied to the U.S., Israel or their allies through the channel, which connects to the Persian Gulf.
Trump has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. and its powerful Navy would support commercial vessels and ensure the strait remains open to oil shipments, but that has not been the case.
Tankers wait off the Mediterranean coast of southern France on Wednesday.
(Thibaud Moritz / AFP/Getty Images)
The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations center, run by the British military, reported at least three ships struck in the region Wednesday — including ships off the United Arab Emirates and a cargo ship that was struck by a projectile in the strait just north of Oman, setting it ablaze.
The Trump administration and the U.S. military, meanwhile, have been pushing out messaging about wiping out Iran’s ability to plant mines in the strait — posting dramatic videos of major strikes on tiny boats on small docks.
Adm. Brad Cooper, the leader of U.S. Central Command, said in a video posted to X on Wednesday morning that “in short, U.S. forces continue delivering devastating combat power against the Iranian regime.”
“I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: U.S. combat power is building, Iranian combat power is declining,” he said.
The U.S. has struck more than 60 Iranian ships, and just “took out the last of four Soleimani-class warships,” he said. “That’s an entire class of Iranian ships now out of the fight.”
Cooper said Iranian ballistic missile and drone attacks have “dropped drastically” since the start of the war, though “it’s worth pointing out that Iranian forces continue to target innocent civilians in gulf countries, while hiding behind their own people as they launch attacks from highly populated cities in Iran.”
He also addressed the attacks on commercial shipping in the region directly, saying that “for years, the Iranian regime has threatened commercial shipping and U.S. forces in international waters,” and that the U.S. military’s “mission is to end their ability to project power and harass shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.”
Other U.S. leaders called the U.S. war plan — and specifically its approach to protecting the Strait of Hormuz — into question.
In a series of posts to X late Tuesday, which he said followed a two-hour classified briefing on the war, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) slammed the administration’s plans as “incoherent and incomplete.”
Murphy wrote that the administration’s goals for the war seemed to be focused primarily on “destroying lots of missiles and boats and drone factories,” and without a clear plan for what to do when Iran — still led by “a hardline regime” — begins rebuilding that infrastructure, other than to continue bombing them. “Which is, of course, endless war,” he wrote.
Murphy also specifically criticized the administration’s plan for the Strait of Hormuz — which he said simply doesn’t exist.
“And on the Strait of Hormuz, they had NO PLAN,” he wrote. “I can’t go into more detail about how Iran gums up the Strait, but suffice it [to] say, right now, they don’t know how to get it safely back open. Which is unforgiveable, because this part of the disaster was 100% foreseeable.”
Ships in the strait remained under threat of various forms of attack Wednesday, as did much of the region as the war raged on.
There was an attack on a U.S. Embassy operations center at Baghdad’s airport, which officials attributed to a drone launched by Iranian proxies based in Iraq. No casualties were reported.
Lebanon’s Health Ministry reported the death toll there — from fighting between Israel and Iranian-backed Hezbollah fighters — had risen to 634 since last week, including 91 children. Another 1,500 people had been wounded, the ministry said.
Iranian authorities have said U.S. and Israeli attacks have killed 1,255 people since Feb. 28. That includes many Iranian leaders, including then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. U.S. officials have said Iranian attacks in the region have killed seven U.S. service members, with another 140 wounded.
CBS News reported Wednesday that dozens of those injuries were sustained by service members in the March 1 Iranian drone attack on a tactical operations center in Kuwait — which is also where six of the seven deaths occurred.
The outlet reported that the attack was more severe than the Trump administration has revealed, with more than 30 military members still in hospitals Tuesday with a range of battle injuries including “brain trauma, shrapnel wounds and burns.”
Threats extended beyond the Middle East, too — including to California, where law enforcement agencies were warned by federal authorities that Iran “allegedly aspired to conduct a surprise attack” on California using drones launched from a vessel off the U.S. coast.
However, sources told The Times that advisory was cautionary and not backed by credible intelligence.
Times staff writer Gavin J. Quinton, in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.
MIAMI — Voting technology firm Smartmatic is seeking to dismiss a criminal indictment for money laundering, blaming President Trump and his allies for seeking its prosecution as part of a “campaign of retribution” against those they blame for his 2020 election loss.
Smartmatic’s parent company, UK-based SGO Corporation, was added to a criminal indictment last fall previously charging several executives with paying $1 million in bribes to election officials in the Philippines.
In a motion to dismiss the indictment filed Tuesday, attorneys for Smartmatic said the company had been cooperating with the Justice Department since it first learned of its investigation in 2021, including by producing millions of pages of documents and making presentations to federal agents. A trial date for the executives, including co-founder Roger Pinate, had been set and the company believed that it was in the clear.
But when Trump returned to the White House, the Justice Department reversed course and decided to press charges against Smartmatic. Attorneys for the company said the decision was prompted by Trump’s demands to prosecute his perceived enemies and his “mantra” that Smartmatic helped rig the 2020 U.S. presidential election won by Joe Biden — allegations that are at the heart of a $2.7-billion lawsuit filed by Smartmatic against the president’s allies in the media.
“The prosecution of SGO furthers their collective false narrative that President Trump did not actually lose the 2020 election,” Smartmatic said in the filing in Miami federal court.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Attorneys likened the prosecution to the Justice Department’s targeting of Kilmar Armando Ábrego García, a Salvadoran migrant who was criminally charged for conduct years earlier after he successfully sued the Trump administration over its decision to deport him.
In the years since the election, the filing states, “Smartmatic USA has exercised its right to hold those individuals and entities legally accountable for their deluge of defamatory statements and the attendant damage inflicts on its business, putting it squarely in the crosshairs for retribution.”
The criminal case against Smartmatic and its employees stems from payments, between 2015 and 2018, that were allegedly made to obtain a contract with the Philippine government to help run that country’s 2016 presidential election. Pinate, who no longer works for Smartmatic but remains a shareholder, has pleaded not guilty.
As part of the criminal case, prosecutors in August sought the court’s permission to introduce evidence they argue shows that revenue from a $300-million contract with Los Angeles County to help modernize its voting systems was diverted to a “ slush fund” controlled by Pinate through the use of overseas shell companies, fake invoices and other means.
They also accused Pinate of secretly bribing Venezuela’s longtime election chief by giving her a luxury home with a pool in Caracas. Prosecutors say the home was transferred to the election chief in an attempt to repair relations following Smartmatic’s abrupt exit from Venezuela in 2017 when it accused then-President Nicolas Maduro ’s government of manipulating tallied results in elections for a rubber-stamping constituent assembly.
Smartmatic was founded more than two decades ago by a group of Venezuelans who found early success running elections while the late Hugo Chavez, a devotee of electronic voting, was in power. The company later expanded globally, providing voting machines and other technology to help carry out elections in 25 countries, from Argentina to Zambia.
But Smartmatic has said its business tanked after Fox News gave Trump’s lawyers a platform to paint the company as part of a conspiracy to steal the 2020 election.
Fox said it was legitimately reporting on newsworthy events but eventually aired a piece refuting the allegations after Smartmatic’s lawyers complained. Nonetheless, it has aggressively defended itself against the defamation lawsuit in New York — arguing that the company was facing imminent collapse over its own internal misconduct, not due to any negative coverage.
A dispute over the city of Los Angeles’ eviction defense program came to an end Tuesday when the City Council approved millions of dollars in funding for the next 15 months.
The program, Stay Housed L.A., started in 2021 and provides thousands of renters with legal representation in eviction proceedings as well as other services.
Tenant advocates feared that the new contract, which passed 12 to 1 and funds an initial portion of a three-year, $177-million contract, was under threat after City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto urged the council to reconsider it in a confidential memo last week.
Feldstein Soto said she had concerns about awarding such a large contract to Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, which frequently sues the city over homelessness issues.
Legal Aid is the main legal service provider under the Stay Housed L.A. contract, which also funds Southern California Housing Rights Center for short-term emergency rental assistance, Liberty Hill Foundation for tenant outreach and Strategic Actions for a Just Economy to protect tenants from harassment.
The city’s Housing Department had recommended a three-year contract, but the council opted for a shorter period that can be extended.
Legal Aid has argued that its lawsuits against the city are unrelated to its eviction defense work under the Stay Housed L.A. contract.
“We are very relieved that our services can continue uninterrupted,” said Barbara Schultz, director of housing justice for Legal Aid, in an interview after the vote.
Feldstein Soto, who is running for reelection, said in a statement that her office wanted to make sure the city wasn’t giving a “blank check” to Legal Aid without requiring detailed reporting of finances and outcomes.
“The eviction defense program is a city program and is in zero jeopardy,” she said. “What is in question is a $177-million blank check to [Legal Aid] and its partners without the reports and invoice review that is required by law. That is an amount that exceeds the budget of numerous city departments.”
On Tuesday, the City Council added a requirement that the nonprofits in the program provide “performance metrics” including the number of tenants served, case outcomes and demographic data.
Schultz said that Legal Aid already provides monthly data to the city.
John Lee was the only councilmember who voted against the new contract, saying he was not comfortable with the new “transparency requirements.”
Since its inception, Stay Housed L.A. has opened about 26,000 cases overall, providing full representation for 6,150 cases and working on nearly 20,000 “limited scope” cases, according to data from Legal Aid. The original contract, which is set to lapse at the end of the month, was for about $90 million.
The program is funded by Measure ULA, the “mansion tax” passed by city voters in 2022. On Tuesday, the council included a provision that would allow it to cease funding the eviction defense program if Measure ULA were overturned.
WASHINGTON — Jill Biden is breaking her silence about Joe Biden’s decision to abruptly end his 2024 presidential reelection bid under pressure from Democrats concerned about his age, health and viability against Republican Donald Trump in a rematch of their 2020 campaign.
A political spouse for nearly 50 years, Jill Biden said she has never publicly discussed her feelings about the three-week stretch when her husband ended his political career, instead saving her thoughts for the pages of her soon-to-be-released memoir.
Gallery Books, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, on Wednesday announced that her book, “View from the East Wing: A Memoir,” is scheduled to be published June 2.
Jill Biden told the Associated Press in a brief telephone interview that the book is a “reflection of my four years as first lady” and that writing it was somewhat healing.
“It was kind of cathartic for me to write it, and I wrote about all the, you know, sometimes painful — but other times, most of it really beautiful moments that Joe and I shared during his presidency,” she said.
Jill Biden declined on Tuesday to discuss any of those moments, good or bad — including watching her husband work his way to the decision to end his five-decade-long political career by dropping out of the 2024 presidential race.
In an announcement video shared on Instagram, she said she wants to “set the record straight.”
The last chapter of her husband’s political career
In April 2023, then-President Joe Biden was 80 and the oldest president in U.S. history when he announced he was running for a second term. His age and fitness to serve another four years — which would take him to age 86 — became a source of concern for the public. Some fellow Democrats began to pressure him to step aside after he turned in a disastrous debate performance against Trump in June 2024 in which he struggled, in a raspy voice, to land his debating points and often appeared to lose his train of thought. Aides blamed the poor performance on a cold.
Joe Biden at first insisted that he would stay in the race, but after a few weeks he withdrew from the campaign and endorsed Democrat Kamala Harris, his vice president. Harris became the party’s presidential nominee but lost to Trump in the November 2024 election.
Jill Biden said that, with the book, “I have put things in perspective,” presenting what she describes as a “more balanced view” of her husband’s time as president.
The memoir is also a tribute of the sorts to women who, like herself, juggle multiple roles.
“It’s also a story about my being able to balance life, you know, as a working woman and as a mother, a grandmother, a first lady,” she said.
During her four years in the role, Jill Biden, 74, made history as the first first lady to continue the career she had before entering the White House. She had taught English and writing for decades at the community college level, and she continued teaching twice a week at a Northern Virginia school while serving as first lady.
Joe Biden ‘doing well’ after his cancer diagnosis
The former president’s office announced in May 2025 that he was diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer and that it had spread to his bones. He’s receiving treatment.
Jill Biden said it was “quite a shock getting the diagnosis” for her husband, who’s now 83.
“The fact that it is in his bones means that he will have cancer, you know, all his lifetime,” Jill Biden said. She said the doctors say he will “live out his natural life.”
“Like most retired couples, he’ll probably drive me crazy till the end of it,” she joked.
She said he visits Washington at least once a week for meetings or to give speeches.
A unique period in American history
The former first lady also writes in the book about serving during a unique period in U.S. history, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the aftermath of the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, according to the publisher.
Her husband was sworn into office on the steps of the Capitol on Jan. 20, 2021, just two weeks after a mob of Trump supporters, spurred by his false claims that the Republican lost because of election fraud, stormed the building in a violent attempt to keep lawmakers from certifying Joe Biden’s victory.
Joe Biden’s first year in office was dominated by the federal response to the pandemic and, while he mostly stayed at the White House, Jill Biden wore face mask and traveled around the country to encourage people to get their vaccinations. She also continued her advocacy on behalf of military families, education and community colleges, cancer prevention and women’s health initiatives.
Before she became first lady, Jill Biden was second lady of the United States from 2009 to 2017, when her husband was Barack Obama’s vice president. She currently chairs the Milken Institute’s Women’s Health Network.
Jill Biden is also the author of “Where the Light Enters,” published in 2019, in which she writes about meeting Joe Biden, then a U.S. senator from Delaware, and marrying and building a life with him. She also has written three children’s books.
Changes in Venezuela are slow and imperfect, but they are happening. The question is not whether chavismo will attempt to produce results that benefit Venezuelans, because it has no alternative. The real question is how it will do so and who is on the playing field trying to shape those outcomes.
The reform of the Hydrocarbons Law, the enactment of the Amnesty Law, and the proposed reform of the Mining Law seem to indicate that the vehicle for implementing the institutional measures demanded by the United States is the National Assembly. A National Assembly that lacks legitimacy and does not represent the majority of the country’s political sectors.
Two weeks ago, Tareck William Saab resigned from his position as chief prosecutor, and Alfredo Ruiz resigned as ombudsman. Both had held those posts since August 2017 and had used the justice system against those who think differently. Following their resignations, the National Assembly confirmed Larry Devoe as acting head of the Public Prosecutor’s Office (Ministerio Público) and appointed Saab himself as acting ombudsman. While Saab’s resignation represented a step forward, appointing Saab as acting ombudsman was a direct violation of the Constitution. These dissonant signals only confirm that the Rodríguez leadership has no political will to move toward a democratic transition.
The process to appoint the heads of the Citizen Power branch has begun with the convening of the Evaluation Committee, and once again the academic world and civil society organizations have decided to participate. The nomination of Dr. Magaly Vásquez for chief prosecutor is a clear example and reflects the same logic that led human rights organizations to participate in the discussions around the Amnesty Law: when civil society comes together, it can take advantage of even minimal conditions to make itself heard and push decision-making toward, at the very least, more “palatable” outcomes.
Will a future democratic government treat the Amnesty Law as illegitimate? Will the hydrocarbon contracts signed by the interim government of Delcy Rodríguez be recognized?
In this process, as in the legislative debates mentioned earlier, there is an absence: the representation of all the country’s political actors. This absence (which includes a large portion of the opposition) is not simply an act of selfishness. On the contrary, their position is rooted in values and principles that prevent them from recognizing any legitimacy in the National Assembly. That stance deserves respect and admiration. However, it is worth asking whether that inflexible position is preventing them from becoming involved in processes that are producing real consequences for real people, inside and outside the country.
We know that these steps are not gestures of democratization. They appear instead to be targeted concessions designed to manage external pressure and preserve power. But achieving the appointment of a credible chief prosecutor or ombudsman could, even if only gradually, begin to rebuild a degree of institutional independence.
This leads me to ask those in the opposition who still remain on the sidelines: if we do not recognize these processes from their origin, what happens to their results when an eventual political change arrives? Will a future democratic government treat the Amnesty Law as illegitimate? Will the hydrocarbon contracts signed by the interim government of Delcy Rodríguez be recognized? Will the institutional reforms that may emerge within the framework of the path outlined by the US be rejected? These questions arise when one notices the absence of the main political figures, or when their presence remains limited to criticism.
These are not rhetorical or ill-intentioned questions. Nor is this about abandoning principles. Rather, it is about recognizing that civil society organizations need backing, especially from political parties and movements. As was demonstrated on July 28, 2024, when society’s desire for change translates into participation and is channeled by political parties, it becomes an overwhelming movement with the potential to materialize that will for change.
At the same time, we must be realistic: the response of opposition leaders cannot be unconditional recognition of the National Assembly. Structurally, it remains an instrument of authoritarian control. What can materialize, however, is support for civil society in the processes in which it is already participating. These expressions of support do not seek to legitimize lawmakers elected under questionable circumstances. Rather, they seek to recognize the work and struggle of the intermediary organizations that are fighting to open spaces for institutional life.
Turning this transition into a Venezuelan process requires Venezuelan actors to claim leadership over the institutional processes now unfolding.
A clear example of support could be the one mentioned earlier. The process to appoint the heads of Poder Ciudadano should not be rejected from the outset. Instead, those who have chosen to submit their candidacies before the National Assembly’s Evaluation Committee—and who possess the necessary technical and civic credentials—should receive public support, while their names are circulated in the public arena. Put more plainly: make noise about it. Doing so would increase the cost for the regime, in the eyes of the Trump administration, of selecting individuals who are the complete opposite: people without technical qualifications or chosen solely for political loyalty.
Choosing to support participation from an external position carries implications that become clearer with every issue appearing on the legislative agenda. The reform of the Mining Law presented this week, for example, cannot follow the path taken by the Hydrocarbons Law, which was approved without consultation, transparency or the participation of those who will bear its costs.
Venezuelan scholars, environmental organizations, and Indigenous communities must be sitting at the table in the discussions on the mining law. And the opposition, if it truly aspires to represent Venezuelans and not simply oppose the regime, could present its own reform proposals to the organizations that decide to participate in the process. In this way, participation would be effectively “outsourced.” The direct actors are not recognized, but the work of leading institutions is acknowledged.
What is at stake is more than a specific law or appointment. January 3 set in motion a process of transition in Venezuela that we hope will reach a safe harbor and conclude with free elections. But we cannot forget that there is also a risk that these changes will become little more than a negotiation between the US and remnants of chavismo. Turning this transition into a Venezuelan process requires Venezuelan actors to claim leadership over the institutional processes now unfolding. On one side, civil society must act as the principal driver. On the other, the opposition must decide whether it will remain on the margins or become an active ally.
Transitions are never perfect, because in most cases the preexisting institutions are not trustworthy. Yet decisions made within those institutions tend to be more durable than the circumstances that gave rise to them. Participating in a flawed process does not mean surrendering one’s principles. Refusing to acknowledge the reality of the moment, by contrast, allows others to shape what will become the legal and institutional architecture of the transition. And possibly, the political landscape of the coming decades.
March 11 (UPI) — The United States resumed Global Entry, a program that allows trusted travelers to quickly get through U.S. customs, on Wednesday after a short break.
The service began again at 5 a.m. EDT Wednesday, the Department of Homeland Security said.
“We are working hard to alleviate the disruptions to travelers caused by the Democrats’ shutdown,” a DHS spokesperson said in a statement.
The program was suspended to preserve staff and resources during the partial government shutdown that began Jan. 31. When it was announced, the department said it would also suspend TSA PreCheck, which allows low-risk travelers to speed through Transportation Security Administration checkpoints, but quickly reversed course on that decision.
Geoff Freeman, president and CEO of the U.S. Travel Association, said the organization was pleased with the decision.
“Over the last two weeks, the travel industry has been clear about the role programs like Global Entry and TSA PreCheck play in both security and efficiency,” Freeman said in a statement. “Through outreach to members of Congress and administration officials, collaboration across the travel sector and strong public engagement, we highlighted a simple reality: Trusted Traveler Programs enhance security while keeping travel moving.”
Travelers at airports have seen long lines for TSA checkpoints, some lasting several hours with lines stretching out onto sidewalks.
The DHS, which includes TSA, is shut down because Congress couldn’t agree on a funding bill for the department. Democrats don’t want to fund it until guardrails are put on the agency, and Republicans haven’t agreed to Democrats’ demands.
Because of this, TSA workers got a partial paycheck on Feb. 28 and will miss their first full check Saturday. There have been more work absences while staff are not getting paid, which slows the TSA lines at major airports.
Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., speaks to the press outside the U.S. Capitol on Thursday. Earlier today, President Donald Trump announced Mullin would replace Kristi Noem as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo
Brazzaville, Republic of Congo – On main roads and public squares across the Congolese capital, posters are up featuring the seven main candidates vying for president.
But at the Moukondo Market in Brazzaville’s fourth district – between lively discussions, people jostling for space and saleswomen trying to attract customers – many voters are less than enthusiastic about this weekend’s election.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Fortune, a 27-year-old unemployed university graduate who did not want to give his last name, said he does not expect much to come from the polls.
“When you see how money is spent during the campaign, you wonder if those in power really care about the living conditions of the population,” he said.
While Congo is the third largest oil producer in sub-Saharan Africa, about half the country’s population of about six million people live below the poverty line.
A few metres away, Gilbert, 44, shared similar sentiments. The civil servant explained that his salary is not enough to cover all his household expenses.
“I do odd jobs to supplement my income. At my age, believing that these elections will change our daily lives would be almost suicidal,” he said.
“I’ve known practically the same leader all my life,” Gilbert added. “Some call it stability. Others say that nothing changes.”
It’s a sentiment shared by many in the country: That after 40 years under a single leader, political continuity has become the norm.
President Denis Sassou Nguesso, 82, who is once again standing in the election, first came to power in Congo in 1979. After a period of political transition in the early 1990s, he returned to the presidency in 1997 after a civil war and has ruled the country without interruption ever since.
Two major constitutional revisions have marked his political trajectory. The 2002 constitution and the one adopted in 2015 notably changed certain eligibility requirements, allowing the head of state to continue to run for office.
For Nguesso’s supporters, this political longevity is primarily attributed to the stability the country has managed to maintain in a region often marked by conflict.
Congo’s neighbours include the conflict-racked Central African Republic; Gabon, which witnessed a coup in 2023; and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where the government is facing armed groups, most notably M23.
In official discourse, peace and institutional continuity are regularly presented as the main achievements of the Nguesso government.
However, several foreign observers painted a more nuanced picture of the political situation. The pro-democracy organisation Freedom House classified Congo as a “not free” country while the Ibrahim Index of African Governance highlighted limited progress in democratic participation and political accountability.
Supporters of Nguesso, who is running for re-election, take part in a campaign rally in Brazzaville before the March 15, 2026, presidential election [Roch Bouka/Reuters]
‘Asymmetrical political competition’
In the last presidential election in 2021, the official results gave Nguesso more than 88 percent of the votes cast with a reported voter turnout of 67 percent.
Nguesso is widely expected to win again when the country goes to the polls on Sunday.
Some analysts said the president’s political longevity can be partly explained by the country’s political structure.
Charles Abel Kombo, a Congolese economist and public policy observer, described the political system as a hybrid model.
“The Congolese political system combines formally pluralistic institutions – elections, political parties, parliament – with a high degree of centralisation of executive power,” he explained. “Nguesso’s political longevity can be explained in part by the structure of the institutional apparatus and the predominant role of the executive branch in the management of the state.”
According to him, the continuity of power is also linked to perceptions of stability in a country marked by the conflicts of the 1990s.
“In this historical context, this continuity can be seen as a factor of stability. But it is also accompanied by asymmetrical political competition.” In other words, political change remains theoretically possible but politically difficult.
For the economist, however, the issue goes beyond political change alone.
“The central challenge remains the ability of political actors to propose a credible plan for economic transformation. Countries dependent on natural resources need a strategic state capable of diversifying the economy and guiding productive transformation.”
Other observers took a more critical view of this political longevity.
For economic and political analyst Alphonse Ndongo, the stability often touted by the authorities must be examined with caution.
“There is indeed a stabilising regime because it has succeeded in maintaining peace. This is what is being sold today as the main recipe for success: There is no war, so the country is at peace. But this peace also allows those in power to remain there. We are in a kind of democratic illusion where elections often resemble a deal,” he said.
According to him, the current political architecture makes a change in leadership unlikely in the short term.
“It is difficult for the institutions responsible for managing elections to produce a result that differs from what everyone already expects. Everything is structured, from voter registration to the organisation of the ballot. Under these conditions, a surprising result seems unlikely,” he said.
A campaign billboard touts candidate Uphrem Dave Mafoula in Brazzaville [Roch Bouka/Reuters]
‘Political alternatives exist’
As the debate continues in Congolese society over whether the country’s political continuity is a mark of stability or a system that is hard to change, the opposition appears fragmented and weakened.
Some established parties are boycotting the vote while some prominent potential candidates are in prison or exile.
In June, the party of opposition leader Clement Mierassa was removed from the official list of recognised political parties.
For him, the conditions for a truly democratic election are not in place.
“We have always called for essential reforms: a truly independent national electoral commission, reliable voter rolls and a law regulating campaign spending,” he said. “Without these guarantees, it is difficult to talk about free and transparent elections.”
Other political actors, however, have chosen to run in the election.
Christ Antoine Wallembaud, spokesperson for candidate Destin Melaine Gavet, said participation remains a way of defending the political space.
“The electoral system has flaws, but that does not mean that those who participate in it condone fraud. Participating also serves as a reminder of the need for reform and shows that a political alternative exists.”
For many observers, access to the media is also a key issue during election campaigns.
“Access to public media remains a recurring problem for opposition candidates. The ruling party candidate always gets the lion’s share even though the High Council for Freedom of Communication has established a list of appearances on state media so that all candidates can present their programmes,” said a Congolese journalist who requested anonymity.
Faced with these difficulties, opposition candidates often turn to private media outlets to spread their messages.
Congolese authorities, for their part, insisted that civil liberties are fully guaranteed for all.
The prime minister and spokesperson for Nguesso, Anatole Collinet Makosso, recently said freedom of opinion and expression “is doing very well”.
“Freedom of expression is alive and well in Congo. The proof is the multitude of foreign journalists here to cover this election. No journalist has been arrested because of their work or prosecuted,” he said.
For the government, this international media presence is evidence of the transparency of the electoral process and the ability of the media to work freely in the country.
However, some press freedom organisations paint a different picture. In its World Press Freedom Index, Reporters Without Borders regularly highlights the difficulties faced by local journalists, particularly in terms of access to public information, political pressure and economic constraints.
People shop at a market in the Republic of Congo days before the 2026 presidential election [Al Jazeera]
Adapting to circumstances
In the working-class neighbourhoods of Brazzaville, reactions to Sunday’s election range from resignation to pragmatism.
In Bacongo, a young man on the street explained that he has learned to adapt to circumstances.
“When the country goes left, we go left. When it goes right, we go right. Doing the opposite can be dangerous,” he said while refusing to give his name.
Beyond the political debate, economic concerns remain central.
The Congolese economy is heavily dependent on oil, which accounts for about 70 percent of its exports and nearly 40 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP), according to the World Bank. This dependence exposes the country to fluctuations in international energy prices.
Public debt has also reached high levels in recent years, exceeding 90 percent of the GDP before being partially restructured under agreements with international creditors.
In this context, several economists said the electoral stakes go beyond the single issue of political change.
Diversifying the economy, creating jobs for a predominantly young population and improving public services are major challenges in the years ahead.
But many Congolese aren’t hopeful that Sunday’s election will make a difference to their material reality because political and economic power will likely remain in the same hands.
“We all understand the system in this country,” Fortune said. “The [economic] crisis doesn’t affect everyone, nor does poverty.”
