politics

California is facing a major vote in the days ahead — and no, it’s not who will be the next governor.

Regulators at the California Air Resources Board are set to decide on May 28 whether to approve the latest blueprint for limits on greenhouse gas emissions from major polluters through 2045, a program known as cap-and-invest. The update to the state’s signature climate program has Sacramento in a tizzy and seemingly no one is pleased with the proposal on the table.

California is one of a handful of states, and the first, to have an an enforceable annual limit on the emissions that change the climate.

After a January draft was criticized by both industry and lawmakers over concerns that capping emissions too much and too quickly would drive up already soaring energy costs, CARB went back to the drawing board and came up with the latest iteration, unveiled in April. But opponents now say the plan kowtows to oil and gas interests who are lobbying hard for concessions, citing an already unstable state and international energy market.

The program works by setting a limit on the greenhouse gases that industries can emit in California. Companies must obtain credits, or allowances, for every ton they release, with the total number of allowances declining over time, consistent with what scientists say actually addresses climate change. The auctions for unused allowances generate billions of dollars in revenue for the state each year that fund clean energy, clean water and other key climate programs.

This year’s original draft sought to remove 118 million allowances from the market by 2030, which it identified as the minimum that must be retired to meet the state’s ambitious climate goals. But the April revision upends that, instead creating a new pool of 118 million “compliance instruments” — defined as allowances or offset credits — above the cap that companies can earn if they invest in decarbonization projects.

Critics argue this first-of-its-kind mechanism, called the Manufacturing Decarbonization Incentive, effectively dismantles the program.

“The whole goal of the cap is to lower emissions over time,” said Mary Creasman, chief executive of the nonprofit California Environmental Voters. “To then allow pollution above the cap is kind of blowing up the program.”

CARB maintains that this change still cuts the emissions coming from California, because the new instruments enter the market only “if they’re applied for, are approved, and deliver verified greenhouse gas emissions reductions.” And the proposal still results in an 11% cap decline year over year through 2030, and 7% from 2031 to 2045, said spokeswoman Lindsay Buckley.

The move would also significantly reduce cap-and-invest’s revenue, according to an analysis from the Legislative Analyst’s Office. It found that the new plan would result in a loss of $2 billion, or roughly 50% less money per year for the state’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, than it has received through the program in recent years.

Many of the lawmakers who voted to reauthorize the program last year are also concerned. Nearly 30 Democrats signed a recent letter urging the air board to “push back on pressure from an oil industry that is making hundreds of billions in wartime profits.”

The fossil fuel industry has indeed lobbied heavily against requirements that it pollute less, spending a record $10.3 million in the first quarter of this year to influence state policy around cap-and-invest and other climate and energy issues, state records show. Among them are the Western States Petroleum Assn., Chevron and Phillips 66, which have argued that lowering the pollution cap will drive up gasoline prices and push more refineries out of the state.

But even they are not thrilled with the latest iteration of the cap-and-invest plan.

“We need to continue to be competitive with other refineries throughout the world, and while there are some very short-term changes within the [revised package], it still doesn’t have the long-term certainty that will drive investment,” said Jodie Muller, WSPA’s chief executive. Muller said she’d like to see the new decarbonization incentive program extended beyond 2030 and eligibility expanded to include additional activities, such as refinery maintenance programs.

“It’s important that we get this right,” she said.

More California climate news

Gov. Gavin Newsom recently unveiled his revised $350-billion budget proposal, which came with an unexpected $16.8-billion increase in tax revenue largely attributed to the success of artificial intelligence companies. Among the plan’s big wins and losses are boosted funding for public schools and higher health premiums for undocumented immigrants.

On the environment, the plan broadly maintains funding and policy support for climate commitments, such as a $200-million incentive program for passenger electric vehicles designed to make up for federal tax credits canceled by the Trump administration. It also includes a new $100-million disaster rebuilding fund to help wildfire survivors rebuild their homes.

But the plan does not include major new spending on the environment, in part due to the ongoing restructuring of cap-and-invest, the state’s main climate funding source. Some environmental groups said the revised budget doesn’t do enough to support California’s clean energy transition or hold oil and gas companies accountable for their role in the climate crisis.

Katelyn Roedner Sutter of the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund urged lawmakers to prioritize proven climate investments in the final budget agreement, such as virtual power plants and incentives for zero-emission delivery trucks. “The actions we take over the next decade are vital to preventing the worst possible scenarios for our kids’ future,” she said.

A few more things

Speaking of the governor’s race, California Resources Corp., one of the state’s top oil producers, just made a hefty $500,000 contribution to an independent campaign committee supporting leading Democratic candidate Xavier Becerra, Politico reported. Becerra has already been criticized for accepting a $39,200 donation from Chevron, while opponents Tom Steyer and Katie Porter have both pledged not to accept contributions from fossil fuel companies.

Fervo Energy, a Houston-based geothermal developer with a major Google project in Utah, raised $1.89 billion in an initial public offering this month. The company’s $7.7-billion valuation signals growing investor appetite for energy companies amid soaring demand for electricity fueled by the growth of AI, the Wall Street Journal said. Geothermal technology taps into pockets of steam and hot water rising from the center of the earth, which is then used to spin turbines to generate power.

Los Angeles is gearing up for its role as a host city of the 2026 World Cup, which will be held in 16 stadiums across Canada, the U.S. and Mexico beginning in mid-June. But experts told my colleague Blanca Begert that the tournament’s expansion will make it “the most emissions-intensive World Cup that we’ve ever seen,” in part because fans and players will have to traverse the three countries to watch the games. Jet exhaust is a major contributor to climate change, representing 3% to 4% of all warming. It is the second of our stories examining the environmental implications of the coming World Cup.

A year ago, David Ellison was viewed as a white knight poised to save Paramount.

Hollywood embraced billionaire Larry Ellison’s son, figuring he had the means and the mettle to revive the faded studio after decades of neglect.

But now, as the 43-year-old tech scion works to close his $111-billion deal to buy Warner Bros. Discovery — which would mark his second major studio acquisition in less than a year — a large swath of Hollywood has soured on the budding mogul and his audacious bid to build a new media colossus.

More than 5,000 artists and industry workers — including J.J. Abrams, Javier Bardem, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Kevin Bacon and Tiffany Haddish — have signed an open letter opposing the union of two century-old studios.

“Our industry is already under severe strain,” the group wrote.

Many anticipate the U.S. Justice Department will rubber-stamp the deal because President Trump is friendly with Larry Ellison, co-founder of software giant Oracle. Trump and his team want David Ellison to make sweeping changes at CNN, one of Warner Bros. Discovery’s premier properties.

David Ellison has spent the last year courting the president and his allies, including hosting a black-tie gala to honor Trump and attending state dinners and the president’s State of the Union address.

Ellison’s perceived coziness with the administration, along with controversial changes at CBS, has sullied his reputation in a town where image is everything.

Should the merger clear its regulatory hurdles, the Ellison family would control CNN and CBS News in addition to holding a significant stake in TikTok, the hugely influential social media app.

“When power is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the stories that get told and the livelihoods of the people who tell them become hostage to whoever that power serves,” Jane Fonda, the Oscar-winning actor who is helping lead the opposition, told The Times. “We are not going quietly.”

Paramount declined to comment. Ellison previously has pushed back on fears that Paramount’s takeover of Warner Bros. would be bad for Hollywood. Instead, Ellison envisions building a stronger company to boost the industry, including movie theaters.

If the Warner Bros. Discovery deal is finalized, Ellison would control two legendary news organizations and two iconic studios. His determined White House outreach to speed approval of the Warner Bros. deal has aroused deep suspicion among many in Hollywood, which has long been considered a liberal bastion.

“They got too close to Trump,” said Norm Eisen, executive chairman of Democracy Defenders Fund, one of the groups coordinating the opposition campaign. “People in Hollywood are concerned that the Ellisons are going to do to CNN what they did to CBS.”

One of Ellison’s first moves after taking over Paramount was to hire journalist Bari Weiss, who had no TV news experience, as CBS News editor-in-chief. Weiss, who built her reputation being a contrarian voice, along with her recently installed evening news anchor Tony Dokoupil got off to a rocky start.

During his inaugural week, Dokoupil awkwardly saluted Secretary of State Marco Rubio (a fellow Floridian). “CBS Evening News” viewership fell 9% this season. The program, which attracts 4.1 million viewers, musters less than half the audience for ABC’s “World News Tonight with David Muir.”

Ellison is aiming to get his deal done by September.

“The projected merger timeline would have Ellison in control of CNN before November,” Fonda said, noting the high stakes this fall because the midterm elections will decide control of Congress.

“If this merger goes ahead, the administration will have yet another lever to cast doubt on results it does not like,” Fonda said. “This is about corruption, not optics.”

Her group has urged California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to file a lawsuit to try to block the merger. Bonta has said his team is reviewing potential antitrust concerns with the deal, which he said has “red flags everywhere.”

Some in Hollywood favor Ellison’s takeover, saying it would lift two middling players to create more robust competition to Netflix, Disney and Amazon.

“This deal will set up an environment where we will have four competitive streaming services, and that’s a good thing for the creative community,” said Ari Emanuel, executive chairman of WME Group and Ellison’s agent.

Ellison is pressing ahead, working to secure government approvals in Britain, Europe and the U.S. Prominent Democrats in Congress have decried the deal and Ellison’s proposed ownership structure, which would include the royal families of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi as significant, but passive, investors.

Paramount leaders have tried to keep their heads down by focusing on their businesses. This year, the company has signed deals with Kim Kardashian, Neil Patrick Harris, Tituss Burgess and Kinetic Content, the reality TV firm behind Netflix’s “Love Is Blind.”

Hollywood opposition

But the “block the merger” campaign has picked up prominent Paramount and Warner Bros. talent, including Oscar-winning filmmaker Adam McKay (“The Big Short”); “South Park” co-creator Trey Parker; and Emmy Award-winning actors Noah Wyle (“The Pitt”) and Mark Ruffalo, a stalwart of critically acclaimed HBO productions, including “Task.”

Some filmmakers have privately discussed whether to steer clear of Paramount, according to people knowledgeable of the discussions who were not authorized to comment. Taylor Sheridan, the prolific producer behind “Yellowstone” and “Landman,” last fall opted to switch teams. He eventually will make new shows for NBCUniversal instead of Paramount.

CBS late-night host Stephen Colbert’s sign-off Thursday night has added to the hand-wringing.

Colbert learned he was getting the boot in July, two days after he called Paramount’s $16-million settlement with Trump “a big fat bribe” during a show monologue. Paramount had agreed to pay the money to end Trump’s lawsuit over edits to a “60 Minutes” interview, a payout blasted by 1st Amendment advocates who viewed the Trump suit as frivolous.

Paramount settled because it needed Federal Communications Commission approval as part of its sale to the Ellison-owned Skydance Media. Paramount’s CBS has blamed declining revenues for its decision to oust Colbert, which came just before Ellison officially took the keys to Paramount.

This week, for the first time in 18 years, CBS will fall short of claiming the largest live audience in broadcast TV. NBC snagged the ratings crown, thanks to its sports-heavy lineup, prompting NBC late-night comedian Seth Meyers to crow about his network’s victory.

“We have taken down CBS,” Meyers told advertising buyers last week in New York. “Well, the Ellisons did, but I like to think we helped.”

Ellison’s supporters view the anti-merger campaign as politically motivated.

“So much of the criticism and negative sentiment originates from [Ellison’s] apparent relationship with Trump,” said one observer who was not authorized to speak publicly about the topic.

But interviews with numerous industry insiders reveal that concerns over Paramount’s proposed purchase of Warner go well beyond anti-Trump sentiment — or worries about CNN’s future.

The merger comes during an existential crisis for the industry, and for Los Angeles, as the shift to streaming has upended established business models.

“Whether it’s Ellison, Amazon, Apple or Netflix, these are essentially tech companies that are gaining increasing control over what has been a cultural and entertainment sector,” said Dominic Asmall Willsdon, executive director of the International Documentary Assn.

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Apple’s outgoing Chief Executive Tim Cook also have openly embraced Trump, which some see as a pragmatic move to curry favor in Washington to advance their sprawling businesses, which include film and TV operations in Culver City.

Much of the angst over the Ellison deal is driven by economic uncertainty. L.A.’s film industry has been decimated by a flight of production to other locations.

“L.A. has already had a taste of things to come,” Eisen said. “There’s less competition so the artists get hurt, and so do the working people who have long been an integral part of Hollywood.”

A combined Warner-Paramount would instantly become the largest employer for union writers, said Michele Mulroney, president of the Writers Guild of America West. It would control HBO, CBS, CNN, Comedy Central, HGTV, Animal Planet and two of the largest film and television studios.

“This media behemoth would have enormous leverage to reduce content, raise prices, increase control of production, suppress our members’ compensation and silence the voices of our members,” Mulroney said.

Jessica J. González, the L.A.-based co-chief executive of the 1st Amendment group Free Press, said: “This isn’t just about David Ellison. It’s about what David Ellison did with his last merger and how he uses his power.”

Ellison’s wealth and privilege have also fueled resentment among the rank and file who are struggling amid America’s growing economic disparity. Said one veteran executive: “We’re living in a new gilded age.”

For many, the prospect of more job losses is most unsettling.

Ellison and his team have vowed to make $6 billion in cuts following the merger. Those cuts are expected to include sizable layoffs on top of nearly 2,000 in job cuts at Paramount since last fall.

Hollywood has a troubled track record with mergers, including two failed takeovers of Warner Bros.

AT&T misfired with its 2018 acquisition of Time Warner, and within four years, the phone company had unloaded the firm to David Zaslav’s smaller Discovery. That transaction saddled Warner with more than $50 billion in debt, and Zaslav and his team laid off thousands of workers and cut dozens of projects to dramatically reduce the company’s debt and keep the company solvent.

Walt Disney Co.’s $72-billion acquisition of much of Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox in 2019 led to thousands of layoffs as one of the industry’s original studios all but disappeared.

“We have seen from that merger the earnings and employment numbers for screenwriters significantly reduced,” Mulroney said.

Emanuel, the power agent, pointed to Ellison’s commitment to keep the Warner and Paramount studios largely intact, with each entity releasing about 15 films into theaters each year.

“He’s going to be making a minimum of 30 movies a year for theatrical release plus content for both their own and other platforms because that’s the only way to generate revenue,” Emanuel said.

Still, critics question whether Ellison will be able to keep his commitment due to the $79-billion debt load he will take on.

“I’m sure [Ellison’s] intentions are genuine,” Mulroney said. “But a promise like that’s not enforceable, and there are no consequences if you don’t meet the quota that you’ve set for yourself.”

On Wednesday, S&P Global Ratings agency said Paramount Skydance will remain on a negative credit watch due to balance sheet concerns.

S&P also cited worries about Ellison’s prospects “given the immensely complicated endeavor of combining two of the largest global media companies and the limited track record of PSKY’s management team in integrating and transforming such companies.”

Emanuel and others say Ellison’s image won’t suffer long-term damage.

The two sides, he predicts, will eventually work together.

“Here’s a guy who’s willing to put a lot of money on the line and take huge risks to make our environment more competitive,” Emanuel said. “The one thing about David is that he’s not a vindictive person. He always does what’s best for the project.”

President Trump, it’s well known, is into gold. Every day brings new evidence that he’s thoroughly enjoying the “golden age” he pronounced in his inaugural address — as few other Americans are — with stock trades, crypto profiteering and much more, even a new taxpayer-financed slush fund to reward his allies.

As for me, I’ve gone into silver. That is, I constantly look for the silver linings in Trump’s heinous acts.

One silver lining, of course, is his cratering job-approval numbers in the polls, especially among the young and Latino voters who made his reelection possible. But here’s another: By his humiliating failure to bring Iran to heel, nearly three months after starting a war that he said would last weeks at most, Trump has brought new, more positive attention to what he again this week derided as “Barack Hussein Obama’s Iran nuclear deal.” (The emphasis on “Hussein” is Trump’s, always.)

The president, along with his Republican cheerleaders, counts his first-term abrogation of the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as a signature achievement. This week, yet again, he falsely claimed that had he not done so, Iran would have a nuclear weapon. In fact, his action in 2018 taking the United States out of the multinational deal subsequently led to Iran’s rebuilding of its nuclear program, the emboldening of the Iranian hard-liners now in power and the Middle East morass in which the United States is now mired.

That quagmire has left Trump seeming desperate for a deal — almost certainly a worse deal than the one Obama struck. Call it JCPOA Lite.

If he were able to get Iran’s sign-off on the sort of detailed, restrictive agreement that Obama and other world leaders won 11 years ago, he’d be trumpeting himself as the world’s greatest dealmaker. (He does that anyway, but his record proves otherwise.) Instead, by his own failure to date, Trump has invited reconsideration of the very agreement he decried as the “worst deal ever” on his march to election and reelection.

No sooner was the 2015 deal signed than Trump and Republicans succeeded in defining it as a giveaway to Iran that assured, not hindered, its development of a nuclear weapon to threaten Israel and the world. Opponents condemned the agreement for not addressing Iran’s other threats, notably its support for militant proxies throughout the Mideast. Some Democrats, notably Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, were among the foes. Other Democrats, cowed by opposition to the agreement by Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli government and pro-Israel lobbyists, were all but mute in the pact’s defense.

Now some Democrats are belatedly finding their voice (and, post-Gaza, some willingness to defy Israel). Along with nonpartisan experts, those Democrats are drawing comparisons between the 2015 agreement, flawed yet successful, and Trump’s promised yet ever-elusive alternative. What’s ironic for Israel and Netanyahu, still implacably against negotiating with Tehran, is that they could end up, under Trump, with a nuclear deal that gives Iran more leeway than the hated JCPOA did.

As Americans are being reminded, the 2015 deal wasn’t just between Iran and Obama, as Trump has long suggested; other signatories were China, Russia, Britain, France, Germany and the 27-nation European Union. Reconstituting that group would be all but impossible today.

The pact’s 159 highly technical pages and five appendices — a far cry from the short-lived one-pager that Trump officials teased earlier this month — required Iran for 15 years to limit its nuclear program to civilian purposes, forfeit more than 97% of its enriched uranium and submit to intrusive monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure compliance. In return, Iran gradually got relief from some, but not all, international economic sanctions and access to Iranian funds that were frozen after the 1979 Islamic revolution. Presumably, after 15 years, the agreement would have been extended somehow.

By all accounts, including those of Trump’s first-term intelligence and national security officials, Iran was complying when he abandoned the deal. Its “breakout time” for building a nuclear weapon was about a year — time enough for the world to intervene — instead of two to three months. Now, though the president boasts he barred Iran from having that weapon by breaking the Iran nuclear deal, he incessantly tells Americans that he went to war against Iran on Feb. 28 because it was on the brink of a bomb — never mind that he also said he had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program last summer, a program that was in a well-monitored box until he first took office.

If you’re confused, you’re paying attention.

A month ago, Trump posted online that he was close to a deal “FAR BETTER” than the 2015 accord. “I am under no pressure whatsoever, ⁠although, it will all happen, relatively quickly!” To several reporters, he suggested he in fact had a deal and that Iran had agreed both to suspend its nuclear activities and to forfeit all of its enriched, near-weapons-grade uranium.

Preposterous claims, given Iran’s current government, and Tehran promptly denied them. It was a sign of Trump’s squandered credibility that few, if anyone, believed him in the first place. Nor have folks believed his more recent talk of imminent success; oil markets, too, have learned not to trust the president, as prices at the pumps attest.

On Tuesday at the White House, amid a noisy tour of the billion-dollar-ballroom construction site, Trump told reporters he’d been “an hour away” from striking Iran again that very day but Mideast leaders asked for more time for negotiations.

Don’t hold your breath.

But for the tragic consequences, Obama might be enjoying some justifiable schadenfreude about Trump’s travails.

“We pulled it off without firing a missile. We got 97% of the enriched uranium out,” he told Stephen Colbert in an interview last week. Both U.S. and Israeli intelligence agreed that Iran was abiding by the nuclear limits, Obama added, “and we didn’t have to kill a whole bunch of people or shut down the Strait of Hormuz.”

That sure doesn’t sound like the “worst deal ever.” It wasn’t.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

BEIRUT, Lebanon, May 21 (UPI) — Lebanon took a gamble by engaging in direct negotiations with Israel that opened the door to security and political talks. Yet, that failed to stop the fighting despite a 45-day extension of a cease-fire.

The U.S.-brokered talks emerged as Lebanon’s last resort to end the raging war between Israel and Hezbollah that broke out when the Iran-backed militant group opened a support front for Gaza on Oct. 8, 2023.

A first cease-fire was achieved Nov. 27, 2024, but it failed to restrain Israel, prompting Hezbollah to resume fighting March 2 after 15 months of inactivity as it regrouped from heavy losses.

A second cease-fire, reached April 16, was extended for 45 days Friday during the third round of Lebanon-Israel negotiations in Washington.

The new truce did not take effect on the ground, as Israel and Hezbollah continued to clash, while talks in Washington were set to proceed under fire.

Israel continued to focus largely on southern Lebanon, carrying out airstrikes and expanding its ground operations, while Hezbollah maintained its fighting with new tactics that involved fiber-optic drones and small first-person-view systems.

Riad Kahwaji, a Middle East security analyst, said the extended cease-fire does not cover areas in which Hezbollah is active, especially southern Lebanon, but applies to Beirut and other parts of Lebanon.

“It is obvious that this is being done under the pretext of allowing Israel to retain its right to act against threats from Hezbollah,” Kahwaji said.

The latest casualty count released by the Lebanese Health Ministry on Wednesday showed that 3,073 people have been killed and 9,362 wounded since March 2.

Despite Hezbollah’s rejection of direct negotiations and its insistence on maintaining its anti-Israel resistance, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun remained committed to continuing the Washington talks.

“We are proceeding with this process because there is no other option. We are betting on the U.S. to help more,” a Lebanese official source told UPI.

The source said that the U.S. officials have been showing “understanding” of Lebanon’s position, but it is yet to be seen if “they would force Israel to abide by the cease-fire and withdraw” from southern Lebanon.

Lebanon — while not ready to conclude a peace agreement or normalize ties with Israel — engaged in the negotiations with five demands: consolidate the cease-fire, secure Israel’s withdrawal from occupied Lebanese territories, obtain release of Lebanese prisoners captured during the war, enable return of displaced people to their homes and villages, and initiate reconstruction.

Lebanese and Israeli military delegations are to meet on May 29 at the Pentagon in Washington in a “security track” aimed at, as the U.S. State Department put it, “meaningfully improving communication and coordination” between the two countries under U.S. facilitation.

While Lebanon prepares its military delegation, that meeting is expected to focus on enforcing and maintaining the cease-fire through structured military coordination.

According to Lebanese retired Maj. Gen. Abdul Rahman Chehaitli, the 45-day extension of the truce was a “window of time” for Israel to end or stop its military operations and for Lebanon to build confidence in its capacity to carry out its mission in southern Lebanon.

Supporting and equipping the Lebanese Army will be part of the discussions, aimed at enabling its forces to deploy and take control of southern Lebanon following any eventual Israeli withdrawal.

“All military operations should then stop completely for the Lebanese Army to begin deploying,” Chehaitli told UPI.

In addition to creating conditions for an Israeli withdrawal, the issue of Hezbollah’s disarmament would be on the table.

Kahwaji noted that Israel and Lebanon are heading into the Pentagon meeting with their own expectations and objectives.

“Lebanon wants the army to be strengthened, but there is so far no intention to forcibly disarm Hezbollah,” he said, adding that the United States and Israel expect the Lebanese Army to handle disarmament and security in southern Lebanon once properly equipped.

If an agreement is reached, the disarmament process would not succeed without Hezbollah’s consent and cooperation.

“Hezbollah would have to inform the army of all the locations where its weapons and missiles are hidden. That would require a decision by Hezbollah’s leadership, as these are secret locations not known to many.” Chehaitli said. “If this happens, we could then say that the war in Lebanon is over.”

However, the final word remains with Iran, which has heavily financed and armed Hezbollah since its establishment in the early 1980s.

“The key is in Iran’s hands. Ending the war and Iran’s military investment in Lebanon is the necessary entry point for the negotiations,” Chehaitli said.

While Lebanon seeks to break free from Iran and has opted for U.S.-brokered direct negotiations with Israel, it is working to revive the 1949 Armistice Treaty as a basis for ending hostilities in the upcoming political track expected in early June.

According to the official source, the plan is an “Armistice Treaty Plus” with some modifications — a feasible objective that would end the state of war between the two countries and resolve their border disputes.

“The Armistice Treaty is fully valid but requires some geographical and military amendments, which are easily addressed,” said Chehaitli, who is the author of The Lebanese Land and Maritime Borders: A Historical, Geographical and Political Study.

“It is either the solution or the gateway to a solution and could be sufficient to prevent any future war.”

He said military observers from the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization — placed under the operational command of the U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, or UNIFIL, after the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war — would resume their primary role of observing ceasefires and supervising armistice agreements.

UNIFIL’s mandate is set to expire in January.

Such an agreement to end the war would “keep the door open for a future peace deal that could involve political and economic relations,” Kahwaji argued.

That would largely depend on Israel’s acceptance and on the U.S. acting as guarantor.

“But the U.S. has not always been an honest broker, and will always side with Israel,” Kahwaji said.

At Jimmy Kimmel’s annual monologue to advertisers at Disney’s recent upfront presentation, the ABC late-night host offered sympathy to his ousted CBS cohort Stephen Colbert.

“First, it’s bad enough to lose your job,” Kimmel said. “Imagine getting replaced by the owner of the Weather Channel.”

Byron Allen, the media mogul whose holdings do include the Weather Channel, laughed when the gag was repeated to him during a recent phone conversation. “I like Jimmy Kimmel a lot,” he said.

Allen, never lacking in self-confidence, can afford to roll with the jokes. Episodes of his 20-year-old syndicated program “Comics Unleashed,” a half-hour show featuring mostly lesser-known stand-ups sharing routines and stories, are replacing “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” on CBS in the 11:35 p.m. time period starting Friday.

While it’s a triumph for Allen, 65, it’s also a sign of how the traditional late-night talk show — one of television’s most culturally influential formats — may no longer be sustainable in the era of streaming TV.

CBS said last year it canceled Colbert because it lost $40 million a year as the late-night viewing habit among audiences has eroded in the streaming era. Many in the TV industry are skeptical of the claim, believing Skydance Media wanted to silence the relentless Trump-bashing host in order to clear the government regulatory path for its acquisition of network parent Paramount. (The FCC’s approval of the deal came days after the cancellation was announced.)

Cedric the Entertainer, left, with Byron Allen on the set of “Comics Unleashed.”

(Allen Media Group)

But no one who has worked in late-night television in recent years can dispute how financial challenges are clouding the format’s future. Polished after-hours programs with a live audience, large teams of writers and producers and high-priced hosts are fighting off obsolescence as traditional TV audiences get smaller and ad revenues shrink. While CBS is the first to act, other networks have thought about getting out of the business altogether.

Since 2022, “The Late Show” lost 20% of its audience in the advertiser-coveted 18-to-49 age group, according to Nielsen data. Ad spending on all late-night television shows hit $209 million in 2025, down from $519.7 million in 2017, according to data from Guideline.

“Nothing is forever, especially in television,” said former network executive Ted Harbert, who oversaw the launches of “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,” and “Late Night with Seth Meyers” at NBC. “Digital tech is killing late night.”

The hosts of the programs and their funniest bits are arguably seen by more people than ever before thanks to clips replayed on social media platforms. But the revenue generated by digital viewing doesn’t approach what the networks get for audiences watching live on TV.

Over the last 10 years, late-night shows flocked to YouTube as a way to be a part of the national conversation and bring attention to the shows. Harbert believes the notion that the clips alone — which may feature a funny bit or a snapshot of a conversation with a guest — would help lure viewers to traditional TV was folly.

“The shows cannibalized themselves by making their show available in snack-size clips after the network airing,” he said. “And viewers obviously would rather watch a couple of five-minute clips than a whole show.”

Late-night shows were once among the most profitable programs on TV because of their ability to reach viewers in the 18-to-34 age group that attract premium prices for commercial time. But the same demographic was the first to gravitate to streaming platforms and abandon traditional TV which thrives on appointment viewing.

Daniel Kellison, a former producer for “Jimmy Kimmel Live” and “The Late Show with David Letterman,” noted that Kimmel — who has also been targeted by the Trump administration for his harsh barbs — has seen his TV ratings increase this year.

But the overall trend for the time period is still down. While Kellison believes Colbert’s cancellation is an effort by CBS to appease Trump, he agrees that the genre needs to evolve and adapt to the changing media landscape.

“There’s always going to be an audience for conversation around politics and life and these sort of shows will exist in different formats and I think it’s incumbent upon people to figure out how to present them,” he said.

CBS executives have said they want to develop a new network show in the late-night time period. But for the next year it will lease the slot to Allen. His company Allen Media Group pays CBS for the time, covers the cost of production and sells the advertising. He is also the host. The deal will erase whatever losses the network experienced in that TV block.

“Comics Unleashed” has been running in the 12:35 a.m. hour since CBS canceled “After Midnight” last year. When that show moves to the earlier time slot, it will be replaced by another Allen program, “Funny You Should Ask,” a comic quiz show hosted by John Kelley.

Allen said he has great respect for the late-night TV tradition. His mother was a tour guide at NBC in Burbank and he was able to hang out on the studio lot to watch Johnny Carson tape “Tonight.” Allen would get advice from Carson, whom he calls his hero and mentor, and eventually got a shot at doing stand-up on “Tonight” when he was 18 years old.

Allen even asked CBS to move the start date of “Comics Unleashed” to May 22 because it is the anniversary of Carson’s final show in 1992. But his sentimentality ends when it comes to the economics of programming in that time slot.

“We will be in profit,” Allen said of “Comics Unleashed,” which according to Nielsen has seen its audience grow in the 12:35 a.m. time slot by 26% since October.

Kimmel has accused CBS of dumping Colbert for “Comics Unleashed” because Allen’s show doesn’t partake in political humor that could alienate the White House as Skydance moves to close its next acquisition: Warner Bros. Discovery.

“I feel like CBS is turning 11:35 p.m. into a ‘least’ time slot,” Kimmel said at the Disney presentation. “Least as in least likely to offend the president with the rerun of ‘Comics Unleashed’ from 2007 featuring Paula Poundstone and Andy Dick.”

Poundstone and Dick are not among the 1,000 comedians who have appeared on “Comics Unleashed” over the years, many of whom went on to become stars. But not having the program dabble in political humor is a business decision.

The guests stick to storytelling and slice-of-life material that doesn’t date, which is why the episodes can attract an audience years after being taped. They don’t plug books, movies, concerts or any other elements that would be dated by future airings.

“Twenty years ago when we shot our first episode I said ‘we’re making it ‘I Love Lucy,’” Allen said. “I want these shows to be funny today and 20 years from today.”

Allen said his company will produce 130 new episodes of “Comics Unleashed” for the 2026-27 TV season.

But the reason the current set of late-night hosts leaned into politics so heavily in recent years is because it works.

When Colbert took over “The Late Show” from Letterman in 2015, the program’s ratings sputtered as the audience did not really know Colbert outside of the satirical figure he played on Comedy Central with his show “The Colbert Report.”

The night Trump scored his surprising win in the 2016 presidential race against Hillary Clinton, Kelly Kahl, then an executive vice president of CBS Entertainment, sent a text to Chris Licht, then executive producer of “The Late Show,” telling him it was “the best thing to happen to the show.”

Colbert found his voice on the program, which rose to No. 1 in the ratings and has been there ever since.

Bolivian President Rodrigo Paz has announced a cabinet reshuffle and other measures as protests demanding his resignation continue. Paz said the government wants to build a collaborative government with broader participation from social and economic groups.

“What’s black and white and read all over?” That is the setup for what used to be the first joke learned by most every American kid. These days, delivering the punch line would leave the kids bewildered. They might just say, “What’s a newspaper?”

In our new media age, that is not a question with an obvious answer. Ask the people in New Orleans who just found out their venerable Times-Picayune will no longer be available in print every day. Based in a city and state with a perennially high level of corruption and dysfunction, the Times-Picayune has been a powerful and admired community watchdog. The question is, will it be as effective with a smaller staff and just three days of print publication a week? And there is a bigger question, one that applies to the newspaper industry as a whole: Can printless watchdogs still have teeth?

Newspapers are different from most other businesses because one of their paramount functions is to provide a public service that may bring no monetary return and may not even interest most of their customers. In a democracy, someone needs to keep an eye on the elected officlals, bureaucrats, business leaders, lobbyists, police and assorted shysters who have the power to mess with people’s lives. Traditional newspapers, from the big city dailies to the small town weeklies, have always had reporters who make it their mission to protect the public interest. Often, they write important stories that few people read — coverage of state legislatures, for instance. But those being watched by the watchdogs read those stories and it tends to keep them honest.

In the past, newspapers were so profitable that, so it was said, any fool could get rich owning one. That made it fairly easy for a publisher to pay for investigative reporters, foreign correspondents and governmental news, the kind of work that is expensive, time-consuming and does not offer any obvious payback, other than a good reputation. But, with so many advertising dollars jumping to the Internet, the newspaper business model has crashed and newsroom cuts have hit everywhere. Often, the newspaper coverage that gets axed first is the stuff that appears to contribute the least to the bottom line. A glaring example is the way reporters in state capitals have become a vanishing breed.

Some think independent bloggers can pick up the slack. Yet, good as they may be, no blogger has the institutional weight of an established newspaper. A newspaper can take on the powers that be because it is one of those powers.

What about online newspapers? After all, it’s the information that matters, not the means of delivering the information. Politico is proving to be a powerful online source of news about national politics. The Huffington Post, though primarily opinion-driven, is a rich source of information. MSNBC.com does a decent job of aggregating and creating news reports.

The best online news is being done by the biggest newspapers — the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal. Of course, their online offering is largely a byproduct of reporting done for the print editions. Could the same quality be maintained if they were online only?

One answer to that can be found in the hometown of Microsoft and Amazon.com. Before moving to the L.A. Times, I had a long career at the Post-Intelligencer in Seattle. In 2009, after decades of winning awards and losing money, the Seattle P-I stopped print publication. About 150 talented journalists lost their jobs while 20 were kept on to reinvent the newspaper as a completely online endeavor. By some measures, seattlepi.com has been a success -– low operational costs and plenty of jazzy content — but it is not the comprehensive newspaper it once was. And lacking the institutional weight it once had, this all-electronic publication is no longer a serious player in community affairs.

Still, there is no going back. The future of the news business is online and I suspect it will come out just fine — as long as all involved can resist the ultimate temptation: becoming a “click whore.” For the uninitiated, that is anyone or any entity that will post any darn thing that draws lots of page views, or “clicks.” The problem here is not just the sort of “news” that is put online to chase clicks, it is the important news that is left out.

Sure, any fool can get a lot of page views by running photos of cute kittens, funny dogs, hot cheerleaders and bosomy models in bikinis. It might bring in a lot of money. It might be read all over.

But it would not be a newspaper.

The race for the 34th Congressional District in the core of Los Angeles was supposed to be a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. The two dozen hopefuls vying for a spot in the top-two primary were full of self-proclaimed fighters ready to oppose President Trump and establishment Democrats.

Instead, it’s shaping up to be a contest between the powerful group of Latinos who make up a majority of the district’s voters and the small but politically potent Korean American community, as Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez and former city planning Commissioner Robert Lee Ahn grabbed the runoff spots that will determine L.A.’s next member of Congress.

“This is really ethnic politics 101,” said Matt Barreto, a UCLA professor of political science who helps run the polling firm Latino Decisions.

Ahn, an attorney and a relative unknown in the crowded primary field, surprised many with a victory that vaulted him ahead of multiple Latino candidates in a district where more than half the voters are Latino. If elected in the June 6 runoff, he would be the only Korean American member of Congress and the first in nearly 20 years.

But it wasn’t surprising to anyone who studies the intricacies of identity politics in Los Angeles, or to those who had been paying attention to Ahn’s aggressive focus on Korean American voters.

Ahn’s campaign staff spent dozens of hours registering voters at malls and outside restaurants in Koreatown, signing up hundreds of new voters. Ahn made his pitch at multiple Korean churches in the district, and a large portion of his donor base was from the Korean American community, which helped him raise more money than Gomez in the latter part of the campaign despite a deluge of cash Gomez received from political committees.

And when Virginia state legislator Mark Keam, also a Korean American, flew to Los Angeles to endorse Ahn, a bank of TV cameras from Korean American news stations was there.

Robert Lee Ahn raised the most money by far in latest campaign finance reports »

Daniel Hong, a 38-year-old who works in the film industry, voted for the first time Tuesday even though he’s been a citizen for about 20 years. Hong, who is Korean American, said he read numerous articles about Ahn and received multiple phone calls from his campaign.

“That was the first time anybody has ever reached out to me for my vote,” said Hong as he stood outside a polling place set up in a Korean Presbyterian church.

Deborah Choi, 62, said she voted for Ahn so “he can speak for Korean Americans here.” The first wave of Koreans immigrated to the U.S. “so many years ago,” Choi said, but their representation in the highest elected offices remains low. She hopes her 36-year-old son will one day run for office too.

Though county election officials have yet to process more than 13,000 ballots, the 41-year-old Ahn remains thousands of votes ahead of the third-place candidate, fellow former planning Commissioner Maria Cabildo.

With turnout expected to hover around 15% of registered voters, preliminary returns show Ahn’s strategy paid off big. The biggest strongholds of votes for Ahn centered on Koreatown, Westlake and Chinatown, while the 42-year-old Gomez was ahead in neighborhoods throughout the northeast part of the district.

In early absentee ballot returns headed into primary election day, Korean Americans made up nearly a quarter of votes even though they comprise just 6% of registered voters.

Few Korean Americans have come this close to winning a seat in Congress since 1998, when Republican Jay Kim of Diamond Bar lost to a primary challenger after three terms in office. (David Min, a UC Irvine professor, announced a challenge to GOP Rep. Mimi Walters of Orange County this week.)

“Korean Americans in Southern California have been hungry for political representation for a very long time,” said Taeku Lee, a professor of politics and law at UC Berkeley. Lee said the recent campaign that helped propel David Ryu, the first Korean American elected to the L.A. City Council, may have also helped the community learn on-the-ground skills that mobilized voters in the congressional race.

The symbolism of Ahn’s win was not lost on his supporters Tuesday night.

“It’s very significant,” said Jinha Park, a radiologist who attended Ahn’s election night party at a Mexican restaurant in Westlake. “The Korean American community has always felt voiceless at the federal level.”

The question now, as the two Democrats ready for what could be a costly runoff, is whether Ahn, the son of Korean immigrants, can broaden his appeal beyond the Korean American voters who are motivated to send him to Washington.

He faces a fierce challenge: While progressive candidates to his left spoke passionately about fighting for “sanctuary cities” that protect undocumented immigrants and single-payer healthcare, Ahn emphasized the “business sensibility” he would bring to the office and argued there was room to negotiate with Republicans on certain issues, an idea that could prove unpopular in a district where just 9% of voters are Republican, and where Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton in last year’s presidential primary.

Ahn will also have to make a case to Latino voters, who make up more than half of registered voters in the district, why they should choose him over Gomez. The three-term assemblyman is the son of Mexican immigrants, has amassed dozens of establishment endorsements from Democratic elected officials, labor unions and environmental groups, and touted his progressive record in the Legislature.

Among his backers is Xavier Becerra, who rose to become the highest-ranking Latino U.S. congressman and vacated the seat to become California’s attorney general.

Votes that went to the remaining Latino candidates in the primary made up more than 38% of voters at last count, and the district has sent a Latino to Congress for more than half a century.

“When [Ahn is] running against a guy named Gomez, as good as his outreach might be in the Latino community, Latinos’ gut and heart is going to be more with Gomez,” said UCLA professor Barreto.

Ahn dismissed the idea. “The notion that Latinos will only vote for a Latino … I think we’re really going to transcend that with our campaign,” Ahn said in an interview Wednesday. He appears to be positioning himself as an outsider, which would be similar to the campaign Ryu ran when he made his successful council run in 2015. Ahn called Gomez a “professional politician that is powered by special interests.”

Gomez’s camp shot back, saying voters will see through Ahn’s formidable fundraising and realize his credentials don’t match with the district.

“More than anything, he’s ideologically out of step with the district,” said Parke Skelton, a campaign consultant for Gomez. Skelton said Ahn, who changed his registration from Republican to Democrat in 2012, “has taken positions that really put him out of the mainstream Democratic base in this district.”

christine.maiduc@latimes.com

For more on California politics, follow @cmaiduc.

ALSO

Half the candidates in L.A.’s latest congressional race have their own immigrant story. With Trump, this contest is personal.

Results from L.A.’s congressional primary

Updates on California politics

Sign up for our free Essential Politics newsletter

President Trump said the United States is “freeing up Cuba” and ruled out escalation after the US indicted former Cuban President Raul Castro in Miami over the 1996 downing of exile planes.

WASHINGTON — Barney Frank, the longtime Democratic congressman and leading liberal who brought new visibility to gay rights and crafted the most significant reforms to the financial system in a generation, has died. He was 86.

Frank died late Tuesday, according to Jim Segel, Frank’s former campaign manager and close friend.

After representing broad swaths of Boston’s suburbs in Congress for 32 years, Frank and his husband moved to Ogunquit, Maine. He entered hospice there in April with congestive heart failure and is survived by his husband, Jim Ready, and sisters, the longtime Democratic strategist Ann Lewis and Doris Breay, along with brother David Frank.

A self-described “left-handed gay Jew,” Frank was known for his acerbic wit, combative style and focus on marginalized communities. He represented the party’s left wing while keeping close with Democratic leaders who sometimes frustrated progressives.

He is best known as a pioneer for LGBT rights. After decades of grappling with his sexuality, he publicly came out as gay in 1987, the first member of Congress to do so voluntarily. With his 2012 marriage to Ready, he became the first incumbent lawmaker on Capitol Hill to marry someone of the same sex.

But in an April interview as he entered hospice, Frank said he hoped he would be remembered for advocating a brand of politics that embraced progressive ideals without forcing them on voters prematurely. It is an approach he feared was being rejected as Democrats prepare for what could be a rollicking primary as they hope to retake the White House in 2028 and move past the Trump era.

“I hope I made the point that the best way to accomplish the improvements in our society that we need, particularly in making it less unfair economically and socially, is by conventional political methods,” Frank said. “The main obstacle to our defeating populism and going further in the right direction is that mainstream Democrats have to make it clear that we oppose that part of the agenda of our friends on the left that is politically unacceptable. They’re right about a lot of things but you have to have some discretion.”

“You should not take the most unpopular parts of your agenda and make them litmus tests,” he added. “And that’s what my friends on the left have been doing.”

Frank’s path to public life

Born in 1940 in Bayonne, N.J., Frank wrote in his 2015 memoir that he was drawn to public life after Emmett Till, a Black 14-year-old from Chicago, was lynched by white men in Mississippi. Frank would volunteer in Mississippi during the Freedom Summer of 1964, though he acknowledged the fast-talking style was a challenge in the Deep South.

“My direct organizing of Mississippi voters was limited by the fact that my accent [to this day more New Jersey than New England], my poor diction, and my rapid speech, especially when I got excited, rendered me largely incomprehensible to rural Mississippians of both races,” he wrote.

He entered politics in 1968 as an aide to Boston Mayor Kevin White before winning a seat in the Massachusetts House in 1972. Frank was elected to Congress in 1980, an otherwise dismal year for Democrats as the party lost dozens of seats in the U.S. House and Republican Ronald Reagan won the White House.

Frank’s pragmatic style surfaced early in his congressional career. He joined the liberal Democratic Study Group to help push then-Speaker Tip O’Neill (D-Mass.) to respond more aggressively to the Reagan administration. But Frank said he found himself more often agreeing with O’Neill’s less confrontational approach.

Years later, as Congress prepared to pass a massive tax overhaul package, Frank intended to vote “no,” opposed to the bill’s lowering of top tax rates. He changed his mind, however, when he worked out a deal boosting affordable housing tax credits.

“I was happy to sacrifice my ideological purity to improve legislation that was going to become law with or without me,” he wrote.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat and former House speaker, called Frank an “idealist to the nth degree.”

“The goals, the vision, the promise of it all,” she recalled in an interview. “Nobody could ever surpass what he brought to the table in that regard.”

Making history in Congress

Through his early years in Washington, Frank led something of a double life.

Privately, he socialized in the city’s gay circles and had relationships but did not publicly acknowledge his sexuality. The media at the time rarely reported that someone was gay unless that person was involved in a scandal. When Frank in 1987 invited a reporter to his office to formally ask whether the congressman was gay, Frank responded, “yeah, so what?”

Other elected leaders, perhaps most notably San Francisco’s Harvey Milk, had come out years before. Members of Congress, including Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.), were previously outed through scandal.

Frank’s approach made him the most prominent gay leader in national politics for much of the 1980s and 1990s. He helped secure AIDS funding and pressed the Democratic Clinton administration, unsuccessfully, to lift a ban on gays serving in the military.

But there were low points, too, most notably an overwhelming 1987 House vote to reprimand him for poor judgment involving a male prostitute he hired in 1985. Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia, the Republican whip at the time, pressed for the more severe punishment of censure, which was rejected by a large margin.

Frank became something of a punch line among conservative Republicans, with House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) calling him “Barney Fag” in 1995. Armey said he misspoke and later apologized from the House floor.

Along the way, Frank became known as one of the most quotable lawmakers in Congress.

Regarding abortion, he said Republicans believed “life begins at conception and ends at birth,” criticizing the party’s push to curb social programs. After Ken Starr released a report describing President Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky in sometimes intimate detail, Frank said it required “too much reading about heterosexual sex.”

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) entered Congress the same year as Frank and he recalled his former colleague: “You may get a blow, but it was softened by the humor that came with it.”

Presiding over a financial overhaul

By 2007, Frank was the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, where he would leave his lasting policy mark as the U.S. economy careened toward collapse. He worked with the Republican Bush administration to pass a rescue package, providing vital support to financial institutions but spurring a populist revolt that still courses through American politics.

Once the initial crisis eased, Frank helped develop the most significant reform legislation since the New Deal. Working with then-Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), the Dodd-Frank Act would enhance consumer protections, impose new capital requirements for banks and boost the ability of regulators to monitor risk.

“Barney and I shared a fantastic relationship,” Dodd said. “I had many good moments in those 36 years in Congress, but none more significant, joyful, or productive than those almost two years working with Barney on our banking bill.”

During President Trump’s second term, his Republican administration has worked to roll back many of the legislation’s provisions, arguing they were too onerous.

Frank faced his toughest reelection campaign in years in 2010 as the tea party wave swept over American politics. He opted against running again in 2012, though remained engaged in politics long after leaving Congress and was a fierce critic of Trump.

Asked for his prediction on who might succeed Trump, Frank said “unfortunately I won’t get to vote for it.”

Sloan writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Two police officers who helped defend the U.S. Capitol from an attack by a mob of President Trump’s supporters sued on Wednesday to block anyone — including Jan. 6, 2021, rioters — from receiving payouts from a new $1.776-billion settlement fund for people who claim to be victims of politically motivated prosecutions.

The officers’ attorneys filed the federal lawsuit a day after acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche defended the fund’s creation during a congressional hearing. Blanche, a personal attorney for Trump before joining the Justice Department, wouldn’t rule out the possibility that rioters who assaulted police on Jan. 6 would be eligible for fund payouts.

The lawsuit claims the government’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund” is an illegal slush fund that Trump will use to “finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name.” It describes the fund’s creation as “the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century” and calls for dissolving it.

“No statute authorizes its creation, the settlement on which it is premised is a corrupt sham, and its design violates the Constitution and federal law,” the suit says.

The fund stems from a settlement of Trump’s $10-billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. It’s designed to compensate those who believe they were mistreated by prior administrations’ Justice Department. Decisions on payouts will be made by a five-member commission appointed by the attorney general.

More than 100 police officers were injured during the Capitol riot. Nearly 1,600 people were charged with Jan. 6-related crimes, but Trump used his pardon powers to erase all of those cases in a sweeping act of clemency last year.

The plaintiffs suing Trump over the fund are Metropolitan Police Department officer Daniel Hodges and former U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn, who is running in Maryland for a seat in Congress. Hodges and Dunn both testified before Congress about their harrowing experiences on Jan. 6. Videos captured a rioter ripping a mask off Hodges as he was pinned against a door during a fight for control of a tunnel entrance.

The officers claim the fund “encourages those who enacted violence in the President’s name to continue to do so.”

“Dunn and Hodges already face credible threats of death and violence on regular basis; the Fund substantially increases the danger,” the suit alleges.

On Tuesday, members of Congress peppered Blanche with questions about the fund. He described it as “unusual” but not unprecedented. Blanche failed to acknowledge that Trump’s Justice Department has investigated and prosecuted some of the Republican president’s political enemies, including former FBI Director James Comey and New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James.

Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also are named as defendants in the officers’ lawsuit. Spokespeople for the Justice and Treasury departments didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on the suit.

One of the attorneys for the officers is Brendan Ballou, a former Justice Department prosecutor who handled Jan. 6 cases.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The YOLO caucus is in session.

In a Republican-led Congress defined by deference to President Trump, there’s a small but steadily growing cohort who have found themselves more willing to break with the White House. Although the president maintains a firm grip on Republican voters, the expanding club could hinder his agenda on everything from the Iran war to immigration funding at a moment when his party holds a tenuous majority on Capitol Hill.

Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana is the newest member of the club. Just days after losing his primary to a Trump-backed challenger, Cassidy on Tuesday reversed himself on legislation involving the war in Iran and voted with Democrats to rein in U.S. military action.

“The way our Constitution is set up, Congress should hold the executive branch accountable,” he told reporters the day before.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas could be next after Trump endorsed Ken Paxton, Cornyn’s rival for the Republican nomination in next week’s runoff.

Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky is perhaps a founding member of the YOLO caucus — slang for “you only live once,” used to punctuate unbothered or even foolhardy behavior. He frustrated Trump since the president’s first term, and his status was solidified after losing his primary on Tuesday to a Trump-backed challenger. Massie has enraged Trump by voting against his signature tax and spending bill and by pushing for the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files.

He hinted there’s more to come before he leaves office.

“I got seven months left in Congress,” Massie said with a grin during his concession speech as the crowd erupted.

More Republicans feel free to shrug off Trump

Other similarly situated Republicans include Sen. Thom Tillis, who was a fierce critic of former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and has more recently turned his attention to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. There’s also Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who joined Democrats last week in a bid to curb Trump’s war powers in Iran. Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky have voted against some of Trump’s Cabinet picks. And in the House, Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska has pushed to reclaim congressional power over tariffs.

“If the legislative branch always votes with the president, we do have a king,” Massie said in his concession speech Tuesday.

This hardly amounts to a revival of the Never Trump movement that some Republicans unsuccessfully hoped would curb the president’s excesses during his first term or block him from returning to office. Many in the party, including Trump’s occasional detractors, have either stood by or been unable to block the president as he launched the war in Iran and presided over an aggressive immigration enforcement operation and the dismantling of the federal workforce.

Today’s unencumbered Republicans don’t fit into an ideological box. But they are united by a sense of emboldening that can only be attained in a few ways in Trump’s Washington.

Many, like Tillis, McConnell and Bacon, have decided to retire and can cast votes knowing they’ll never again have to face Republican primary voters. Others like Collins and Murkowski have more leeway because they represent states that tend to reward political independence. And some like Massie banked on the idea that voters could support both Trump and someone who occasionally crossed him.

It’s a paradox for Trump. As he demands total loyalty and pushes out Republican dissenters, he’s left with a growing cohort who, for one reason or another, owe Trump nothing.

Democrats look to capitalize

That could be a problem for Senate Majority Leader John Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson, who are already governing with threadbare majorities. Shifting loyalties of even a few Republican lawmakers could dramatically complicate the ability for either chamber to pass substantial legislation ahead of the November midterm elections.

Thune called Cornyn a “principled conservative” and “very effective senator” on Tuesday.

“None of us control what the president does,” he said.

The next tests could come later this week as Thune pushes a funding package for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection designed to pass on a party line basis.

Democrats are eager to pounce.

Speaking at an event in Washington on Tuesday sponsored by the Center for American Progress, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said he would aim to drive a wedge between Republicans by using a so-called discharge petition to bring issues directly to the floor for a vote.

That tactic has been successful in securing House passage on issues including the Epstein files and temporary protection of Haitian immigrants.

“When we’re disciplined and when we’re focused and when we put pressure in particular on the so-called swing seat Republicans, they have been breaking with us,” Jeffries said.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom told reporters on Tuesday that Trump’s endorsement of Cornyn’s rival was a sign that his political power lies within the Republican base — not the American public at large.

“He’s showed the only influence he has, and that’s an outsize influence within the base of the party,” the potential 2028 Democratic presidential contender said. “Otherwise he’s shown little to no influence with the American people.”

Counting the votes

That leaves Republicans gaming out how they might cobble together the votes needed to pass legislation.

Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota called Cassidy a “good friend” and said the loss was “tough for him.” He said Cassidy “will always vote in line with what he thinks is best” but doubted he will become a less reliable Republican vote.

His fellow Louisianan, Sen. John Kennedy, said Cassidy deploys power “rationally and maturely” and “will continue to do the same thing.”

Cassidy repeatedly rejected the notion that he will spend his final months in Washington as a troublemaker for Trump, saying he’s going to do “what’s good for my country and my state.”

Yet the independent streak that ended his political career quickly resurfaced. A week after Trump visited China, Cassidy spoke of a Western alliance that’s “totally falling apart” and will be unable to “push back on the threat China represents.” He seemed stunned that the administration would create a nearly $1.8-billion fund to compensate Trump allies who they believe have been unjustly investigated and prosecuted.

“I just came off the campaign trail,” he said. “People are concerned about making their own ends meet, not about putting a slush fund together without a legal precedent.”

Sloan and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press. AP writer Stephen Groves in Washington contributed to this report.

The indictment of former Cuban President Raul Castro over a 1996 plane shootdown revives a decades-old case at a moment of heightened US pressure on Havana. Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett explains why the timing matters.

Rodrigo Paz is under pressure from weeks of demonstrations and poor economic conditions.

Bolivia’s right-wing President Rodrigo Paz has said he will reorganise his cabinet as he faces calls to resign amid weeks of widespread protests.

During a news conference on Wednesday, Paz said he would reshuffle his ministers in a bid to ease tensions with antigovernment protesters.

“We need to reorganise a cabinet that must be able to listen,” Paz told reporters.

Since taking office in November, Paz and his government have faced backlash to economic restructuring measures, including controversial cuts to fuel subsidies. The country is in one of its worst economic crises in decades.

Protesters have taken to the streets to express frustration with Paz’s free-market reforms. His inauguration ushered in a period of right-wing leadership after nearly two decades of governance by the Movement for Socialism (MAS).

Thousands of farmers, labourers, miners and teachers have denounced Paz’s reforms. Riot police clashed with protesters again in the capital, La Paz, earlier this week.

While Paz acknowledged frustrations in his remarks on Wednesday, his government has depicted the protests as dangerous and anti-democratic.

Minister of Foreign Affairs Fernando Aramayo said earlier in the day that the mass protests and roadblocks were aimed at destabilising the country and “disrupting the democratic order”.

Former leftist President Evo Morales, who continues to exert influence over the country’s politics, has expressed support for the demonstrations.

The Paz government, meanwhile, has accused Morales of fomenting unrest. The former socialist president faces charges of statutory rape and has an arrest warrant out against him. His allies, however, say the charges are part of an effort to remove him from political life.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has expressed support for Paz, whose election is seen as part of a regional shift to the right.

“Let there be no mistake: the United States stands squarely in support of Bolivia’s legitimate constitutional government,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a social media post on Wednesday. “We will not allow criminals and drug traffickers to overthrow democratically elected leaders in our hemisphere.”

Paz also slammed Colombian President Gustavo Petro, who has frequently feuded with right-wing governments in the region, for recent comments describing the protests as a “popular insurrection”.

The Bolivian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced on Wednesday that it would ask the Colombian ambassador to leave the country, citing interference in domestic political affairs.

“If they expel the ambassador simply for proposing dialogue and mediation, it means we’re sliding towards extremism that could lead to a very difficult situation for the Bolivian people,” Petro said in an interview with the local radio station Caracol.

WASHINGTON — Republican senators are considering dropping a proposal for $1 billion in security money for the White House complex and President Trump’s ballroom after it has failed to win enough party support on Capitol Hill.

Pressured by the White House, Republicans have tried to add the money to a roughly $70-billion bill to restore funding to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol. But the security proposal has met with backlash from some GOP lawmakers who are questioning the cost and the lack of detail from the White House and U.S. Secret Service about how the taxpayer dollars would be used.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said Wednesday that the bill was “back to square one” without the security money because “the votes are not there.”

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said the effort to add the security package to the bill was a “bad idea” and he does not think there is enough backing to pass it, even if it were reduced.

The text of the bill has not yet been released. But Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) acknowledged “ongoing vote issues” as leaders try to measure Republican support, as well as “ongoing parliamentarian issues” as they try to figure out what will be allowed in the bill under the chamber’s rules.

The wrangling comes as Democrats have criticized Republicans for trying to fund Trump’s ballroom when voters are concerned about basic affordability issues — and as some GOP lawmakers have grown increasingly frustrated with Trump. Several have spoken out against the administration’s $1.8-billion settlement fund designed to compensate Trump’s allies, and many were upset by the president’s endorsement Tuesday of Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton in the party primary runoff next week against Sen. John Cornyn.

“There’s always a consequence with taking on United States senators,” Thune said. Trump “obviously has his favorites and people he wants to endorse and that’s his prerogative. But what we have to deal with up here is moving the agenda, and obviously that can become slightly more complicated.”

Republican opposition blocks Secret Service request

Under the Secret Service request, about $220 million would pay for security improvements related to the ballroom. The rest would go for a new screening center for visitors, training and other security measures.

Tillis said the bill should not have included the other security improvements “because it’s just giving everybody the ‘billion-dollar ballroom.’”

“They need to explain to me why we need this,” Tillis said, noting that Trump had originally said private money would cover the project.

Several other Republicans in the House and Senate have questioned the request, and senators left a briefing with the director of the Secret Service last week saying they needed a lot more information.

People “can’t afford groceries and gasoline and healthcare, and we’re going to do a billion dollars for a ballroom?” asked Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who lost reelection in the GOP primary on Saturday after Trump endorsed one of his opponents.

Sen. Jim Justice (R-W.Va.) said he is supportive of the security money and thinks it is necessary to protect the president. But he acknowledged that the optics are not very good for Republicans, and that they have not communicated about it well.

“We’ve got people out there who are worried about how in the world they’re going to have enough gas to get home,” Justice said.

Tensions rise between Senate and White House

As Republicans challenged parts of his agenda, Trump unloaded on the Senate in a social media post.

He urged Republicans to fire the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, who said over the weekend that parts of the $1-billion security proposal cannot remain in the ICE and Border Patrol bill. Trump renewed his long-standing calls for the Senate to pass the SAVE Act, a Republican bill that would require all voters to prove U.S. citizenship, and to end the Senate filibuster.

“Republicans play a very soft game compared to the Dumocrats,” he wrote. “It is their single biggest disadvantage in politics.”

Trump said Democrats would eliminate the filibuster “on the First Day” if they ever get full power in Washington again and that Republicans need to “get smart and tough” or “you’ll all be looking for a job much sooner than you thought possible!”

Republicans have been loyal to Trump on most issues, but they have resisted his repeated calls — even in his first term — to kill the filibuster, which triggers a 60-vote threshold in the Senate.

Hanging over the growing GOP rift is Trump’s surprise endorsement of Paxton. That intervention has Republican senators privately fuming that it could cost them their majority in November as they view the incumbent, Cornyn, as the better candidate in the November general election.

Democrats test Republicans on settlement fund

As Republicans move forward on the immigration enforcement legislation, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Democrats plan to force a vote on Trump’s proposed settlement fund.

Democrats have an opening because Republicans are trying to pass the immigration enforcement bill through a complicated budget process that requires a long series of amendment votes. Democrats are considering multiple amendments potentially to block that new fund outright or to ban any payments to Trump supporters who harmed law enforcement officers in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Those amendments, along with others, could pass as a growing number of Republicans speak out against the fund and other parts of Trump’s agenda.

Thune said he was “not a big fan” of the new fund, which the administration announced as a part of a settlement that resolves the president’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. Cassidy called it a “slush fund” and said “you can’t just make up things.”

Tillis said he thinks it is a “real risk” that some of the rioters charged — and later pardoned by Trump — in the Jan. 6 attack could get compensation through the fund. He said that would be “absurd.”

On Wednesday, two police officers who helped defend the Capitol in the 2021 assault sued to block the payouts. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, a personal attorney for Trump before joining the Department of Justice in Trump’s second term, would not rule out the possibility that rioters who assaulted police on Jan. 6 would be eligible for compensation when he testified in a Senate hearing this week.

Jalonick, Freking and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Republicans are unhappier with President Trump’s handling of the economy than they were a few months ago, but they’re largely continuing to stand behind him as the war with Iran continues, a new AP-NORC poll finds.

About 6 in 10 Republicans approve of how Trump is handling the economy, according to the poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. That’s down from about 8 in 10 in February, before the war began.

The poll comes as the Mideast war fuels higher gasoline prices, while the U.S. and Iran struggle to move toward a permanent ceasefire. Trump’s hold on the GOP remains strong, as he demonstrated Tuesday when his handpicked candidate defeated Rep. Thomas Massie, a critic of the president, in a primary election challenge. The findings highlight Trump’s continued strength within the Republican Party, even as economic frustration grows.

Ariel Gutierrez, a 55-year-old Republican in Wisconsin, usually requires his teenage children to pay for their own gas. But with spiking gas costs, he’s helping out his 15-year-old, who’s just learning to drive.

“The whole Iran issue has just exacerbated it,” he said. “Maybe we were seeing it in groceries before, but now — with this push on gas and travel and all that — that is how people want to live the leisure part of their lives … and it is directly impacting us there now. And yes, that is, I believe from Trump’s policies, not from his predecessors.”

Trump remains unpopular outside his base. Most Americans continue to disapprove of Trump’s approach to both Iran and foreign policy. His overall approval rating in the new poll stands at 37%, up slightly from 33% in April. Nearly all Democrats disapprove of his performance as president, as do about 7 in 10 independents.

The economy remains a struggle

About one-third of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling the economy. That’s in line with an AP-NORC poll conducted in late April, but down slightly from the start of his second term, when 40% of U.S. adults approved.

The economy was a strength for Trump in his first term, but he’s struggled with skepticism about his handling of the issue since his return to the White House last year, after repeatedly promising to bring prices down. His second-term economic approval has fallen among Republicans, in particular. While a majority, 63%, still approve, that’s down from 79% in February, a few weeks before the war with Iran began.

Richard Baumgartner, a 77-year-old Republican from Las Vegas, believes higher costs are a necessary side effect of the war, which he supports.

“Unfortunately, because of the war, the economy is a little bit off-kilter,” Baumgartner said. “I think it’ll fall back into place after things resolve over there. Temporary price increases — it’s unfortunate, but it’s something that has to be confronted in a situation like this where you have a very serious problem.”

Trump regains some strength on immigration

Although economic promises were pivotal to Trump’s reelection, so were his goals of stricter immigration enforcement — and this issue may be reemerging as an asset.

Immigration emerged as one of Trump’s strengths early in his second term, with about half of U.S. adults saying they liked his approach, but approval of his handling of the issue dipped to 38% in January and February, after months of aggressive immigration enforcement that led to the shooting deaths of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis.

Now, just under half of U.S. adults, 45%, approve of how he is handling that issue.

Brenda Theiss, an independent from Cullman, Ala., doesn’t like everything Trump is doing. But she gives him credit for being willing to disrupt the status quo to reduce the flow of immigrants who are in the country illegally, compared with Democratic Presidents Obama and Biden.

“I liked Obama; I voted for Obama — but Trump was the only one that did something. All of the other presidents sat back and went, ‘Well, there’s nothing we can do,’” the 73-year-old said. “He’s closing the border. He did it. Biden didn’t do it. For that, I give him one hundred.”

Over the last few months, the Trump administration has appeared to recalibrate its approach on immigration, moving away from aggressive, public-facing tactics toward a quieter approach to enforcement.

Immigration remains one of Trump’s stronger issues among Republicans. About 8 in 10 approve of his handling of the issue, which is roughly 10 points higher than the share who say he’s doing a good job as president.

Few approve of Trump on Iran or issues abroad

Trump’s handling of the war with Iran remains unpopular.

Only about one-third of U.S. adults approve of how he is handling Iran. Roughly two-thirds of Republicans approve, though an AP-NORC poll conducted last month found that younger Republicans are more likely to disapprove of Trump’s performance on the issue than older ones.

Similarly, about one-third of Americans approve of Trump’s approach to foreign policy. Though Trump has zeroed in on a more aggressive international approach this year — including capturing the leader of Venezuela and threatening Cuba — Americans’ views of his overall handling of foreign policy have not shifted significantly in recent months.

Amanda Wylie, a 22-year-old who lives in Athens, Ga., says Iran is one of the few issues where Trump doesn’t have her support.

“I feel like we’re wasting resources over there at this point and not for the benefit of the American people,” said Wylie, who identifies as a Republican-leaning independent. “Especially if everyone is worried about gas prices and the ultimate goal of this is to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon. Yes, that’s important, but at what cost?”

Sanders and Thomson-Deveaux write for the Associated Press. The AP-NORC poll of 1,117 adults was conducted May 14-18 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

NEW LONDON, Conn. — President Trump told the U.S. Coast Guard Academy’s graduates on Wednesday that they show “unbelievable heroism and exceptional selflessness” but that the cadets will “be tested further” as they embark on their military careers.

Trump’s remarks to the class of 2026 were the first time he has given a commencement address at one of the nation’s military academies after sending U.S. troops to fight a new war.

He told the cadets that they will be America’s “first defenders” and “first responders.”

“You’ve all been tested. You’ll be tested further and probably at higher levels as your career goes on,” Trump said.

During his address, Trump quickly touched on the war with Iran, now in its 12th week, as a sign of U.S. success from “the hottest country anywhere in the world.”

“The only question is, do we go ahead and finish it up or are they going to be signing a document? Let’s see what happens,” Trump said.

The Republican president had threatened to launch renewed strikes on Iran this week as talks with Tehran seemed to have stalled and a fragile ceasefire appeared to be teetering. But Trump on Monday said he was giving Iran a few more days because “serious negotiations” were underway.

He has not offered details and has in the past backed away from following through on threats to Iran, citing breakthroughs in talks that have not publicly materialized.

Earlier Wednesday, he told reporters that he’s “in no hurry” to strike a deal to wrap up the war because of political concerns and the November midterm elections.

The commencement was held on a day with scorching heat and there was little shade available as the crowd waited for the ceremony to begin.

At least one person required medical attention after passing out. Others pleaded with organizers for elderly attendants to sit in the shade under tents. Chilled water bottles were distributed freely but quickly became warm.

Trump, who spoke at the academy’s graduation in 2017 during his first term, said he was proud to be the first president to give two commencement addresses at the school.

“We’re going to have to try it maybe a third time, too, to keep that record intact,” Trump said Wednesday.

The president and vice president traditionally speak at one of the military service academies every year. Vice President JD Vance is set to give the commencement address on May 28 at the U.S. Air Force Academy.

Before he flew to Connecticut, Trump told reporters that his message to the cadets would be, “Just enjoy your life.”

“You know, you don’t really realize how important Coast Guard is until you have a hurricane,” Trump said as he praised the maritime service.

Price and Kruesi write for the Associated Press. Price reported from Washington.

May 20 (UPI) — Barney Frank, a former Massachusetts congressman who was instrumental in overhauling the country’s financial regulations and was one of the first openly gay members of Congress, died at his home in Maine. He was 86.

Frank had entered hospice care last month with congestive heart failure, The New York Times reported.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., worked with Frank in Congress for decades. Pelosi called him “a real mentor” and said she learned a lot from him.

“He has been about idealism and pragmatism to get the job done,” she told NBC News.

Frank served in the House of Representatives for more than 30 years and led the House Financial Services Committee from 2007 to 2011. One of the successes for which he was best known was the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, which he co-sponsored with Sen. Chris Dodd. The act, a response to the 2008 financial crisis, tightened regulations on Wall Street, preventing banks from taking part in the riskiest behaviors and protecting consumers.

Frank was one of the first U.S. politicians to come out as gay voluntarily — in a 1987 interview with the Boston Globe, a statement he followed with “So what?” He became the first member of Congress to marry a same-sex partner when he wed Jim Ready in 2012. Ready survives him.

“I think the key to our having made the enormous progress we made in defeating anti-gay prejudice had to do with all of us coming out and people discovering the gap between between our reality and the way we were painted,” Frank said in an interview last month with NBC News.

Frank was also known for championing civil rights and women’s rights and advocating for issues including environmental protection and abortion rights.

“I’m a left-handed gay Jew,” he often said, The New York Times reported. “I’ve never felt, automatically, a member of any majority.”

Frank’s first book, Frank: A Life in Politics from the Great Society to Same-Sex Marriage, was published in 2015. His second, The Hard Path to Unity: Why We Must Reform the Left to Rescue Democracy, is expected to be published in September.

In Frank, he wrote that he’d been good at his job but in retirement, he was ready to be “good at life.”

MIAMI — Federal prosecutors on Wednesday announced charges against former Cuban President Raúl Castro in the 1996 downing of civilian planes operated by Miami-based exiles as the Trump administration escalated pressure on the socialist government.

The indictment was related to Castro’s alleged role in the shootdown of two small planes operated by the exile group Brothers to the Rescue. Castro, now 94, was Cuba’s defense minister at the time. The charges included murder and destruction of an airplane.

Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche and other top Justice Department officials made the announcement in Miami at a ceremony to honor those killed in the shootdown.

President Trump has been threatening military action in Cuba ever since U.S. forces captured the Cuban government’s longtime patron, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. After ousting Maduro, the White House ordered a blockade that choked off fuel shipments to Cuba, leading to severe blackouts, food shortages and an economic collapse across the island.

Since Maduro’s capture, Trump has ratcheted up talk of regime change in Cuba after pledging earlier this year to conduct a “friendly takeover” of the country if its leadership did not open its economy to American investment and kick out U.S. adversaries.

Trump’s first administration indicted Maduro on drug-trafficking charges and used that to justify removing him from power during a surprise military raid in January that whisked the Venezuelan leader to New York to face trial.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday urged the Cuban people to demand a free-market economy with new leadership that he said will chart a new course in relations with the U.S.

“In the U.S., we are ready to open a new chapter in the relationship between our people,” Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, said in a Spanish-language video message. “Currently, the only thing standing in the way of a better future are those who control your country.”

Cuba’s deputy foreign minister, Carlos F. de Cossío lashed out at Rubio on X, saying he “lies so repeatedly and unscrupulously about Cuba and tries to justify the aggression he inflicts on the Cuban people.” Rubio “knows full well that there is no excuse for such cruel and ruthless aggression.”

Raúl Castro believed to wield power behind the scenes

There’s no indication Castro will be taken into U.S. custody anytime soon.

He took over as president from his ailing older brother Fidel Castro in 2006 before handing power to a trusted loyalist, Díaz-Canel, in 2018.

While he retired in 2021 as head of the Cuban Communist Party, he is widely believed to wield power behind the scenes, underscored by the prominence of his grandson, Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro, who previously met secretly with Rubio.

Last week, CIA Director John Ratcliffe traveled to Havana for meetings with Cuban officials, including Castro’s grandson. Two other senior State Department officials met with the grandson in April.

“The symbolic nature is absolutely crucial,” said Lindsey Lazopoulos Friedman, a former prosecutor at the U.S. attorney’s office in Miami who handled national security cases and crimes involving Cubans.

“Even though Raúl Castro will likely stay and die in Cuba, you can use the indictment as a pressure point, a tactical advantage, to extract other concessions like the release of prisoners or to keep Russia out,” she added.

The investigation into Castro stretches back to the 1990s

Starting in 1995, planes flown by members of Brothers to the Rescue, a group founded by Cuban exiles, buzzed over Havana dropping leaflets urging Cubans to rise up against the Castro government.

The Cubans protested to the U.S. government, warning that they would defend their airspace. Federal Aviation Administration officials also opened an investigation and met with the group’s leaders to urge them to ground the flights, according to declassified government records obtained by George Washington University’s National Security Archive.

“This latest overflight can only be seen as further taunting of the Cuban Government,” an FAA official wrote in an email to her superiors after one intrusion in January 1996. “Worst case scenario is that one of these days the Cubans will shoot down one of these planes.”

But those calls went unheeded and on Feb. 24, 1996, missiles fired by Russian-made MiG-29 fighter jets downed two unarmed civilian Cessna planes a short distance north of Havana just beyond Cuba’s airspace. All four men aboard were killed.

Raúl Castro faced earlier indictment

Guy Lewis, who was a federal prosecutor, uncovered evidence linking senior Cuban military officials to cocaine trafficking by Colombia’s Medellin cartel. Following the shootdown, the investigation expanded, and prosecutors pursued charges against Raúl Castro for leading a vast racketeering conspiracy by Cuba’s armed forces.

“The evidence was strong,” Lewis said in an interview.

In the end, the Clinton administration indicted four individuals, including the MiG pilots, the head of the Cuban air force and the head of a Cuban spy network in Miami — the only one to see the inside of a U.S. prison — for providing valuable intelligence about the flights.

The incident led the U.S. to harden its position against Cuba, even though the Cold War had ended and the Castros’ support for revolution across Latin America was a fading memory.

But Castro himself was spared as the Clinton administration — which had quietly sought to expand relations with Cuba prior to the incident — raised foreign policy concerns about such a high-profile indictment.

“Raúl was definitely one who slipped through the noose,” Lewis said. “The crime is notorious. Three U.S. citizens and one legal permanent resident were killed in a premeditated orchestrated murder. That should never be forgotten.”

Goodman and Richer write for the Associated Press. Richer reported from Washington.

A few weeks ago, Argentine journalist Martín Caparrós recalled at an event commemorating the 50th anniversary of Spanish newspaper El País that Venezuela, in 1964, was the first place in the world to abolish the death penalty. These were the times of Marshal Juan Crisóstomo Falcón, and the word “federation” had become the epitome of the supposed solution to all the nation’s ills in a young, devastated, and empty republic.

Although this was true on paper, in practice we had Antonio Guzmán Blanco, trained in the federalist ranks and who became the supreme leader of the Liberal Cause, decreeing in 1872 the execution by firing squad of his former ally, the caudillo Matías Salazar. In less than a decade, this declaration of principles had been easily overturned by one of its promoters.

The self-proclaimed revolutions continued to undermine national life until Cipriano Castro and his crony Juan Vicente Gómez defeated them all and proclaimed the restoration of liberal principles. “New men, new ideals, new procedures,” declared the man who moved the presidential office from the Yellow House to Miraflores Palace. But, having consolidated his regime and enjoying his days for vanity and festive revelry, in 1907, amidst delirium and a display of brute force, he ordered the execution of his great opponent, General Antonio Paredes, once the Army frustrated a supposed new revolution.

After sending him to the firing squad, Castro did not remain in power for long. At the end of 1908, Gómez toppled him with a palace coup, justifying the murder of Paredes as the reason his former crony was never allowed to enter Venezuela again.

The Gómez regime (1908-1935) was cruel. It tortured and imprisoned its opponents. However, he was careful to avoid such incidents. He defeated them in prisons and in the military fray to maintain his sepulchral order. It wasn’t until the next military dictatorship in the 1950s that news emerged of what we might call summary executions of members of the Acción Democrática resistance and union leaders. Thus, Leonardo Ruiz Pineda, Antonio Pinto Salinas, and Luis Hurtado remained in the collective memory when neighborhoods were named after them. The tortures inflicted by the fearsome Seguridad Nacional or the days spent in the Guasina concentration camp became literature or anecdotes in a historical thread woven by this type of political violence.

Perhaps the great Venezuelan tragedy has not only been the repetition of violence, but the inability to fully transform its tragedies into republican memory.

Later, the great unifying word was Democracy. Under this system, the country had achieved greater pluralism, freedoms, and social development. That said, excesses were committed during the counterinsurgency campaign, and thus, among others, the names of Alberto Lovera and Jorge Rodríguez Sr. remained, cases that were openly denounced in the media and for which some form of justice was sought.

In the 1980s, we witnessed the extrajudicial killings known as the “false positives” of the El Amparo Massacre and the repressive chaos of El Caracazo, a moment when the system should have been more deeply confronted with its errors and adopted more profound forms of reparation. Although political violence did not disappear with democracy, it had ceased to be accepted as a natural aspect of public life. The problem was that many of its wounds were poorly healed, if at all, and festered into resentment.

The return of horror

The 1999 Constitution was born with the idea of ​​refounding the Republic and making it “Bolivarian.” Initially, this meant defeating corruption, building a “participatory democracy,” and erasing all traces of what they began to call the “Fourth Republic.” This refounding ultimately meant reusing and multiplying the evils of the past and waging a systematic battle against democratic resistance.

The cruelty quickly became apparent: the impunity and flippant treatment of the April 11 murders; the shootings in Plaza Altamira in December of that same year; the political assassination of the controversial prosecutor Danilo Anderson and the subsequent witch hunt; the exponential increase in repression in 2014, 2017 and 2019, and the widespread fear following July 28, 2024. This cruelty is replete with numerous new stories of deaths under the indifference or custody of the State, from Franklin Brito to Fernando Albán, Raúl Baduel, Rodolfo González “El Aviador”,  the extrajudicial executions, and the cases we still don’t know about.

The ordeal Carmen Navas endured to learn about her son, Víctor Hugo Quero, and the cruelty with which his death was concealed have shaken Venezuelan society, which sees mothers as its embodiment of grief and national outrage, and which finds in women its greatest source of peaceful resistance.

As an old folk song, collected by Aquiles Nazoa and sung by Simón Díaz in his second volume of Tonadas (1976): “Little girl who embroiders the white cloth, little girl who weaves on your loom, embroider for me the map of Venezuela and a little handkerchief to cry with.” Perhaps the great Venezuelan tragedy has not only been the repetition of violence, but the inability to fully transform its tragedies into republican memory.

Every time pain becomes merely an anecdote or a slogan, the country remains haunted by the same monsters and ghosts. But, just as we have had this tradition of assassination and political cruelty, which today are multiplied in family tragedy and shared horror, on each occasion Venezuelans have been deeply moved by injustice, and this has led us to mobilize to transform darkness into brighter moments for our republic. May the future be not only bright, but much more lasting.

May 20 (UPI) — Talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping on Wednesday failed to make progress on a long-planned 1,615-mile pipeline to supply China with an annual 50 billion cubic meters of natural gas from Russia’s Yamal field in Siberia.

The Power of Siberia 2 project negotiations on the final day of Putin’s two-day state visit to Beijing stalled due to differences over the timetable, financing and cost of the gas with Beijing holding out for a price of around 12-13 cents per cubic meter, in line with the cost in the domestic Russian market.

Moscow and Beijing signed a binding contract to develop the project during Putin’s last visit to China in September but left the details to be ironed out down the line.

Russia wants a similar deal to that for Power of Siberia 1, which experts projected would mean the price of the gas would be at least double the 12-13 cents figure.

The talks yielded 20 other trade and technology agreements and while a joint leaders’ statement talked of boosting their “comprehensive partnership” and shared vision “for a multipolar world and a new type of international relations,” the summit produced no breakthroughs of any great significance.

Analysts said the power imbalance in the Sino-Russia relationship — one where Russia needed China more than China needed Russia — was on full display during Putin’s visit.

Putin said that as one of China’s largest energy suppliers, Russia was ready to “reliably” meet fast-growing Chinese demand for oil, gas and coal.

“Russia and China are actively cooperating in the energy sector. Our country is one of the largest exporters of oil, natural gas, including liquefied gas, and coal to China. We are, of course, ready to continue to reliably ensure uninterrupted supplies of all these fuels to the rapidly growing Chinese market,” Putin said in comments that made no reference to the pipeline.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the sides had “reached an understanding on the project’s main parameters” in Wednesday’s talks but that “some nuances remain to be ironed out.”

Beijing, which is looking to Russia to ameliorate the energy shock from the severe disruption to its supplies of oil and LNG caused by the Iran war and the closure of the Hormuz Strait, has already imported 35% more Russian oil in the January to March quarter than in the same period in 2025.

“Both China and Russia need each other, but Russia clearly needs China more than before at the global stage. Given today’s international environment, deep co-operation with China is extremely important for Russia in dealing with many of its current challenges,” Zheng Runyu, of the Centre for Russian Studies in Shanghai, told the BBC.

WASHINGTON — Bold conservative thinkers with clear public records need not apply.

An increasing number of conservative activists fear that is the message President Bush is sending with his two choices for the Supreme Court.

This week’s nomination of White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers, following Bush’s earlier selection of John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice, means that the president has chosen two Supreme Court nominees with limited — or virtually no — public records on the key constitutional controversies dividing the parties. In the process, he’s bypassed a long list of judges with consistent conservative records on state and federal courts.

“I don’t know that there is a deliberate message — I think he is just trying to avoid trouble — but the message comes through: Do not be controversial, do not express strong opinions that arouse opposition,” said Robert H. Bork, the conservative legal scholar and former federal judge. Bork’s extensive writings keyed an explosive confirmation battle that culminated in his rejection by the Senate when President Reagan nominated him to the Supreme Court in 1987.

During almost five years of bruising partisan warfare on issues from taxes to Iraq, few people have ever accused Bush of dodging a fight. But that’s exactly the charge he is now facing from disgruntled conservatives.

They contend that Bush has chosen Miers, and even Roberts, largely because he fears Democratic resistance to conservatives with more concrete public records, such as appellate court Judges J. Michael Luttig and Edith H. Jones.

“Is the president sending a message that these distinguished conservatives are too controversial to be nominated for the high court, even with a Senate containing 55 Republicans?” a Wall Street Journal editorial asked Tuesday.

White House officials and some Bush allies on the right deny the charge that he is gun-shy about promoting nominees with extensive public records. They note that the president has consistently appointed known conservatives, such as Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla R. Owen, to the powerful federal appellate courts — even renominating them after they were initially blocked by Democratic filibusters.

“In the president’s mind, it is not disqualifying if you have a public track record of conservatism, and he has proved that through his appellate court appointees,” said White House counselor Dan Bartlett.

Bush, at a Tuesday news conference, sought to assure his supporters that Miers shared his conservative views and would remain steadfast to them.

“I know her well enough to be able to say that she’s not going to change, that 20 years from now she’ll be the same person, with the same philosophy, that she is today,” he said.

But Bush’s critics on the right maintain that his reluctance to nominate a known conservative for the Supreme Court sends a strong signal encouraging caution and consensus among conservative legal thinkers and judges.

“I suppose a lot of people are not going to want to join the Federalist Society,” said Bork, in a reference to a conservative legal group.

Both sides agree that the 1987 defeat of Bork marked a turning point in Supreme Court nominations. Since then, both parties have generally favored nominees without the detailed and controversial record he carried to the witness table.

“It’s almost become a qualification,” said Bork, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute think tank.

But Bush’s conservative critics say he has carried this tendency to a new height through his selection of Roberts, who had served just over two years as a federal judge, and Miers, who has never served on the bench or written publicly on major legal questions.

In contrast, both of President Clinton’s Supreme Court appointees — Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg — had served for more than a decade on federal appellate courts. And Ginsburg had written widely as a law professor and general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Bush’s conservative critics acknowledge that Roberts’ limited public record made it more difficult for Democrats to organize against him, an advantage that Miers may also benefit from.

But the president’s critics maintain that Bush is underestimating his ability to win confirmation for a more clearly defined candidate while Republicans hold 55 Senate seats; only twice since 1930 has a president’s Supreme Court nomination been rejected while his party controlled a Senate majority.

“If Bush feels he could have put a Mike Luttig on there without a fight, he would have done it,” said Mark Levin, president of the conservative Landmark Legal Foundation and a former chief of staff to Edwin Meese III, who was attorney general under Reagan. “It’s a political calculation that he’s got enough on his table right now, and why instigate a fight?”

Luttig, of Virginia, is a favorite of conservative activists.

The critics on the right see two principal risks in choosing justices without a long pedigree. One is that without a firm anchor in conservative legal views, they will trend leftward on the court — the way almost all conservatives believe David H. Souter, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, has done. This fear is greater about Miers because Roberts’ advocacy for conservative positions in previous GOP administrations has left the right considerably more, though not completely, confident about him.

The other fear is that the nomination of candidates without lengthy public records will discourage conservatives from advancing controversial positions that challenge legal conventional wisdom — either in their writings or on the courts. The Wall Street Journal said that by appointing Miers, the president “missed a chance to send a message that taking firm sides in our judicial debates is not politically disqualifying.”

Bush advisors and allies say such conclusions misread his logic for the Miers appointment. They say his long personal relationship with Miers gives him more confidence about her judicial philosophy than he could obtain from reading a judge’s opinions or from a short interview.

“Harriet Miers reflects less a reticence to appoint someone with a record and more a commitment to appoint someone he knows shares his judicial philosophy,” said Leonard Leo, a former vice president of the Federalist Society now working with groups supporting the president’s court nominees.

Still, the uneasiness on the right about Bush’s decision-making has reached the point that two prominent legal conservatives this week joked that the best thing that ever happened to Roberts was the refusal by the Senate, then controlled by the Democrats, to confirm him after President George H.W. Bush nominated him to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1992.

If Roberts had been confirmed then, his lengthy legal record might have dissuaded the current President Bush from nominating him to the Supreme Court this summer, said one of the conservatives, who asked not to be identified.