Politics

EUCLID, Ohio — Campaigning in a key battleground state, Mitt Romney said Monday that President Obama has failed in his promises to reduce unemployment, improve the nation’s housing market and right the nation’s economy.

“At the convention, the Democratic Convention about four years ago, the president got up and spoke about hope, change and together we can do anything. But he hasn’t lived up to those kinds of expectations,” Romney told hundreds of people gathered in a heavy gauge-stamping warehouse just outside Cleveland. “The American people are good-hearted people with the desire for good things to happen to one another and we hoped that this president would be able to be successful. I sure did. And he has not been. I know how many people are struggling. I want to do my very best to help them and I’m convinced that my experience will help me get this economy going and get people back to work and good jobs, which they need.”

Romney made his remarks while campaigning in Ohio, a state that has picked every president since 1964 and where Obama officially kicked off his reelection bid Saturday. The GOP candidate’s comments, six months before the election, come the same day that two new polls showed the men in a statistical dead heat, and on the day that Obama launched a $25-million monthlong television ad buy in Ohio and eight other swing states.

Romney did not mention the ad or Obama’s appearance here over the weekend, but he argued that by Obama’s own benchmarks, such as getting unemployment below 8%, and other indicators such as a drop in median incomes and rising healthcare, food and fuel costs, the president’s policies have not worked.

“Americans in the middle class are feeling squeezed, even if they have a job. And obviously most of our citizens have a job, but boy, these are tough times,” Romney said.

A Romney backer who introduced the presumptive GOP nominee said Obama does not understand the middle class.

“I’m tired about hearing him talk about the middle class as though he knows anything about us,” said state auditor Dave Yost to loud applause, before reeling off a list of vacations the Obamas have taken since coming to the White House.

Yost said the tally was 17 vacations, including one last Christmas that cost $1.5 million. “Mr. President, that’s not middle class. And you stop lecturing us about our lives!”

Follow Politics Now on Twitter

[email protected]

Original source: Romney focuses on Obama’s economic record in Ohio

Were California voters especially wise Tuesday when they adopted both Proposition 25, which erases the Legislature’s crippling two-thirds vote requirement for adopting a budget, and Proposition 26, which imposes a new two-thirds mandate for imposing or raising a fee? End the gridlock, perhaps they were saying, but not at the expense of taxpaying families or businesses.

Or were they being especially clueless, telling Democratic lawmakers to adopt the budget they want, but without knowing or caring that they were simultaneously making the job close to impossible by depriving those same politicians of one of their chief budget-balancing tools?

It’s tempting but in the end pointless to try to find a consistent voter philosophy among the confusing and often contradictory ballot measures. The electorate’s role is to say “yes” or “no” to individual questions; it’s up to their elected leaders and representatives to make those decisions work. In the coming year, lawmakers and the once-and-future Gov. Jerry Brown will be presented with an opportunity in Proposition 25, the majority-vote budget, possibly the most important reform adopted at the ballot box in a generation. They will have to demonstrate wisdom, leadership and self-restraint to take good advantage of it without being snared by Proposition 26 and the other ballot-box budgeting mandates sent them by voters in this election and others over the last 30 years.

California’s persistent fiscal mess is based less on poor budget decisions in Sacramento than it is on the inability to make a decision of any kind. At the heart of the problem has been the two-thirds supermajority requirement, imposed by voters in three stages. First, during the Depression, voters decided that no budget could be passed in a slow-growth year without the approval of two-thirds of the members of each house of the Legislature. Then, in the 1960s, the two-thirds requirement was extended to include all budgets in all years. Then, in 1978 as part of Proposition 13, it was applied to all tax increases as well. Proposition 25 undoes the two-thirds requirement only on budgets. It remains in place on taxes and, in fact, is now, under Proposition 26, extended to fees.

Now, like every other state in the nation but two, California will be able to adopt a budget on a majority vote (as long as that budget doesn’t include any tax or fee hikes). It’s an important step up from deadlock and stasis, and holds the prospect of returning the Legislature to a measure of accountability that it has too long eluded.

Majority votes form the core of democracy. A majority is a mathematically unique number. Any deviation from majority rule in a legislative body gives disproportionate power to the minority. Require less than a majority, and a small cabal can have its way. Require a supermajority, and an equally small group can stymie the will of the majority by repeatedly saying “no.” In California’s Legislature, the minority party — the Republicans — has held fast to that power, arguing that it is the last check on irresponsible spending. But the result has been a budget process that stretches well past the constitutional June 15 deadline, and that delay has, in turn, damaged California’s reputation and creditworthiness far more than any cuts sought by GOP lawmakers or taxes proposed by Democrats.

Conservatives should also recognize that Democrats have been able to use the requirement to shirk accountability. No more. Democratic lawmakers must now stand behind their budgets. The electorate — especially the large and growing number of decline-to-state voters — will know exactly whom to hold responsible if the next budget is late or unbalanced.

No doubt Democrats would like to be able to raise taxes on a majority vote as well, and, in fact, the same principles that make two-thirds wrong for budgeting make it wrong for taxes. But for the present voters don’t appear to agree with them. Meanwhile, Democrats need no longer bargain away substantive and non-budget-related policy points merely to score Republican budget support. They may bargain for GOP support on taxes, but they have a choice.

Proposition 25 is a useful new tool, but it alone doesn’t solve the state government’s structural problems. In passing Proposition 22, voters cut off another source of state funds by protecting redevelopment agencies and local governments. Of course, those very agencies and governments would have run out of their own funds and gone bankrupt many times had they not been bailed out by Sacramento after Proposition 13 and then after the reduction of the vehicle license fee in the 1990s. When the state “raids” local treasuries, it is merely taking back its own money — money it can no longer afford to give away. But voters have made clear repeatedly that they prefer funding for local programs. In rejecting Proposition 21, a new vehicle fee to support parks, voters said no to the fee but presumably didn’t say no to state parks, which still must be funded — or lost to posterity.

Now more than ever it becomes the responsibility of Brown and the legislative majority to remind Californians that institutions that make a safe, just and abundant life here possible — courts, disaster preparedness, the Highway Patrol, water systems, schools and universities — are a bargain but nevertheless require funding.

Oct. 17 (UPI) — The Army Corps of Engineers has paused work on $11 billion in low-priority projects while the federal government remains shut down amid a budget impasse in Congress.

The shutdown has deprived the corps of the funds needed to continue work on many projects, some of which might be canceled, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought said Friday in a post on X.

“The Democrat shutdown has drained the Army Corps of Engineers’ ability to manage billions of dollars in projects,” Vought said.

“The Corps will be immediately pausing over $11 billion in lower-priority projects and considering them for cancellation.”

He said the pauses and potential cancellations would include projects in Baltimore, Boston, New York City and San Francisco.

Vought is the first Trump administration official to announce layoffs of federal workers and project pauses due to the government shutdown, CNBC reported.

Vought and President Donald Trump have called the shutdown an opportunity to reduce the size of the federal government.

The president has suggested Democrat-led cities, states and federal programs would be targeted as the funding fight continues in the Senate.

Vought said more information would be released regarding corps project pauses, which also might occur in locales that are not run by Democrats.

The four cities that Vought announced for pauses are led by Democrats and are located in states that have Democrats for their respective governors and representing them in the Senate.

The Trump administration already has paused $18 billion in infrastructure projects in New York City and $2.1billion in Chicago infrastructure projects, according to CBS News.

The administration also has canceled $8 billion for projects involving the climate in 16 states.

Questionnaires were distributed to candidates this month. Answers have been edited to fit the available space.

Family Sick Leave

Q. Gov. Deukmejian recently vetoed legislation that would have granted workers as much as four months of unpaid leave every two years to care for sick children, spouses and other family members without fear of losing their jobs. Do you favor this type of legislation?

Margolin: Yes.

Michael: Yes.

Staley: Yes.

Teacher Salaries

Q. The Legislature approved a 4.7% cost-of-living raise for school employees, and Gov. Deukmejian reduced it to 3%, placing the difference in an account for special education programs. Should this money be used for salaries?

Margolin: Yes. Recruiting talented and dedicated teachers is critical to improving educational performance.

Michael: Yes, but only for teachers’ salaries. I do not consider an increase of 4.7% to be extravagant and do not believe the governor should have cut corners on teachers.

Staley: Yes. It should be used for cost-of-living raises.

Big Green

Q. Proposition 128, the so-called “Big Green” initiative on the November ballot, seeks to eliminate ozone-depleting chemicals by the year 2000, phase out pesticides known to cause cancer and require that trees be planted in all new developments. Do you support this initiative? Margolin: Yes. These significant reforms of our environmental protection laws represent a major breakthrough in the effort to halt the alarming deterioration of our environment.

Michael: Yes. We must eliminate toxic pesticides from our food, land and livestock and must cease endangering our farm workers and their families. This is the best aspect of Big Green.

Staley: Yes. Preservation of the environment is of the utmost importance.

Tree-Cutting

Q. Proposition 130 on the November ballot would restrict clear-cutting of forests, allow the sale of $710 million in bonds to preserve ancient redwood forests and provide $32 million to retrain unemployed loggers. Do you support this initiative? Margolin: Yes.

Michael: Yes.

Staley: Yes, but not as an alternative to 128.

Limited Terms

Q. Proposition 131 on the November ballot, authored by Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp and Common Cause, would limit most statewide elected officials to eight consecutive years in office, and senators and Assembly members to 12 years. Proposition 140, sponsored by Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum, is more stringent, limiting lifetime service to eight years in the Senate and six in the Assembly. Do you support limiting the number of terms state legislators can serve? If yes, how long should the limits be? Margolin: No. Term limits deprive the voters of the right to select their representatives. They also would expand the influence of the special interests who would clearly benefit from the turmoil artificial term limits would create.

Michael: Yes. I support Proposition 140. We must rid ourselves of the corrupt Legislature we have, and this will do that.

Staley: Yes. I favor shorter limits. Legislators will be less at the mercy of campaign contributors. They would give more citizens access to government and would help free legislators from constant campaign worries.

Sales Tax

Q. Proposition 133 on the November ballot would raise state sales and use taxes by 0.5% for four years to raise $7.5 billion for drug enforcement and treatment, anti-drug education , and prison and jail construction and operation. Do you support this initiative?

Margolin: Yes.

Michael: Yes.

Staley: No.

Liquor Tax

Q. Proposition 134 on the November ballot would substantially raise taxes on beer, wine and liquor, and dedicate the revenue from the tax hike to programs for the treatment of drug and alcohol abuse. Do you support this initiative? Margolin: Yes.

Michael: No.

Staley: No.

Inmate Laborers

Q. Proposition 139 on the November ballot would allow private companies to hire state prison and county jail inmates as laborers. Do you support this initiative? Margolin: No.

Michael: Yes.

Staley: No.

Death Penalty

Q. Do you support capital punishment? If so, do you think it should be imposed on those convicted of importing or selling drugs? Margolin: No.

Michael: Yes, I support capital punishment. No, I am not inclined to use it for simple drug-dealing, but would make it an option if a specific death can be clearly tied to a certain dealer’s drugs.

Staley: No to both.

Handgun Controls

Q. Do you support additional limits on handgun purchase or possession in California? Margolin: Yes. Senseless violence is made easy because of the virtually unrestricted access to handguns. I support waiting periods for their purchase and mandatory training programs. I also support increased penalties for illegal possession.

Michael: No. Gun laws do not work, as the cities of New York and Washington, D.C., readily prove. In addition, they are of questionable constitutionality.

Staley: Yes. A more thorough background check, a waiting period and proof of training should be rigid. Ultimately, handguns should be made illegal, but it is a decision voters must make.

Abortion Rights

Q. Do you support a woman’s right to unrestricted abortions within the first three months of pregnancy? Margolin: Yes.

Michael: No.

Staley: Yes.

Abortion Funding

Q. Do you support government funding of abortions for women who cannot afford them? Margolin: Yes.

Michael: No, except in cases of reported rape and incest, and where the life and/or health of the mother is in jeopardy.

Staley: Yes.

Day-Care Services

Q. Do you believe the state should require private employers to subsidize day-care services for employees who request them? Margolin: Yes. Better day care would allow working parents to improve their job performance. It serves the interests of both the employee and the employer.

Michael: No. The state should provide tax incentives for companies to provide day care. Mandatory requirements would promote discrimination against women in hiring.

Staley: Yes, as well as paid maternity leave.

War on Drugs

Q. Do you believe our present strategy of criminal prosecution, interdiction of supplies and imprisonment of users and dealers will ever significantly reduce the level of drug use in the United States? If no, what should be done? Margolin: No. While they are necessary steps, by themselves they are unlikely to succeed. Equal effort has to be applied to drug education and drug treatment if any long-term progress is to be made.

Michael: No. You must decrease the demand side through education. If the demand is still there, the law will not stop it alone.

Staley: No. The problem is not the users and dealers.

Drug Decriminalization

Q. Would you consider supporting the decriminalization of drug use? Margolin: No.

Michael: No, except for marijuana.

Staley: Yes.

Oil Exploration

Q. Do you think the present Mideast crisis justifies opening up additional parts of the California coastline to oil exploration? Margolin: No. New energy sources can be developed without desecrating our priceless coastline.

Michael: No. The economic crisis isn’t that bad, and we need to be less dependent on petroleum.

Staley: No. The United States has other reserves.

Parkland Exchange

Q. Should the National Park Service exchange 50 acres in Cheeseboro Canyon in southeastern Ventura County for about 1,100 acres of the neighboring Jordan Ranch owned by entertainer Bob Hope, permitting park agencies to buy another 4,600 acres of Hope’s land in the Santa Monica and Santa Susana mountains for $10 million? Margolin: Yes.

Michael: Yes.

Staley: No, Mr. Hope should donate the land voluntarily.

Mandatory Ride-Sharing

Q. Do you favor mandatory ride-sharing in an effort to meet government air pollution standards? Margolin: Yes. Ride-sharing has proven to be an effective tool in reducing traffic congestion. Any mandatory program needs to be flexibly structured to meet the needs of Southern California commuters.

Michael: No. It’s unenforceable.

Staley: No. That would be a violation of civil liberties. Public transit should be improved and should be free.

Political Funding

Q. Do you support full or partial public funding of political campaigns? Margolin: Yes, if it applies to general elections and the level of funding is adequate for the candidates to effectively communicate their views to the electorate.

Michael: No. Taxpayer money should not go to campaign consultants and television stations.

Staley: Yes. Full funding for candidates who want it would make this process fairer and would help reduce the influence of campaign contributors. There should be spending limits, also.

Income Disclosure

Q. Are you willing to publicly release your income tax returns and those of your spouse prior to the November election? Margolin: No.

Michael: No.

Haley: Yes.

Porter Ranch

Q. Do you support development of the massive Porter Ranch project in the hills north of Chatsworth as presently configured? Margolin: No. Projects of this immense scale will add to the congestion that is already choking our streets and eroding the quality of life in Los Angeles.

Michael: No. The neighborhood doesn’t want it, and it’s simply a developer, money-making scheme which benefits no one else.

Haley: No. I do not support unlimited growth and I believe voters in the area should make the decision, not politicians.

CONTENDERS Burt Margolin, 39, a Democrat, has represented the 45th District in the state Senate since 1982. Previously, he worked for Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) and Rep. Howard. L. Berman (D-Panorama City).

Elizabeth Michael, 34, of Hollywood, is a businesswoman who has long been active in Republican party politics. She made an unsuccessful bid for the state Senate two years ago.

Owen Staley of Hollywood is the Peace and Freedom party candidate. He is a college instructor.

Oct. 17 (UPI) — New York Republican Party leaders on Friday voted unanimously to disband the state’s Young Republicans chapter after a group chat involving some of their members included racist and antisemitic comments.

The 2,900 pages of messages posted on Telegram also involved Republicans in Arizona, Kansas and Vermont, according to a Politico report. The messages from January to August included calling for gas chambers, expressing love for Adolf Hitler and endorsing rape.

On Tuesday, the chairman of the Kansas Republican Party deactivated the Kansas organization.

New York’s executive committee suspended the authorization of men and women 18 to 40 to operate in the state, Politico website and The Hill reported.

“The Young Republicans was already grossly mismanaged, and vile language of the sort made in the group chat has no place in our party or its subsidiary organizations,” New York GOP chair Ed Cox said in a statement.

Cox sent a formal notice to the National Federation of Young Republicans.

“Unlike the Democrat Party that embraces anti-Semitic rhetoric and refuses to condemn leaders who call for political violence, Republicans deliver accountability by immediately removing those who use this sort of rhetoric from the positions they hold,” he said. “This incident was immediately condemned by our most senior New York Republican elected leaders.”

The New York group’s Facebook page is not longer available.

Five people linked to New York participated in the chat, including Peter Giunta, a former leader of the state group and Bobby Walker, the vice chair.

Giunta is no longer chief of staff to state Assemblymember Mike Reilly and Walker’s offer to manage state Sen. Peter Oberacker’s congressional bid was pulled. They both apologized for their remarks but questioned whether the chat was altered.

“I love Hitler” is one of the messages associated with Giunta.

“I’m ready to watch people burn now,” Annie Kaykaty, a member of the Young Republicans’ national committee, who is also from New York, wrote.

A photo obtained by HuffPost shows Giunta and Kaykaty posing with President Donald Trump at a campaign event in 2024.

Vermont state Sen. Samuel Douglass was revealed as a chat participant.

Elise Stefanik and Mike Lawler, who are House members serving New York districts, condemned the chat.

Democrats denounced their association with the Young Republicans.

“Disgraceful New York Republicans Mike Lawler and Elise Stefanik have been palling around with these racist, antisemitic and bigoted ‘Young Republicans’ for years,” Jeffries wrote Tuesday on X. “Their silence exposes what’s always been true – the phony outrage was nothing more than performance.” Alex Degrasse, a senior adviser to Stefanik, said she “calls for any New York Young Republicans responsible for these horrific comments in this chat to step down immediately,” in a statement to ABC News.

Stefanik fired back at violent rhetoric from Democrats, calling Zohran Mmadani, the party’s New York City candidate a “raging antisemite” on X.

Vice President JD Vance said those messages should not face career-ending punishments.

“The reality is that kids do stupid things,” Vance said in an interview on The Charlie Kirk Show on Wednesday. “Especially young boys, they tell edgy, offensive jokes. Like, that’s what kids do. And I really don’t want us to grow up in a country where a kid telling a stupid joke — telling a very offensive, stupid joke — is cause to ruin their lives.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday called for a congressional investigation of antisemitic and racist comments.

In 1935, the Young Republican division officially became the Young Republican National Federation.

Federal authorities are now pursuing a misdemeanor charge against David Huerta, president of Service Employees International Union California, who was arrested during the first day of a series of immigration raids that swept the region.

Prosecutors originally brought a felony charge of conspiracy to impede an officer against Huerta, accusing him of obstructing federal authorities from serving a search warrant at a Los Angeles workplace and arresting dozens of undocumented immigrants on June 6.

On Friday, court filings show federal prosecutors filed a lesser charge against Huerta of “obstruction resistance or opposition of a federal officer,” which carries a punishment of up to a year in federal prison. The felony he was charged with previously could have put him behind bars for up to six years.

The U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles declined to comment.

In a statement, Huerta’s attorneys, Abbe David Lowell and Marilyn Bednarski, said they would “seek the speediest trial to vindicate David.” The lawyers said that “in the four months that have passed since David’s arrest, it has become even clearer there were no grounds for charging him and certainly none for the way he was treated.”

“It’s clear that David Huerta is being singled out not for anything he did but for who he is — a life-long workers’ advocate who has been an outspoken critic of its immigration policies. These charges are a clear attempt to silence a leading voice who dared to challenge a cruel, politically driven campaign of fear,” the statement read.

The labor union previously stated that Huerta was detained “while exercising his First Amendment right to observe and document law enforcement activity.” Huerta is one of more than 60 people charged federally in the Central District of California tied to immigration protests and enforcement actions.

Two recent misdemeanor trials against protesters charged with assaulting a federal officer both ended in acquittals. Some protesters have taken plea deals.

In a statement Friday, Huerta said he is “being targeted for exercising my constitutional rights for standing up against an administration that has declared open war on working families, immigrants, and basic human dignity.”

“The baseless charges brought against me are not just about me, they are meant to intimidate anyone who dares to speak out, organize, or demand justice. I will not be silenced,” he said.

Huerta was held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles for days, prompting thousands of union members, activists and supporters to rally for his release. California Democratic Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla also sent a letter to the Homeland Security and Justice departments demanding a review of Huerta’s arrest.

A judge ordered Huerta released in June on a $50,000 bond.

The case against Huerta centers on a June 6 workplace immigration raid at Ambiance Apparel. According to the original criminal complaint filed, Huerta arrived at the site around noon Friday, joining several other protesters.

Huerta and other protesters “appeared to be communicating with each other in a concerted effort to disrupt the law enforcement operations,” a federal agent wrote in the complaint.

The agent wrote that Huerta was yelling at and taunting officers and later sat cross-legged in front of a vehicle gate to the location where law enforcement authorities were serving a search warrant.

Huerta also “at various times stood up and paced in front of the gate, effectively preventing law enforcement vehicles from entering or exiting the premises through the gate to execute the search warrant,” the agent wrote in the affidavit.

The agent wrote that they told Huerta that if he kept blocking the Ambiance gate, he would be arrested.

According to the complaint, as a white law enforcement van tried to get through the gate, Huerta stood in its path.

Because Huerta “was being uncooperative, the officer put his hands on HUERTA in an attempt to move him out of the path of the vehicle.”

“I saw HUERTA push back, and in response, the officer pushed HUERTA to the ground,” the agent wrote. “The officer and I then handcuffed HUERTA and arrested him.”

According to a statement from SEIU-United Service Workers West, SEIU California State Council, and the Service Employees International Union, “Huerta was thrown to the ground, tackled, pepper sprayed, and detained by federal agents while exercising his constitutional rights at an ICE raid in Los Angeles.” Video of his arrest went viral.

“Despite David’s harsh treatment at the hands of law enforcement, he is now facing an unjust charge,” the statement read. “This administration has turned the military against our own people, terrorizing entire communities, and even detaining U.S. citizens who are exercising their constitutional rights to speak out.”

Acting U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, posted a photo on the social media site X of Huerta, hands behind his back, after the arrest.

“Let me be clear: I don’t care who you are — if you impede federal agents, you will be arrested and prosecuted,” Essayli wrote. “No one has the right to assault, obstruct, or interfere with federal authorities carrying out their duties.”

In an interview with Sacramento TV news oulet KCRA last month, Essayli referred to Huerta as Gov. Gavin Newsom’s “buddy” and said he “deliberately obstructed a search warrant.”

While speaking with reporters in June, Schiff said Huerta was “exercising his lawful right to be present and observe these immigration raids.”

“It’s obviously a very traumatic thing, and now that it looks like the Justice Department wants to try and make an example out of him, it’s all the more traumatic,” Schiff said. “But this is part of the Trump playbook. They selectively use the Justice Department to go after their adversaries. It’s what they do.”

The National Labor Relations Board has sued California to block a law that empowers a state agency to oversee some private-sector labor disputes and union elections.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 288 into law last month in response to the Trump administration’s hampering of federal regulators. It gives the state’s Public Employment Relations Board the ability to step in and oversee union elections, charges of workplace retaliation and other issues in the event the federal labor board is unable, or declines, to decide cases.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, argues the law usurps the NLRB’s authority “by attempting to regulate areas explicitly reserved for federal oversight.”

The lawsuit echos the NLRB’s challenge to a recent New York law that similarly seeks to expand the powers of its state labor board.

NLRB attorneys contend in the lawsuits that the laws create parallel regulatory systems that conflict with federal labor law.

The NLRB is tasked with safeguarding the right of private employees to unionize or organize in other ways to improve their working conditions.

Lawmakers in New York and California said they passed their bills to fill a gap, because the NLRB has been functionally paralyzed since January, when President Trump fired one of its Democratic board members. The unprecedented firing of that member, Gwynne Wilcox, left the board without the three-member quorum it needs to rule on cases.

Wilcox has challenged her firing in court, arguing that appointed board members can only be fired for “malfeasance or neglect of duty.” But her removal was upheld by the Supreme Court for now, until her case can make its way through lower courts.

Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, last month called AB 288 “the most significant labor law reform in nearly a century.”

The California Public Employment Relations Board typically has authority only over public sector employees. But when the new law goes into effect on Jan. 1, workers in the private sector who are unable to get a timely response at the federal level can also petition the state board to take up their cases and enforce their rights.

The state’s labor board can choose to take on a case when the NLRB “has expressly or impliedly ceded jurisdiction,” according to language in the law. That includes when charges filed with the agency or an election certification have languished with a regional director for more than six months — or when the federal board doesn’t have a quorum of members or is otherwise hampered.

The NLRB’s paralysis has put hundreds of cases in limbo, with the agency currently lacking the ability to compel employers to bargain with their workers’ unions, or to stop unfair treatment on the job.

However, the agency’s acting general counsel — Trump appointee William Cowen — has said that only a fraction of cases require decisions from the typically five-member board and that the agency’s work has been largely unaffected, with regional offices continuing to process union elections and unfair labor practice charges.

George Santos, serving a prison term on charges of fraud and identity theft, had been held in solitary confinement.

United States President Donald Trump has said that he will commute the sentence of former Republican Representative George Santos, who was serving a prison sentence for fraud and identity theft.

In a social media post on Friday, Trump acknowledged that Santos had made mistakes. But he celebrated Santos as a strong supporter of the Republican Party and noted that family and friends had raised concerns over the former lawmaker’s conditions in prison.

“George Santos was somewhat of a ‘rogue,’ but there are many rogues throughout our Country that aren’t forced to serve seven years in prison,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.

“At least Santos had the Courage, Conviction, and Intelligence to ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN!”

Trump added that Santos has been “horribly mistreated”, citing his isolation behind bars: “George has been in solitary confinement for long stretches of time.”

Santos became a well-known political figure after his election victory in 2022, when he flipped New York’s 3rd Congressional District from Democratic control to Republican.

Election observers noted it was one of the first times an openly gay Republican had won a seat in the House of Representatives.

But news reports quickly revealed that Santos had fabricated key details of his life story, and by December 2022, investigators had started to delve into his business dealings.

After a congressional committee found evidence that Santos had violated federal law, including by deceiving donors and stealing from his own campaign, the House of Representatives voted to expel him. Santos was less than a year into his term.

By 2024, Santos had entered into a plea deal with prosecutors to avoid a trial over the allegations. He was sentenced in April for deceiving donors and misleading 11 people, including members of his own family, into giving money to his campaign.

But Santos, a vocal Trump supporter, quickly began a push for the president to commute his prison time, claiming that his punishment was politically motivated.

Trump has also depicted himself as a victim of unjust persecution at the hands of political enemies. He is known to use the power of presidential pardon on behalf of his supporters.

At the beginning of his current term, for example, Trump controversially pardoned nearly all of those charged with participating in the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. That attack was part of a bid to violently overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, which Trump lost.

Santos and his allies have also drawn attention to his placement in solitary confinement. Though cells meant to maximise isolation are common in US prisons, critics argue they constitute “cruel and unusual punishment”, given their connection to mental health issues and heightened risks of suicide.

Santos entered the Federal Correctional Institution in Fairton, New Jersey, on July 25. He has written several columns about his experience with solitary confinement since then, reiterating his appeal for Trump to show mercy.

“I am not asking for special treatment. I am asking to be treated as a person – with attention, dignity, and the care any human deserves when in distress,” he wrote in an opinion column.

“And yes, I renew my plea to President Trump: intervene. Help me escape this daily torment and let me return to my family.”

In a rare public rebuke, the Los Angeles City Council pressed the city’s top lawyer to abandon her attempt to halt a federal judge’s order prohibiting LAPD officers from targeting journalists with crowd control weapons.

One day before “No Kings” demonstrations against the Trump administration were set to launch in L.A. and elsewhere, the council voted 12-0 to direct City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto to withdraw her request to lift the order.

Hours later, Feldstein Soto’s legal team did just that, informing the judge it was pulling back its request — around the same time the judge rejected it.

Since June, the city has been hit with dozens of legal claims from protesters and journalists who reported that LAPD officers used excessive force against them during protests over Trump’s immigration crackdown.

The lawsuit that prompted the judge’s ban was brought by the Los Angeles Press Club and the news outlet Status Coup, who pointed to video evidence and testimonials suggesting that LAPD officers violated their own guidelines, as well as state law, by shooting journalists and others in sensitive parts of the body, such as the head, with weapons that launch projectiles the size of a mini soda can at speeds of more than 200 miles per hour.

“Journalism is under attack in this country — from the Trump Administration’s revocation of press access to the Pentagon to corporate consolidation of local newsrooms,” Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, who introduced the motion opposing Feldstein Soto’s legal filing, said in a statement. “The answer cannot be for Los Angeles to join that assault by undermining court-ordered protections for journalists.”

In a motion filed Wednesday, Feldstein Soto’s legal team sought a temporary stay of the order issued by U.S. District Judge Hernán D. Vera. She reiterated her earlier argument that Vera’s ban was overly broad, extending protections to “any journalist covering a protest in [the City of] Los Angeles.”

The city’s lawyers also argued that the ban, which bars the LAPD from using so-called less lethal munitions against journalists and nonviolent protesters, creates “ambiguous mandates” that jeopardize “good-faith conduct” by officers and pose “immediate and concrete risk to officer and public safety.”

In addition to Feldstein Soto’s request for a temporary stay, the city has filed an appeal of Vera’s injunction. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is taking up the appeal, with a hearing tentatively set for mid-November.

Council members have become increasingly vocal about their frustrations with the city attorney’s office. Two months ago, they voiced alarm that an outside law firm billed the city $1.8 million in just two weeks — double the amount authorized by the council. They have also grown exasperated over the rising cost of legal payouts, which have consumed a steadily larger portion of the city budget.

After Feldstein Soto’s motion was reported by LAist, several city council members publicly distanced themselves from her and condemned her decision.

In a sternly worded statement before Friday’s vote, Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez wrote that the city attorney’s “position does not speak for the full City Council.”

“The LAPD should NEVER be permitted to use force against journalists or anyone peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights,” said the statement from Soto-Martínez, who signed Hernandez’s proposal along with Councilmembers Ysabel Jurado and Monica Rodriguez.

On Friday, the council also asked the city attorney’s office to report back within 30 days on “all proactive litigation the Office has moved forward without explicit direction from the City Council or Mayor since July 1, 2024.”

Rodriguez said that Friday’s vote should send a message that the city council needs “to be consulted as a legislative body that is independently elected by the people.”

“What I hope is that this becomes a more permanent act of this body — to exercise its role in oversight,” she said.

Carol Sobel, the civil rights attorney who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs, welcomed the council’s action. Still, she said Feldstein Soto’s filings in the case raise questions about whose interests the city attorney is representing.

“Sometimes you say ‘Mea culpa, we were wrong. We shouldn’t have shot people in the head, despite our policies,’” she said.

Oct. 17 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Friday night said he commuted the sentence of George Santos, freeing the former Republican U.S. House member after just three months in federal prison.

Santos, who served in the House for less than one year, was sentenced to more than seven years in prison after pleading guilty to charges of committing wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. Santos, 37, reported to a federal facility in Fairton, N.Y., on July 25.

Santos also gained prominence for lying about his employment history and education, and information about his family.

“George has been in solitary confinement for long stretches of time and, by all accounts, has been horribly mistreated,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “Therefore, I just signed a Commutation, releasing George Santos from prison, IMMEDIATELY. Good luck George, have a great life!”

Trump left the White House on Friday to spend the weekend in Florida. He’s the keynote speaker Friday night at a fundraiser for the super PAC MAGA Inc.

A senior White House official told NBC News that Trump decided to help Santos this week and “many people wrote to him about it.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., had sought a pardon, which erases the legal consequences of a crime. A commutation only reduces the severity of the punishment.

Greene told NBC News this week that she had been in contact with the Department of Justice in recent weeks regarding the possibility, saying the sentence was overly harsh.

“George Santos never raped anybody, never murdered anybody, is not a child sex-trafficker. Why is he in solitary confinement?” she said. “That is an extreme treatment for someone for the crimes that he was convicted of.”

CNN didn’t receive comments from his lawyers.

Santos, before reporting to prison, told a Saudi outlet, Al Arabiya English, that he asked Trump for a pardon.

“I did not spend time in D.C. making friends,” Santos said. “I never made it to the president. I got stonewalled by the gatekeepers.”

From prison last week, Santos wrote a letter to Trump published in The South Shore Press: “Mr. President, I am not asking for sympathy. I am asking for fairness — for the chance to rebuild. I know I have made mistakes in my past. I have faced my share of consequences, and I take full responsibility for my actions. But no man, no matter his flaws, deserves to be lost in the system, forgotten and unseen, enduring punishment far beyond what justice requires.”

Trump took notice of Santos’ situation.

“George Santos was somewhat of a ‘rogue,’ but there are many rogues throughout our Country that aren’t forced to serve seven years in prison,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “I started to think about George when the subject of Democrat Senator Richard ‘Da Nang Dick’ Blumenthal came up again.”

Trump explained that Blumenthal, who has served as a U.S. senator serving Connecticut for 14 1/2 years, lied about his military involvement.

“He was ‘a Great Hero,’ he would leak to any and all who would listen — And then it happened! He was a COMPLETE AND TOTAL FRAUD. He never went to Vietnam, he never saw Vietnam, he never experienced the Battles there, or anywhere else. … This is far worse than what George Santos did, and at least Santos had the Courage, Conviction, and Intelligence to ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN!”

Santos fabricated parts of his biography, including falsely, saying that he was a “star” player on a championship volleyball team.

Santos was raised Catholic but claimed his mother had a Jewish background and that his maternal grandparents were Jewish refugees from Ukraine who survived the Holocaust. His grandparents were born in Brazil.

He also said his mother died in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, though she wasn’t in the United States at the time.

Santos took office on Jan. 3, 2023, serving in New York’s 3rd Congressional District.

On Nov. 16, 2023, Santos announced he would not seek re-election for the seat that serves parts of Long Island and Queens.

That day, the House Ethics Committee found that he “violated federal criminal laws.” The funds were used for personal purposes and he filed false campaign reports, the report said.

Despite a slim Republican majority and relying on his vote, the House expelled Santos the next month on Dec. 1, 2023. The 311-114 vote surpassed the required two-thirds majority.

He was the sixth lawmaker to be forced out of the chamber.

On March 7, 2024, he announced he would run as a Republican in the 1st Congressional District and 15 days later, Santos said he would seek the office as an independent. A month later, on April 23, he withdrew his candidacy.

He pleaded guilty on Aug. 19, 2024, in federal court in Central Islip, N.Y., and was sentenced on April 25.

“I deeply regret my conduct,” Santos said in court during his conviction and sentence. “I accept full responsibility for my actions.”

SACRAMENTO — Gubernatorial hopeful Katie Porter said Friday that she mishandled a recent television news interview that called her temperament into question, but explained she felt the reporter’s questioning implied she should cater to President Donald Trump’s supporters.

Porter, an outspoken Democrat and former U.S. House representative from Orange County, said that she was “pushing back on” the reporter’s implication that she needed to be more temperate politically.

“I think Trump is hurting Californians,” said Porter, speaking at the UC Student and Policy Center in Sacramento. “I am not going to sell out our values as a state for some short-term political gain to try and appease people who are still standing and still supporting what this president is doing as he is trampling on our Constitution.”

Porter came under fire last week for snapping at the CBS reporter and threatening to end the interview. A second video has since emerged of Porter cursing at a young staffer who walked behind her during a video conference in 2021.

Porter, who was speaking as part of the policy center’s California Leaders Speaker Series, said she apologized “in real time” to her staffer.

“It was inappropriate,” she said. “I could have done better in that situation and I know that. I really want my staff to understand that I value them.”

After the videos emerged, several of Porter’s rivals criticized her behavior, including former state Controller Betty Yee, who said she should drop out of the race.

Marisa Lagos, a correspondent with KQED radio who moderated Friday’s discussion, asked if Porter felt any of the blow back was unfair, especially given Trump’s mannerisms.

Trump has a long history of belittling or targeting journalists, continually accusing them of being the “enemy of the people” and, during his 2016 presidential campaign, mocking the appearance of a disabled reporter with a congenital joint condition.

“Let me just say, Donald Trump should not be anyone’s standard for anything,” Porter said. “From how to use self-tanner to how to deal with the press, that is not the benchmark.”

Porter said she would work to demonstrate throughout the rest of her campaign that she has the right judgment to serve as governor.

“I think we all know that those were short videos that were clipped, there is always a larger context, but the reality is every second of every minute I am responsible for thinking about how to lead California and do my best,” she said.

Throughout the discussion Friday Porter also shared her support for Proposition 50, a ballot measure that would change congressional district boundaries and likely shift five more seats to Democrats in the U.S House of Representatives. The measure, which will be on the Nov. 4 statewide ballot, was drafted to counteract a redistricting plan in Texas intended to give Republicans more seats.

Lagos asked Porter how she would respond to residents who fear they’re being disenfranchised, especially those from rural areas.

Porter said she grew up in a rural area and wanted rural Californians to feel heard. But she said California was approaching redistricting in a different way than Texas by giving residents the opportunity to vote on it.

“It’s a question being put to each Californian about what they want to do in this political moment,” she said. “Circumstances were one way, and we had one policy, but the world has changed — in light of that, what do you as a Californian want to do about that?”

During a question-and-answer round at Friday’s event, a student referenced legislation on antisemitism and asked for Porter’s thoughts on whether criticizing Israel counted as antisemitism.

Porter said it was a complex issue but that criticizing Israel was not automatically antisemitic.

“There are plenty of people in Israel who criticize Israeli policy,” she said. “There are plenty of people around the world who don’t like Donald Trump and criticize (the United States) all the time. There is a right to criticize policy.”

The United States Treasury has sanctioned two Haitians, one a former police officer and the other an alleged gang leader, for their affiliation with the Viv Ansanm criminal alliance.

On Friday, a Treasury news release accused Dimitri Herard and Kempes Sanon of colluding with Viv Ansanm, thereby contributing to the violence wracking Haiti.

The sanctions block either person from accessing assets or property in the US. They also prohibit US-based entities from engaging in transactions with the two men.

“Today’s action underscores the critical role of gang leaders and facilitators like Herard and Sanon, whose support enables Viv Ansanm’s campaign of violence, extortion, and terrorism in Haiti,” Bradley T Smith, the director of the US Office of Foreign Assets Control, said in a statement.

Since taking office for a second term, US President Donald Trump has sought to take a hardline stance against criminal organisations across Latin America, blaming the groups for unregulated immigration and drug-trafficking on US soil.

Trump has termed their actions a criminal “invasion”, using nativist rhetoric to justify military action in international waters.

Viv Ansanm has been part of Trump’s crackdown. On his first day in office, on January 20, Trump issued an executive order setting the stage for his administration to label Latin American criminal groups as “foreign terrorist organisations”.

That process began several weeks later. In May, Viv Ansanm and another Haitian criminal organisation, Gran Grif, were added to the growing list of criminal networks to receive the “foreign terrorist” designation.

Since the assassination of Haitian President Jovenel Moise in 2021, a power vacuum has formed in Haiti. The last national elections were held in 2016, and its last democratically elected officials reached the end of their terms in 2023.

That has created a crisis of public confidence that criminal networks, including gangs, have exploited to expand their power. Viv Ansanm is one of the most powerful groups, as a coalition of gangs largely based in the capital, Port-au-Prince.

In July, Ghada Waly, the executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, warned that the gangs now have “near-total control of the capital”, with 90 percent of its territory under their control.

Nearly 1.4 million people have been displaced in the country as a result of the gang violence, a 36 percent increase over 2024. Last year, more than 5,600 people were killed, and a further 2,212 injured.

In Friday’s sanctions, the US Treasury accused Herard, the former police officer, of having “colluded with the Viv Ansanm alliance”, including through training and the provision of guns.

It also noted that Herard had been imprisoned by Haitian authorities for involvement in the Moise assassination. He later escaped in 2024.

Sanon, meanwhile, is identified as the leader of the Bel Air gang, part of the Viv Ansanm alliance. The Treasury said he “played a significant role” in building Viv Ansanm’s power, and it added that he has been implicated in killings, extortion and kidnappings.

The UN Security Council echoed the US’s sanctions against Sanon and Herard, designating both men on Friday. It also agreed to extend its arms embargo on Haiti, which began in 2022.

In September, the UNSC also approved the creation of a “gang suppression force”, with a 12-month mandate to work with Haitian police and military. That force is expected to replace a Kenyan-led mission to reinforce Haiti’s security forces, and it is slated to include 5,550 people.

But on Friday, the Trump administration said that the UN had not gone far enough in its efforts to combat Haiti’s gangs. It called for more designations against individual suspects.

“While we applaud the Council for designating these individuals, the list is not complete. There are more enablers of Haiti’s insecurity evading accountability,” an open letter from US Ambassador Jennifer Locetta read.

“Haiti deserves better. Colleagues, we will continue pressing for more designations through the Security Council and its subsidiary bodies to ensure the sanctions lists are fit for purpose.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump asked the Supreme Court on Friday to uphold his deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago.

His lawyers filed an emergency appeal urging the court to set aside rulings of judges in Chicago and hold that National Guard troops are needed to protect U.S. immigration agents from hostile protesters.

The case escalates the clash between Trump and Democratic state officials over immigration enforcement and raises again the question of using military-style force in American cities. Trump’s lawyers have repeatedly gone to the Supreme Court and won quick rulings when lower-court judges have blocked his actions.

Federal law authorizes the president to call into service the National Guard if he cannot “execute the laws of the United States” or faces “a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority” of the U.S. government.

“Both conditions are satisfied here,” Trump’s lawyer said.

Judges in Chicago came to the opposite conclusion. U.S. District Judge April Perry saw no “danger of rebellion” and said the laws were being enforced. She accused Trump’s lawyers of exaggerating claims of violence and equating “protests with riots.”

She handed down a restraining order on Oct. 9, and the 7th Circuit Court agreed to keep it in force.

But Trump’s lawyers insisted that protesters and demonstrators were targeting U.S. immigration agents and preventing them from doing their work.

“Confronted with intolerable risks of harm to federal agents and coordinated, violent opposition to the enforcement of federal law, the President lawfully determines that he is unable to enforce the laws of the United States with the regular forces and calls up the National Guard to defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in a 40-page appeal.

He argued that historically the president has had the full authority to decide on whether to call up the militia. Judges may not second-guess the president’s decision, he said.

“Any such review [by judges] must be highly deferential, as the 9th Circuit has concluded in the Newsom litigation,” referring to the ruling that upheld Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles.

Trump’s lawyer said the troop deployment to Los Angeles had succeeded in reducing violence.

“Notwithstanding the Governor of California’s claim that deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles would ‘escalat[e]’ the ongoing violence that California itself had failed to prevent … the President’s action had the opposite, intended effect. In the face of federal military force, violence in Los Angeles decreased and the situation substantially improved,” he told the court.

But in recent weeks, “Chicago has been the site of organized and often violent protests directed at ICE officers and other federal personnel engaged in the execution of federal immigration laws,” he wrote. “On multiple occasions, federal officers have also been hit and punched by protesters. … Rioters have targeted federal officers with fireworks and have thrown bottles, rocks, and tear gas at them.”

“More than 30 [DHS] officers have been injured during the assaults on federal law enforcement” at the Broadview facility alone, resulting in multiple hospitalizations, he wrote.

Officials in Illinois blamed aggressive enforcement actions of ICE agents for triggering the protests.

Sauer also urged the court to hand down an immediate order that would freeze Perry’s rulings.

The court asked for a response from Illinois officials by Monday.

WASHINGTON — The Navy admiral who oversees military operations in the region where U.S. forces have been attacking alleged drug boats off Venezuela will retire in December, he and the Defense Secretary announced Thursday.

Adm. Alvin Holsey became the leader of U.S. Southern Command only in November, overseeing an area that encompasses the Caribbean Sea and waters off South America. These types of postings typically last between three and four years.

The news of Holsey’s upcoming retirement comes two days after the U.S. military’s fifth deadly strike in the Caribbean against a small boat accused of carrying drugs. The Trump administration has asserted it’s treating alleged drug traffickers as unlawful combatants who must be met with military force.

Frustration with the attacks has been growing on Capitol Hill. Some Republicans have been seeking more information from the White House on the legal justification and details of the strikes, while Democrats contend the strikes violate U.S. and international law.

Holsey said in a statement posted on the command’s Facebook page that it’s “been an honor to serve our nation, the American people and support and defend our Constitution for over 37 years.”

“The SOUTHCOM team has made lasting contributions to the defense of our nation and will continue to do so,” he said. “I am confident that you will forge ahead, focused on your mission that strengthens our nation and ensures its longevity as a beacon of freedom around the globe.”

U.S. Southern Command did not provide any more information beyond the admiral’s statement.

In a post on X on Thursday afternoon, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth thanked Holsey for his “decades of service to our country, and we wish him and his family continued success and fulfillment in the years ahead.”

“Admiral Holsey has demonstrated unwavering commitment to mission, people, and nation,” Hegseth wrote.

Officials at the Pentagon did not provide any more information and referred the Associated Press to Hegseth’s statement on social media.

The New York Times first reported on Holsey’s plans to leave his position.

Toropin and Finley write for the Associated Press.

As voters in Bolivia prepare to go to the polls for the final round of the country’s presidential election, there is no left-wing candidate on the ballot for the first time in nearly two decades.

Since the last election, the current governing party, the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS), has suffered an implosion, with party leaders splintering off and attacking one another.

Amid the fracas, MAS failed to advance a candidate to the run-off election, meaning its leadership — nearly uninterrupted since 2006 — is slated to come to an end.

A centrist and a right-wing candidate are now facing off in Sunday’s highly anticipated run-off.

But the election is unlikely to smooth over the divides that have fractured and destabilised Bolivian politics in recent years, with a severe economic crisis spurring continuing unrest.

Who are the candidates? What issues are front and centre for voters? And what challenges could the new government face in the months ahead? We answer those questions and more in this brief explainer.

When does voting take place?

The run-off vote will take place on October 19, with the winner of the election inaugurated on November 8.

What was the result of the first round?

The final stage of the election is itself a sign of the shifting and unpredictable state of the country’s politics.

Rodrigo Paz, one of the two final candidates, was the surprise victor in the first round of voting despite registering less than 10 percent in early polling. He carried more than 32 percent of the votes in the August 17 general election.

His rival is Jorge “Tuto” Quiroga, a former president who came in second place with nearly 27 percent of the vote.

Neither met the threshold to win the presidency outright, which would have required winning 50 percent of the vote, or 40 percent with a 10-point margin over the nearest competitor.

Who is Rodrigo Paz?

Paz is a senator and the son of the former left-wing President Jaime Zamora.

Though he has aligned himself with various parties throughout his career, in this election, he is representing the centre-right Christian Democratic Party.

Paz has pitched himself as a more moderate voice who will embrace pro-market policies while taking a cautious approach to austerity measures. “Capitalism for All” is his campaign slogan.

His running mate, meanwhile, is Edman Lara, an evangelical Christian and former police officer who resigned from his position and became a popular figure on social media for his outspoken criticism of corruption.

Who is Jorge Quiroga?

Jorge “Tuto” Quiroga is a businessman and former president.

Early in his career, he worked in Texas for the multinational tech company IBM. But his interests shifted to politics, particularly in the 1990s, and he even worked under Paz’s father as Bolivia’s finance minister.

In 1997, Quiroga ran as the running mate on the successful presidential ticket of Hugo Banzer, who led a military dictatorship in the 1970s. But when Banzer was diagnosed with cancer and resigned in 2001, Quiroga succeeded him as president, serving the remainder of his term.

Quiroga’s subsequent bids for the presidency have fallen short: He lost in 2005, 2014 and 2020.

In this election, he is running on a stridently pro-market platform as the head of a right-wing coalition, the Libre Alliance.

Quiroga’s running mate is Juan Pablo Velasco, a 38-year-old tech entrepreneur.

What do the polls say?

Polling currently shows Quiroga with a slight advantage, but analysts have pointed out that polling before the first round of voting failed to detect support for Paz.

A poll taken between October 1 and 6 by the research firm CB Consultora found that Paz has an approval rating of 42.5 percent. Quiroga, meanwhile, leads with 56.7 percent approval.

While 75 percent of respondents said they would vote in the run-off, CB Consultora said protest votes — with ballots intentionally left blank or spoiled — are expected to increase.

What happened to Bolivia’s left?

Under the presidency of Evo Morales from 2006 to 2019, the left-wing MAS party oversaw a period of strong economic growth while simultaneously decreasing inequality, a rare feat.

That translated into electoral dominance for Morales, who is considered the country’s first Indigenous president.

But an electoral crisis in 2019 resulted in Morales fleeing the country after seeking a contested fourth term, in circumstances that his supporters have characterised as a coup.

The crisis caused a brief interruption in MAS leadership, and the post-election period saw turmoil and widespread protests, with the short-lived right-wing government overseeing a deadly crackdown.

In 2020, the left returned to power when Morales’s finance minister became the current president, Luis Arce. But internal divides have critically weakened MAS, leading to Morales leaving the party.

Courts have barred Morales, who faces an arrest warrant for alleged statutory rape, from seeking a fourth term. But Morales has persisted in his efforts, characterising the ban on his candidacy as an assault on his rights.

He has called upon his followers, many of whom are rural and Indigenous voters, to boycott the vote.

What issues are front and centre?

For many Bolivians, concerns about the economy and the cost of living are top of mind as they head to the polls.

High inflation and fuel shortages, along with dwindling foreign currency reserves, have been a source of hardship.

“People are waiting in line for hours at a time for gasoline,” said Kathryn Ledebur, director of the Andean Information Network, a Bolivia-based group that promotes human rights. “Diesel, which is important for the transportation of other goods, is even worse.”

Polling compiled by the Americas Society/Council of the Americas (ASCOA) shows that 24 percent of Bolivians consider the economy their primary concern this election season. Another 17 percent cited price increases as a top concern, and fuel shortages were at 14 percent.

What controversies have defined the election?

Velasco, Quiroga’s vice presidential running mate, has faced scrutiny over a series of racist social media posts he made in the past, celebrating violence against the country’s Indigenous population.

The posts, some of which are nearly 15 years old, were initially unearthed by an Argentinian social media figure. Bolivian fact-checking agencies have since verified the posts.

Velasco responded by denying that he authored the posts. He has also attacked the fact-checkers, prompting the Bolivian press association to release a statement in support of the fact-checking agencies.

What policies have the candidates proposed?

Both Quiroga and Paz are promising pro-market policies and a departure from the left-wing programme that has dominated Bolivian politics for the last two decades.

Where the two candidates differ is over how quickly to implement those economic changes.

Quiroga has said that he will cut spending on social programmes and fuel subsidies, privatise state enterprises, and seek assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Paz has been more hesitant when it comes to embracing calls for austerity and steep cuts to social programmes, although he has also said that he would cut fuel subsidies.

He has also suggested that Bolivia could lower tariffs to help import goods that the country does not produce itself and expressed interest in greater integration into regional trade blocs, such as MERCOSUR.

What will the election mean for relations with the United States?

The administration of US President Donald Trump has expressed approval over the prospect of a right-wing government in Bolivia.

Bilateral ties under MAS leadership had been strained over conflicting policies towards growing coca, a major crop in Bolivia and the raw ingredient for cocaine.

On October 14, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio addressed the election outright, calling it “important”.

“Later this month, there’ll be an election in Bolivia,” Rubio said. “After 25, 30 years of anti-American, hostile governments, both of the candidates running in that election, in the run-off election, want strong and better relations with the United States. Another transformative opportunity there.”

Morales, a firm critic of the US “war on drugs”, expelled the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in 2008 and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2013, alleging it was working to influence Bolivian politics.

“There was a great deal of frustration in Washington, DC, because this was a refutation of the idea that, to govern successfully, you need cooperation and funding from the US,” said Ledebur.

Both Paz and Quiroga have said that they will seek closer ties with the US. Quiroga, in particular, has been a critic of left-wing governments in Latin America, including in Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua, with which MAS had cultivated ties.

That shift comes at a moment when the Trump administration is taking on a more aggressive stance in Latin America, pushing a highly militarised approach to combating drug trafficking and using US influence to assist right-wing allies in countries such as Argentina and Brazil.

What’s next for the Bolivian left?

After years of dominance, Bolivia’s political left is preparing for a period in the political wilderness.

The candidate for MAS, Eduardo del Castillo, won just 3.2 percent in the first round of voting in August. A former MAS member, Andronico Rodriguez, won approximately 8 percent of the vote.

Many former MAS supporters have turned to Paz due to his populist stance and softer approach towards economic austerity, and Ledebur says that the once-powerful left will have to mend internal rifts and find a new path forward.

But the forces that have powered the Bolivian left for decades, such as Indigenous and rural voting blocs, are likely to remain a formidable force, even if MAS finds itself out of power.

Ledebur says that efforts to implement harsh austerity measures could spark strong backlash and protests.

She predicts that conflict with the new government could help unite the left around a common cause, but that doing so will take time.

“The left will definitely have to change something after its defeat in the election,” she said. “There will be a reconfiguration, but it could take a long time.”

WASHINGTON — The United States took survivors into custody after its military struck a suspected drug-carrying vessel in the Caribbean — the first attack that anyone escaped alive since President Trump began launching assaults in the region last month, a defense official and another person familiar with the matter said Friday.

The strike Thursday brought the death toll from the Trump administration’s military action against vessels in the region to at least 28.

It is believed to be at least the sixth strike in the waters off Venezuela since early September, and the first to result in survivors who were picked up by the U.S. military. It was not immediately clear what would be done with the survivors, who the people said were being held on a U.S. Navy vessel.

They confirmed the strike on condition of anonymity because it had not yet been publicly acknowledged by Trump’s administration.

Trump has justified the strikes by asserting that the United States is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels, relying on the same legal authority used by President George W. Bush‘s administration when it declared a war on terror after the 9/11 attacks. That includes the ability to capture and detain combatants and to use lethal force against their leadership.

Some legal experts have questioned the legality of the approach. The president’s use of overwhelming military force to combat the cartels, along with his authorization of covert action inside Venezuela, possibly to oust President Nicolás Maduro, stretches the bounds of international law, legal scholars said this week.

Meanwhile, the Navy admiral who oversees military operations in the region will retire in December, he and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Thursday.

Adm. Alvin Holsey became the leader of U.S. Southern Command only in November, overseeing an area that encompasses the Caribbean Sea and waters off South America. These types of postings typically last between three and four years.

Holsey said in a statement posted on the command’s Facebook page that it had “been an honor to serve our nation, the American people and support and defend our Constitution for over 37 years.”

“The SOUTHCOM team has made lasting contributions to the defense of our nation and will continue to do so,” he said. “I am confident that you will forge ahead, focused on your mission that strengthens our nation and ensures its longevity as a beacon of freedom around the globe.”

U.S. Southern Command did not provide any further information beyond the admiral’s statement.

For the survivors of Thursday’s strike, the saga is hardly over. They now face an unclear future and legal landscape, including questions about whether they are now considered to be prisoners of war or defendants in a criminal case. The White House did not comment on the strike.

Reuters was first to report news of the strike late Thursday.

The strikes in the Caribbean have caused unease among both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill, with some Republicans saying they have not received sufficient information on how the strikes are being conducted. A classified briefing for members of the Senate Armed Services Committee this month did not include representatives from intelligence agencies or the military command structure for South and Central America.

However, most Senate Republicans stood behind the administration last week when a vote on a War Powers Resolution was brought up, which would have required the administration to gain approval from Congress before conducting more strikes.

Their willingness to back the administration will be tested again. Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, along with Sens. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, and Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, is bringing another resolution that would prevent Trump from outright attacking Venezuela without congressional authorization.

Toropin and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.

Los Angeles County is poised to pay out an additional $828 million to victims who say they were sexually abused in county facilities as children, months after agreeing to the largest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history.

The award, posted on the county claims board agenda Friday, would resolve an additional 414 cases that were not included in the $4-billion sex abuse settlement approved this spring. Both the supervisors and the county claims board will need to vote on the payout before it is finalized.

The record $4-billion settlement covered more than 11,000 people, who say they were abused inside county-run juvenile facilities and foster homes as children. The individual payouts will range from $100,000 to $3 million.

The newest payout would break down to an average of roughly $2 million per person. It involves cases from three prominent law firms: Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Team, and Panish Shea Ravipudi.

The firms declined to comment on the potential settlement until the vote by the Board of Supervisors.

The announcement follows reporting by The Times that found nine plaintiffs who say they were paid by recruiters to sue the county over sex abuse. Four of them have said they were explicitly told to make up claims. All had lawsuits filed by Downtown LA Law Group, or DTLA.

The firm has denied any involvement with recruiters who allegedly paid plaintiffs to sue. DTLA said previously it would never “encourage or tolerate anyone lying about being abused” and is conducting new screenings to remove “false or exaggerated claims” from its caseload.

The county said any claims brought by DTLA will undergo an additional level of review before payments are made, citing reporting by The Times. The extra screening “may require plaintiff interviews and additional proof of allegations,” the county said.

DTLA did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

The exterior of Downtown LA Law Group’s offices in Los Angeles.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who recently launched an investigation into the $4-billion settlement following The Times’ reporting, said the vetting will ensure “money goes only to the true victims of abuse.”

“Our settlements balance our obligation to compensate victims and treat their experiences with compassion with the need to put strong protections in place to protect taxpayers from fraud,” she said.

County Counsel Dawyn Harrison says she wants to see the law changed so “unscrupulous lawyers don’t get windfalls at the expense of survivors of abuse.”

“The conduct alleged to have occurred by the DTLA firm is absolutely outrageous and must be investigated by the appropriate authorities,” said Harrison. “Not only does it undermine our justice system, it also deprives legitimate claimants of just compensation.”

All cases will be reviewed by retired judges before the money is allocated, the county said.

If a judge believes a claim is fraudulent, the plaintiff will not get any money, the county said Friday. The county’s original plan stated that if the county found a fraudulent claim, the plaintiff could be offered $50,000 to resolve it or remove the case from the settlement so that it could be litigated separately.

The flood of claims was unleashed with the passage of Assembly Bill 218 in 2020, which changed the statute of limitations and gave survivors a new window to sue their abusers. Since then, school districts and governments have faced many decades-old claims, for which they say there are no longer records kept on file to allow for vetting.

Dominique Anderson, pictured above around age 11, is among the plaintiffs who sued the county for alleged sexual abuse and would stand to receive payouts as part of a new settlement announced Friday.

(Courtesy of Dominique Anderson)

County supervisors have been increasingly critical of the law, which they argue has left them defenseless against claims dating back to the 1950s. If the supervisors approve the new settlement, the county will have paid out nearly $5 billion in child sex abuse lawsuits this year — with more to come.

The county is still facing an additional 2,500 cases, which they say will further strain the region’s social safety net. The county recently required most departments trim their budgets to pay for the $4-billion settlement.

“L.A. County and other local governments must balance their obligations to past victims with the need to avoid ruinous financial impacts,” said acting Chief Executive Joe Nicchitta.

Sixteen-year-olds now have the right to vote in all UK elections, as part of sweeping election reforms. Supporters believe this change will modernise democracy and say the young generation is already engaged with issues like climate change, education, and the economy. Opponents, however, argue that 16 is too young to make such weighty political decisions and warn that it could weaken the integrity of the electoral system.

Presenter: Stefanie Dekker

Guests:

Cameron Holt – Member of Youth Parliament, Bassetlaw

Thomas Brochure – Co-director, Make It 16 NZ

Nuurrianti Jalli – Researcher, Oklahoma State University

WASHINGTON — President Trump is hosting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for talks at the White House on Friday, with the U.S. leader signaling he’s not ready to agree to sell Kyiv a long-range missile system that the Ukrainians say they desperately need.

Zelensky arrived with top aides to discuss the latest developments with Trump over lunch, a day after the U.S. president and Russian President Vladimir Putin held a lengthy phone call to discuss the conflict.

At the start of the talks, Zelensky congratulated Trump over landing last week’s ceasefire and hostage deal in Gaza and said Trump now has “momentum” to stop the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

“President Trump now has a big chance to finish this war,” Zelensky added.

In recent days, Trump had shown an openness to selling Ukraine long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles, even as Putin warned that such a move would further strain the U.S.-Russian relationship.

But following Thursday’s call with Putin, Trump appeared to downplay the prospects of Ukraine getting the missiles, which have a range of about 995 miles.

“We need Tomahawks for the United States of America too,” Trump said. “We have a lot of them, but we need them. I mean we can’t deplete our country.”

Zelensky had been seeking the weapons, which would allow Ukrainian forces to strike deep into Russian territory and target key military sites, energy facilities and critical infrastructure. Zelensky has argued that the potential for such strikes would help compel Putin to take Trump’s calls for direct negotiations to end the war more seriously.

But Putin warned Trump during the call that supplying Kyiv with the Tomahawks “won’t change the situation on the battlefield, but would cause substantial damage to the relationship between our countries,” according to Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s foreign policy adviser.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said that talk of providing Tomahawks had already served a purpose by pushing Putin into talks. “The conclusion is that we need to continue with strong steps. Strength can truly create momentum for peace,” Sybiha said on the social platform X late Thursday.

Ukrainian officials have also indicated that Zelensky plans to appeal to Trump’s economic interests by aiming to discuss the possibility of energy deals with the U.S.

Zelensky is expected to offer to store American liquefied natural gas in Ukraine’s gas storage facilities, which would allow for an American presence in the European energy market.

He previewed the strategy on Thursday in meetings with Energy Secretary Chris Wright and the heads of American energy companies, leading him to post on X that it is important to restore Ukraine’s energy infrastructure after Russian attacks and expand “the presence of American businesses in Ukraine.”

It will be the fourth face-to-face meeting for Trump and Zelensky since the Republican returned to office in January, and their second in less than a month.

Trump announced following Thursday’s call with Putin that he would soon meet with the Russian leader in Budapest, Hungary, to discuss ways to end the war. The two also agreed that their senior aides, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, would meet next week at an unspecified location.

Fresh off brokering a ceasefire and hostage agreement between Israel and Hamas, Trump has said finding an endgame to the war in Ukraine is now his top foreign policy priority and has expressed new confidence about the prospects of getting it done.

Ahead of his call with Putin, Trump had shown signs of increased frustration with the Russian leader.

Last month, he announced that he believed Ukraine could win back all territory lost to Russia, a dramatic shift from the U.S. leader’s repeated calls for Kyiv to make concessions to end the war.

Trump, going back to his 2024 campaign, insisted he would quickly end the war, but his peace efforts appeared to stall following a diplomatic blitz in August, when he held a summit with Putin in Alaska and a White House meeting with Zelensky and European allies.

Trump emerged from those meetings certain he was on track to arranging direct talks between Zelensky and Putin. But the Russian leader hasn’t shown any interest in meeting with Zelensky and Moscow has only intensified its bombardment of Ukraine.

Trump, for his part, offered a notably more neutral tone about Ukraine following what he described a “very productive” call with Putin.

He also hinted that negotiations between Putin and Zelensky might be have to be conducted indirectly.

“They don’t get along too well those two,” Trump said. “So we may do something where we’re separate. Separate but equal.”

Madhani writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who has emerged as one of California’s most vocal critics of President Trump, will run next year for the congressional seat held by former House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

A formal announcement from Wiener is expected next week, the San Francisco Standard reported.

Erik Mebust, a spokesperson for Wiener, declined to comment.

Wiener, 55, has already declared his intention to eventually run for the seat held by Pelosi and has raised $1 million through an exploratory committee. But he previously indicated that he would wait until Pelosi, who was first elected in 1987, stepped down.

That calculus changed, according to the Standard, when Saikat Chakrabarti, a progressive candidate, entered the race for Pelosi’s seat.

Ian Krager, spokesperson for Pelosi, released a statement saying Pelosi was focused on Proposition 50, which will be on the ballot in California’s Nov. 4 special election. The measure would redraw California’s congressional districts in favor of Democrats and was pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and California Democratic leaders after President Trump urged Texas to reconfigure the state’s district to elect five more Republicans to Congress, part of an effort to keep the GOP in control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

“Speaker Pelosi is fully focused on her mission to win the Yes on 50 special election in California on November 4th. She urges all Californians to join in that mission on the path to taking back the House for the Democrats.”

Pelosi, 85, hasn’t indicated whether will she run again. If she does seek another term, her age could be a factor at a time when younger Democrats are eager to see a new wave of leaders.

Pelosi was among several top politicians who persuaded then-President Biden to forgo a second term after widespread concerns about his age.

Wiener, elected to the state Senate in 2016, is best-known for his work pushing local governments to add more housing density.

He is a member of the California LGBTQ+ Caucus and has been a leading advocate for LGBTQ+ rights. If elected, Wiener would be the first openly gay person to represent San Francisco in Congress.

Before his election to the state Legislature, Wiener served as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and worked as a deputy city attorney in the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office.

Newsom last week signed Wiener’s Senate Bill 79, one the most ambitious state-imposed housing efforts in recent memory. The bill upzones areas across California, overriding local zoning laws to allow taller, denser projects near public transit.

The bill was fiercely opposed by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and other L.A. leaders who want to retain power over housing decisions.

Wiener has repeatedly criticized the Trump administration, sparring on social media with the president’s supporters. Another one of his recent bills, to prohibit on-duty law enforcement officers from masking their faces during immigration raids, was signed into law by Newsom.