Politics

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN — Barack Obama met with U.S. troops and received a military briefing on conditions in Afghanistan on Saturday during the opening leg of an overseas trip designed to showcase his appeal in foreign capitals and reassure American voters that he would make a reliable commander in chief.

Obama’s trip is scheduled to include a visit to Iraq, and his foreign policy judgment got an unexpected boost from that country’s leader, Nouri Maliki, who praised the Democratic presidential candidate’s plan for withdrawing U.S. troops over a 16-month period.

In an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, Maliki embraced Obama’s plan, saying: “That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

Maliki said he was not making an endorsement in the presidential race.

The presumed Republican nominee, John McCain, has said that conditions in Iraq could worsen if troops were removed at the pace his rival has advised.

Obama’s high-profile trip caps a week on the campaign trail during which he focused on national security and U.S. commitments abroad — areas that are considered special strengths of McCain.

Seizing on Maliki’s favorable comments, the Obama campaign put out a statement from his senior foreign policy advisor, Susan Rice: “Sen. Obama welcomes Prime Minister Maliki’s support for a 16-month timeline for the redeployment of U.S. combat brigades. This presents an important opportunity to transition to Iraqi responsibility, while restoring our military and increasing our commitment to finish the fight in Afghanistan.”

In a speech last week, Obama said that troops should be drawn down in Iraq and two additional combat brigades deployed in Afghanistan, a war he said the U.S. couldn’t afford to lose.

His visit to Afghanistan comes at a time of sharply deteriorating security across the country. Suicide bombings are an everyday occurrence, and the number of foreign troops killed last month was the highest since the start of the war.

The presumptive Democratic nominee and senator from Illinois is part of an official congressional delegation that includes Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.). The lawmakers made a brief visit to Jalalabad airfield in eastern Afghanistan, greeting American troops from their respective home states.

At Bagram Air Base outside Kabul, Obama and the others met with senior military officials and got a briefing from the commander of American forces in eastern Afghanistan, Maj. Gen. Jeffrey J. Schloesser. The decision to have the delegation meet with Schloesser probably reflected growing U.S. concern over infiltration of fighters from tribal lands on the Pakistani side of the frontier, which borders Afghanistan’s eastern provinces.

Although Afghanistan’s south is the traditional heartland of the insurgency, the eastern front, where U.S. forces are concentrated, has heated up dramatically in recent weeks. American troops suffered their worst single-incident loss in three years last Sunday, when about 200 insurgents staged a well-organized assault on a remote base near the Pakistani border manned by U.S. and Afghan troops; nine Americans were killed and 15 wounded.

On Saturday, a NATO soldier was killed in an explosion in southern Afghanistan, in the Panjwayi district of Kandahar province. The soldier’s nationality was not released, but nearly all Western troops in that area are Canadian.

On the eve of his trip, Obama told reporters he wanted to make a firsthand evaluation of the Afghan and Iraqi war zones.

“Well, I’m looking forward to seeing what the situation on the ground is,” he said Thursday. “I want to, obviously, talk to the commanders and get a sense — both in Afghanistan and in Baghdad — of, you know, what . . . their biggest concerns are. And I want to thank our troops for the heroic work that they’ve been doing.”

In the Afghan capital, where constant power disruptions limit people’s access to radio and television news reports, many residents were not aware of Obama’s arrival. He is to meet with President Hamid Karzai today.

Obama caused a stir this month with remarks about the struggles of the Karzai government.

“I think the Karzai government has not gotten out of the bunker and helped to organize Afghanistan and [the] government, the judiciary, police forces, in ways that would give people confidence,” Obama told CNN.

Yet there is considerable enthusiasm here at the prospect of a change in the American administration. Many Afghans, while grateful for the U.S.-led invasion more than six years ago that drove the Taliban from power, are disappointed that the country still faces violence and poverty.

Obama “has good ideas about Afghanistan, and I hope he becomes the U.S. president,” said university student Hafeez Mohammad Sultani, 23. “He is young and full of energy.”

Others, however, were more skeptical.

“Bush couldn’t provide security in Afghanistan, so that will be difficult for Obama too,” said telecommunications worker Shams ul-Rahman, 38. “This is a very big challenge for America — maybe there will be some changes in the way Obama is thinking about Afghanistan.”

Obama’s companions on the trip are considered possible administration appointees should he win the presidency. Reed is a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Hagel is a Vietnam veteran who, like Obama, has opposed the Iraq war.

Recent polls show that most Americans see McCain, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, as the more seasoned of the two candidates when it comes to foreign policy.

To close the gap, Obama has been trying to shore up his credentials. In speeches and opinion pieces, Obama has argued that invading Iraq was a mistake, that Iraqi officials also favor a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal, and that Afghanistan is the real front in the war on terrorism.

In that respect, Maliki’s remarks gave Obama a boost and left McCain in an awkward spot.

The Arizona senator has said that U.S. troops should leave Iraq when the Maliki government and U.S. commanders on the ground deem the country secure. But McCain has dismissed Obama’s 16-month timeline as politically motivated and said it was an invitation for more chaos in Iraq.

McCain’s senior foreign policy advisor, Randy Scheunemann, said in a statement Saturday: “The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama is that Barack Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders. John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground.

“Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view and did so again today. Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama.

“The fundamental truth remains that Sen. McCain was right about the [U.S. troop] surge and Sen. Obama was wrong. We would not be in the position to discuss a responsible withdrawal today if Sen. Obama’s views had prevailed.”

The Republican candidate also has ridiculed Obama for making pronouncements on Iraq and Afghanistan in advance of his visit.

In a radio address Saturday, McCain said: “My opponent . . . announced his strategy for Afghanistan and Iraq before departing on a fact-finding mission that will include visits to both those countries. Apparently, he’s confident enough that he won’t find any facts that might change his opinion or alter his strategy. Remarkable.”

Obama is scheduled to visit the Middle East and Europe in what will probably become a media spectacle, with television news anchors covering each stop as though Obama were a head of state.

Images of adoring crowds greeting Obama in Germany and elsewhere feed into a campaign strategy to demonstrate that as president he would improve the United States’ beleaguered reputation in Europe.

Before landing in Afghanistan, the delegation stopped in Kuwait.

Obama relaxed there with U.S. troops, taking to the basketball court for a game of H-O-R-S-E.

—

[email protected]

Times staff writer Nicholas reported from Washington and special correspondent Faiez from Kabul. Times staff writers Laura King in Istanbul, Turkey, Michael Muskal in Los Angeles and Nicholas Riccardi in New York contributed to this report.

—

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

What Maliki said

Here is a part of Iraqi leader Nouri Maliki’s interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, in which he supported Barack Obama’s timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq:

Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the U.S. troops will finally leave Iraq?

As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

Is this an endorsement for the U.S. presidential election in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?

Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of U.S. troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans’ business. But it’s the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that’s where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.

Source: Der Spiegel

For over an hour Tuesday night, Presidential Trump vied with pugnacious Trump.

The White House had promised a conciliatory and uplifting State of the Union address, which stood to reason. It’s one thing to inveigh against the mess Trump said he inherited a year ago and another to laud the job he claims to have done cleaning it up.

FULL COVERAGE: State of the Union »

Gone, then, was the wreckage, the ruin and the dystopian “American carnage” he deplored in the glowering speech at his inauguration. Instead, Trump offered a vision of hopefulness and light — for a time, anyway.

“This is our new American moment,” he said loftily in the early moments of his address. “There has never been a better time to start living the American dream.”

But those grace notes were soon overshadowed by an increasingly harsh tone, as though the president couldn’t or didn’t care to contain his more ad-libbed and aggressive self.

He needled Democrats over the partial dismantling of the Affordable Care Act, one of his predecessor’s proudest achievements. He resurrected the controversy over the national anthem and the dissent of kneeling black athletes.

When he spoke of immigration, perhaps the touchiest issue facing a gridlocked Congress, he placed it in a dark frame, with talk of gang violence, of alien intruders stealing jobs and a suggestion of unending “chain” migrants — aunts, uncles, cousins and other family members — leaching taxpayer dollars.

In his closest approximation to an olive branch, Trump said he would support a proposal offering a path to citizenship for 1.8 million children — so-called Dreamers — who were brought to America illegally by their parents. But only, he said, if Democrats would agree to a border wall and other changes in legal immigration they consider anathema.

The result was groans and hisses and boos from that side of the House chamber.

The annual speech to Congress is one of Washington’s most carefully choreographed set pieces, and for portions of it Trump hewed closely to a familiar script

He assayed the state of the union, pronouncing it “strong.” He outlined an ambitious agenda — which lawmakers will mostly ignore — crowed about his achievements, made a feint in the direction of bipartisanship and saluted a large number of invited guests who served as props representing different bullet points (immigration, a strong military, the opioid addiction crisis) of his speech.

It was all terribly conventional, but only to a point.

There were many long sections that could just have easily been delivered at one of Trump’s roisterous “Make America Great Again” campaign rallies, down to the moment when the ranks of Republican lawmakers broke into a lusty chant of “USA! USA!” as the president, chin out, approvingly took in the scene.

The contrast to the last time Trump stood in the well of the House was striking.

Eleven months ago, he delivered a more subdued performance, earning plaudits and generating widespread talk of a presidential turning point or, in that most overused expression, a pivot toward a more staid and conformist style of governance.

Then, days later, Trump was back to tweeting about a “bad (or sick)” President Obama bugging Trump Tower, a figment that roused his political base but instantly banished any Democratic goodwill or notions of presidential normalcy.

Trump has shattered political convention in so many ways that it is difficult to enumerate them all. One of the most significant is this: Although the economy is perking smartly along and Americans tell pollsters they feel better about their financial well-being than they have in years, the president has gotten very little credit.

Indeed, his approval rating stands at a historical low for a chief executive this early in his term, severing the long-standing correlation between economic good times and voter satisfaction.

His speech Tuesday night, with its prime-time prominence and audience reaching in the tens of millions, offered a chance to address that problem. “Over the last year, we have made incredible progress and achieved extraordinary success,” Trump said, reeling off a number of favorable economic statistics.

But much of the address seemed aimed at a far narrower audience.

To a greater degree than any recent president, Trump has used his time in office to appease the relatively narrow slice of the electorate — older, whiter, alienated, aggrieved — that placed him in power, opting not to reach out, bend and seek to broaden that coalition.

His uncompromising performance Tuesday night perfectly encapsulated that approach. Supporters found much to like and detractors plenty to reinforce their contempt.

It is too much to expect any single speech, much less one as politically freighted as the State of the Union, to instantly bridge such a yawning gap. If anything, though, Trump’s provocative remarks seemed likely to push warring Democrats and Republicans even further apart.

[email protected]

@markzbarabak

President Trump’s budget landed with a thud this week on Capitol Hill, where even conservative Republicans pronounced it “dead on arrival” and quailed at its proposed sharp cuts to social welfare programs such as food stamps, Meals on Wheels and Medicaid.

Yet some conservatives found plenty to like in the document. Consider the reaction of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a Washington think tank heavily funded by hedge fund billionaire Pete Peterson.

“The President deserves credit for setting a fiscal goal and working to meet it,” the CRFB said in its gloss on the budget. Trump “should be commended for putting forward a number of specific and significant spending cuts to help address the debt.”

But one aspect of the budget plan really stuck in CRFB’s craw: It leaves Social Security and Medicare alone. “The President should focus on controlling the rising costs of Social Security and Medicare, two of the nation’s largest and fastest growing programs, which the budget almost completely ignores.”

Followers of CRFB’s history will recognize that caveat as classic Pete Peterson. As we reported in 2012, the 90-year-old billionaire has been on a long crusade to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits. In a 1994 essay in the New York Review of Books, for example, he laid out his view that the only way to eliminate the federal deficit was by “reforming the entire system of entitlements — the fastest-growing part of the federal budget.” Where have we heard that line before?

In the piece, Peterson called Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid a “vast and largely unearned windfall we now give to the more affluent half of all American households.” By “more affluent half,” he meant all households then earning $32,000 or more. That figure would be about $53,520 in today’s dollars, close to the median income in the U.S. (In other words, after accounting for inflation, the standard of living of the median household hasn’t noticeably progressed in 23 years.)

The CRFB describes itself as “an independent source of objective policy analysis,” but in reality it’s joined to Peterson by the pocketbook. From 2012 through March 2016, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, the billionaire’s chief pipeline of grants to nonprofits, contributed $8 million to the organization. Peterson sits on its board.

That board is replete with members of what the late muckraking journalist Jack Newfield called “the permanent government” — former members of Congress, agency heads, lobbyists, well-heeled academics, etc., etc. Their board service is unpaid. CRFB President Maya MacGuineas, a frequent speaker and editorialist on the deficit, collected about $394,000 in compensation in 2015, the latest year reported.

The CRFB’s viewpoint on Social Security typically echoes Peterson’s. Its emphasis on bringing the program into fiscal balance leans heavily on benefit cuts. Last December it praised a Social Security “permanent save” offered by conservative Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, that achieved its goal entirely through benefit cuts, without a dime of new revenues such as higher payroll taxes on the wealthy.

The CRFB tends to fret about proposals to raise the payroll tax, even though removing the cap on earned income subject to the tax (currently $127,200) would deliver the single biggest improvement to Social Security’s fiscal condition of any proposal on the table. “Solvency can’t be achieved simply by making the rich pay the same as everyone else or means-testing their benefits,” the committee lectured reformers last month.

In general, the committee approaches budget matters almost entirely through the blinkers of deficit reduction, giving very little attention to the street-level consequences of budget and spending policies. That mind set bubbles through its commentary on the Trump budget, many elements of which it labels “sensible and thoughtful reforms… worthy of consideration.”

The committee doesn’t specify which policies it’s referring to. It observes that the program cuts in the budget “fall disproportionately on programs that benefit children, low-income individuals, and promote investment,” but places that caveat in the context of the “almost inevitable consequence of virtually ignoring the rapid growth of Social Security and Medicare.” The committee does acknowledge, implicitly, that the budget’s $72-billion cut in disability benefits is a Social Security cut — it specifies that it’s Social Security’s Old-Age and Survivors’ Insurance program that remains “largely untouched.”

The CRFB, to its credit, doesn’t give the Trump budget a free pass on its well-documented mathematical mendacity. Like other commentators, it labels the budget’s projection of annual growth exceeding 3% in the economy “rosy,” “extremely optimistic,” even “phony.” Responsible economic analysts place the likely annual growth rate closer to 1.8% to 1.9%.

The committee concludes, “tough choices, not wishful thinking, are needed to fix the debt.” As is typical of the analyses of this billionaire’s pet think tanks, the question it leaves unanswered is “tough for whom?” The inescapable implication is: tough on the beneficiaries of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. If those choices are made, the board members and officers of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget will do just fine.

Keep up to date with Michael Hiltzik. Follow @hiltzikm on Twitter, see his Facebook page, or email [email protected].

Return to Michael Hiltzik’s blog.

WASHINGTON – In the moments after the Supreme Court’s landmark healthcare ruling, Capitol Hill was unnervingly quiet as legislators took time to absorb the ruling. The silence did not last long.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) headed to the Senate floor to mark the milestone.

“Passing the Affordable Care Act was the greatest single step in generations toward ensuring access to affordable, quality healthcare for every person in America, regardless of where they live, how much money they make,” Reid said. “I’m happy and I’m pleased the Supreme Court put the rule of law ahead of partisanship.”

House Speaker John A. Boehner(R-Ohio) – and tea party groups — vowed to press forward on efforts to repeal the law.

“Today’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety,” Boehner said. “Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country Obamacare.”

Republicans and their allies in this battle said the court ruling underscores the urgency of electing more conservatives to Congress to repeal the law.

“We are focused on taking control of the Senate, reinforcing our 2010 gains in the House, and defeating President Obama,” said Amy Kremer, chairman of Tea Party Express. “These key objectives will open the door for a wave of new conservatives in Washington who are committed to repealing Obamacare.”

Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.), the chairwoman of the Tea Party Caucus in the House, said: “Today’s Supreme Court decision raises the stakes for the coming months.”

House lawmakers from both parties had been meeting – separately – on Thursday morning behind closed doors before the decision became public. Boehner was expected to be reiterating to members not to “spike the ball” in the event of a favorable ruling. Both parties said they expect the fight to continue both in Congress and on the campaign trail.

“Our struggle isn’t over,’’ said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma), expecting congressional Republicans to continue to try to dismantle the law “piece by piece.’’

As the court’s decision became known – and initial television reports gave confusing accounts of the outcome — one congressman, Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-San Diego), was the among the first out with a statement: “In the wake of the Supreme Court declaring the ‘individual mandate’ portion of the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, it is questionable as to whether the rest of the bill can stand,” he said.

Fifteen minutes later his office sent out an “updated” release: “Simply put, we cannot afford the president’s health care plan.”

Some Democrats, though, just savored the moment.

“We’re just ecstatic,’’ Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Lakewood) said. She was in a committee meeting, checking her iPad for word on the court ruling.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), the minority leader – who had long predicted a 6-3 decision from the court – took her moment.

“This decision is a victory for the American people,” Pelosi said. “In passing health reform, we made history for our nation and progress for the American people.” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) was also in a committee meeting when he got conflicting messages about the ruling.

“I rushed back to the office to watch the coverage with staff,’’ he said. “Along the way, I could hear hoots and hollers from various congressional offices as the staff of different members reacted with elation or upset. Needless-to-say, we were on the elated side.”

He said was pleased by the ruling but said he also was pleased for another reason: “The court was at risk of becoming yet another partisan institution if it threw out decades of precedent. The chief justice chose a different legacy, and this was not only the correct legal decision, it was also enormously important to maintaining the independence and reputation of the court.”

Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) called it a “sad day for liberty.’’

“The court’s misguided decision is an attack on freedom, an insult to our Constitution, and it will ultimately destroy the best healthcare system in the world,’’ he said. “Chief Justice Roberts once said that the Supreme Court’s job is to apply the law – ‘to call balls and strikes, not to pitch or bat.’ He couldn’t have been more right in saying so, and he couldn’t have been more wrong by choosing to circumvent the Constitution this morning. Even worse, I fear that the high court has opened Pandora’s box by blatantly disregarding the law, and there will no longer be any real limits to what the federal government will be able to force the American people to do.’’

Twitter.com/LisaMascaroinDC

Twitter.com/RichardSimon11

Nov. 28 (UPI) — The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services told staff Friday that it will pause all applications for asylum filed by migrants inside the United States in the wake of the shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, D.C.

On Thursday, the president announced he will “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries.” Then Friday evening, all affirmative asylum applicants were paused.

Affirmative asylum applicants must apply for protection from USCIS asylum officers. Applications must be filed within a year of when migrants arrive in the United States. Defensive asylum applications are used when an applicant faces deportation.

U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, was killed in the attack, and U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, remains in critical condition. They were both members of the West Virginia National Guard.

The suspect, Rahmanulla Lakanwal, 29, is hospitalized after being shot by another guard member. He is an immigrant from Afghanistan and will face a first-degree murder charge.

Lakanwal came to the United States in 2021 and got asylum in April, The Times reported. But it was not clear if it was affirmative asylum.

“USCIS has halted all asylum decisions until we can ensure that every alien is vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible,” said Joseph Edlow, director of the agency, in a statement Friday. “The safety of the American people always comes first.”

Asylum officers at USCIS were told to not approve, deny or close asylum applications received by the agency, according to CBS News.

Officers were told the pause applied to all USCIS asylum cases, which includes those filed by Afghans who arrived under a Biden administration effort. In-person appointments for asylum applicants would be canceled, at least for Monday. The appointments were for applicants to find out what decisions have been made on their cases.

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla.  — President Trump said Friday that he will be pardoning former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who in 2024 was convicted for cocaine trafficking and weapons charges and sentenced to 45 years in U.S. prison.

Trump, explaining his decision on social media, wrote that “according to many people that I greatly respect,” Hernandez was “treated very harshly and unfairly.”

The pardoning of a convicted drug trafficker comes as the Trump administration is carrying out deadly military strikes in the Caribbean that it describes as an anti-narcotics effort.

A jury in U.S. federal court in New York last year found that Hernandez had conspired with drug traffickers and used his military and national police force to enable tons of cocaine to make it unhindered into the United States. In handing down the 45-year sentence, the judge in the case had called Hernandez a “two-faced politician hungry for power” who protected a select group of traffickers.

Trial witnesses included traffickers who admitted responsibility for dozens of murders and said Hernandez was an enthusiastic protector of some of the world’s most powerful cocaine dealers, including notorious Mexican drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, who is serving a life prison term in the U.S.

Hernandez, who had served two terms as the leader of the Central American nation of about 10 million people, had been appealing his conviction and serving time at the U.S. Penitentiary, Hazelton, in West Virginia.

Shortly after Trump’s pardon announcement, Hernández’s wife and children gathered on the steps of their home in Tegucigalpa and kneeled in prayer, grateful that Hernández would return to their family after almost four years apart.

It was the same home that Honduran authorities hauled him out of in 2022 just months after leaving office. He was extradited to the United States to stand trial.

García said they had just been able to speak with Hernández and tell him the news.

“He still didn’t know of this news, and believe me, when we shared it his voice broke with emotion,” she said.

García thanked Trump, saying that the president had corrected an injustice, maintaining that Hernández’s prosecution was a coordinated plot by drug traffickers and the “radical left” to seek revenge against the former president.

She said they had not been told exactly when Hernández would return, but said that “we hope … in the coming days.”

A lawyer for Hernandez, Renato C. Stabile, expressed gratitude for Trump’s actions. “A great injustice has been righted, and we are so hopeful for the future partnership of the United States and Honduras,” Stabile said.

U.S. prosecutors had said that Hernandez worked with drug traffickers dating back to 2004, taking millions of dollars in bribes as he rose from rural congressman to president of the National Congress and then to the country’s highest office.

Hernandez acknowledged in trial testimony that drug money was paid to virtually all political parties in Honduras, but he denied accepting bribes himself. Hernandez had insisted during his trial that he was being persecuted by politicians and drug traffickers.

Trump’s post Friday was part of a broader message backing Nasry “Tito” Asfura for Honduras’ presidency, with Trump saying the U.S. would be supportive of the country only if he wins. If Asfura loses the election Sunday, Trump threatened in his post, “the United States will not be throwing good money after bad, because a wrong Leader can only bring catastrophic results to a country, no matter which country it is.”

Asfura, 67, is making his second run for president for the conservative National Party. He was mayor of Tegucigalpa and has pledged to solve Honduras’ infrastructure needs. He has previously been accused of embezzling public funds, allegations that he denies.

In addition to Asfura, there are two other likely contenders for Honduras’ presidency: Rixi Moncada, who served as the finance secretary and later defense secretary before running for president for the incumbent democratic socialist Libre party; and Salvador Nasralla, a former television personality who is making his fourth bid for the presidency, this time as the candidate for the Liberal Party.

Trump has framed Honduras’ election as a trial for democracy, suggesting in a separate Truth Social post that if Asfura loses, the country could go the way of Venezuela and fall under the influence of that country’s leader, Nicolás Maduro.

Trump has sought to apply pressure on Maduro, ordering a series of strikes against boats the U.S. suspects of carrying drugs, building up the U.S. military presence in the Caribbean with warships including the Navy’s most advanced aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford.

The U.S. president has not ruled out taking military action or covert action by the CIA against Venezuela, though he has also floated that he was open to speaking with Maduro.

Outgoing Honduran President Xiomara Castro has governed as a leftist, but she has maintained a pragmatic and even cooperative position in dealing with the Republican U.S. administration. She has received visits from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and U.S. Army Gen. Laura Richardson, when she was head of U.S. Southern Command. Trump has even backed off his threats to end Honduras’ extradition treaty and military cooperation with the U.S.

Under Castro, Honduras has also received its citizens deported from the U.S. and acted as a bridge for deported Venezuelans who were then picked up by Venezuela in Honduras.

Argentine President Javier Milei, a staunch ally of Trump, also gave his support to Asfura in this weekend’s election.

“I fully support Tito Asfura, who is the candidate who best represents the opposition to the leftist tyrants who have destroyed Honduras,” Milei said Friday on his X account.

Boak and Sherman write for the Associated Press and reported from West Palm Beach and Tegucigalpa, respectively. AP writer Mike Sisak in Lancaster, Pa., contributed to this report.

Pause on visas and halting of asylum applications comes after shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, DC.

The US State Department has announced it is “immediately” pausing issuing visas for individuals travelling on Afghan passports to protect “public safety”, as President Donald Trump administration’s immigration crackdown intensifies in the wake of a deadly attack on two National Guard members.

The announcement on Friday came as United States immigration authorities said they are also halting decisions on all asylum applications for the foreseeable future.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed in a post on X on Friday that the State Department had “paused visa issuance for ALL individuals traveling on Afghan passports”.

The move comes after authorities named Afghan national Rahmanaullah Lakanwal as the main suspect in Wednesday’s shooting in Washington, DC, which killed one National Guard member and left another in critical condition.

“The United States has no higher priority than protecting our nation and our people,” Rubio said.

President Trump’s State Department has paused visa issuance for ALL individuals traveling on Afghan passports. 

The United States has no higher priority than protecting our nation and our people. https://t.co/HuR1Lj7F9t

— Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) November 28, 2025

Lakanwal is alleged to have ambushed West Virginia National Guard members Sarah Beckstrom and Andrew Wolfe in an unprovoked attack as they patrolled near the White House.

On Thursday evening, the Trump administration confirmed that 20-year-old Beckstrom had died from her injuries, while 24-year-old Wolfe remains in critical condition.

The CIA confirmed this week that Lakanwal had worked for the spy agency in Afghanistan before emigrating to the US shortly after the withdrawal of Western forces from the country in 2021.

The office of US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro, announced on Friday that the charges against Lakanwal had been upgraded to first-degree murder, along with two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed.

In a separate announcement on Friday, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) director Joseph Edlow said the agency had also paused all asylum decisions in the interest of the “safety of the American people”.

“USCIS has halted all asylum decisions until we can ensure that every alien is vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible,” Edlow said in a post on X.

A day earlier, Edlow said he had ordered “a full-scale, rigorous re-examination of every green card for every alien from every country of concern” at the direction of Trump.

The moves are the latest in a series of escalating restrictions imposed on immigration into the US at Trump’s urging.

Trump, who called the deadly Washington, DC, shooting a “terrorist attack”, has on several occasions over recent days attacked former President Joe Biden’s administration’s immigration policies, including the granting of visas to Afghan nationals who worked with US forces in Afghanistan.

Lakanwal came to the US under a Biden-era programme known as “Operation Allies Welcome”, following the US withdrawal in 2021.

In a post on his Truth Social platform on Thursday, Trump ordered authorities to re-examine all green card applications from 19 “countries of concern”, before saying he planned to suspend immigration from “all Third World countries”.

He did not define the term “Third World”, but the phrase is often used as a shorthand for developing countries in the Global South.

Trump also said that he would “remove anyone who is not a net asset to the United States, or is incapable of loving our Country”.

“[I will] denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquillity, and deport any foreign national who is a public charge, security risk, or non-compatible with Western civilization,” he said.

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has already taken aggressive measures to restrict immigration, announcing in October his administration would accept only 7,500 refugees in 2026 – the lowest number since 1980.

Tucked away in the English countryside is a village of record-breaking proportions. Milo Boyd went to check out if the rumours were true and if he could make it to the other end

“Is it true what they say about Meopham?” I asked the friendly landlady of the Railway Tavern.

“Of course it is,” she winked, before warning me that I better get going if I was going to make it before the sun went down.

Tucked away just over the Greater London boundary in Kent is a village of record-breaking proportions. It’s not the kind of record that can be found in the Guinness annuals, or is even known by some locals. “No mate,” the man in the kebab shop said when I asked if he knew. “I’ve not heard that one,” a dog walker told me.

Meopham is, according to some sources (including the publican), the longest village in the UK, maybe even in Europe, and possibly the World. From its northernmost tip over the railway tracks to the southernmost end by Wrotham, Meopham stretches seven miles. By way of comparison, Sunderland’s longest side is just under five miles. If you were running the London Marathon, you’d have a Meopham’s length between you and Buckingham Palace as you staggered through Canary Wharf.

READ MORE: I found a pretty UK village ‘taken over by tourists’ as locals say they’ve been forced outREAD MORE: I stayed at the UK’s best hotel – one thing makes it really stand out

On a cold Thursday in November, I set off south from the train station to see if I could take on this mammoth road trip from one end of Meopham to the other.

Straight away, I was met with a row of shops to my left, including the Railway Tavern (the first of four pubs) and a newsagent. A few hundred metres further along, a kebab shop, estate agents, and mechanics appear, followed by a school. Things really get going roughly two miles from the beginning of the village, when the tree-lined A-road opens up into a large green surrounded by two pleasant-looking pubs and crested with a well-poppied war memorial.

With the sun coming down and the temperature falling with it, I cycled on, up the hill, past mile three, four and five, clusters of houses, shops and stables popping up along the way. A little bit further and I had reached maximum altitude – 150 m above sea level – and with it, the end of the village.

There isn’t much to mark the transition from Meopham to whatever lies beyond. Merely a national speed limit road sign and a plastic skeleton hung in a bush, presumably left over from Halloween. But I had made it.

As I stood at the top of the village, gazing down at the countryside beyond, I was left with two prevailing thoughts. The first is that the majority of the UK’s villages are far less quaint than the bucolic image that comes to mind. Certainly, Meopham’s green is pleasant and its pubs look cosy, but the houses are gated whoppers and the road running down its centre delivers a constant smoggy roar that rips through any sense of tranquillity. Most of the British villages I’ve visited have the same problem: namely, too many cars.

The second is that maybe Meopham isn’t actually a single village, but four – Meopham Green, Culverstone, Dodmore and Hook Green – fused together at some point long ago by someone keen for it to be properly on the map.

It’s up to a parish council to officially denote its settlement as a village or not, and at some point in its past, that’s what happened in Meopham. It also happened in Brinkworth in Wiltshire, which makes the same lengthy claim. Although at 4.2 miles, I think we’re safe to ignore that.

All of this leads to a very obvious question: what makes a village a village, and a town a town?

In the settlement hierarchy, the humble hamlet sits at the bottom. It is fairly well established that a hamlet is a small, rural settlement, typically lacking a central church or a village hall. Once it gets a church, it becomes a village.

The progression from town to city is equally uncontroversial. After acquiring a cathedral, a university, and an array of other significant public buildings, large towns may be granted city status by the monarch through a royal charter. That honour was recently bestowed on Doncaster, Wrexham, Milton Keynes, and a few other hefty former towns.

However, what separates a village from a town is not as clear. While you might think the UK would have a solid definition by now, neither the National Planning Policy Framework nor the national planning practice guidance provides one. “Instead, we’re left with a delightful mix of historical interpretations, local authority classifications, and the occasional dictionary reference,” notes planning organisation Land Tech.

The House of Commons Library’s research briefing City & Town Classification of Constituencies & Local Authorities (2018) attempted to shed some light on the different classifications with the following population guides:

• Villages and small communities: Under 7,500 residents
• Small towns: 7,500 to 24,999 residents
• Medium towns: 25,000 to 59,999 residents
• Large towns: 60,000 to 174,999 residents
• Cities: 175,000+ residents

However, this isn’t a hard and fast system, as many cities have tiny populations – such as the famously svelte St Davids in Wales – and the fact that recent Green Belt guidance from the Government carves out loads of exceptions for planning.

With all of this in mind, we have to wonder if we should hear the uncertainty in Meopham Parish Council’s voice when it reports that the village is “said to be the longest in England.” Would the cottage-dwelling Hook Green-ites in the very north of Meopham really count themselves the same as the mid-century modernists way down in Culverstone Green? I’m not so sure.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Capitol Police on Tuesday announced that the agency was opening regional field offices in California and Florida to investigate threats to members of Congress in the wake of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

Threats against members of Congress have increased in recent years. As of Tuesday, total threats so far in 2021 were double what they were at this point a year ago, according to Capitol Police.

Home to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) and other prominent members of Congress, California gives the law enforcement agency a Western base to investigate claims of threats made against members. The state is also home to the nation’s largest congressional delegation.

Yogananda Pittman, the department’s acting chief, told lawmakers in March that the vast majority of the increased threats were from people who didn’t live near Washington..

The field offices will be in the Tampa and San Francisco areas, according to Capitol Police.

“At this time, Florida and California are where the majority of our potential threats are,” a department spokesperson said in a statement. “The field offices will be the first for the Department. A regional approach to investigating and prosecuting threats against Members is important, so we will be working closely with the U.S. Attorney’s Offices in those locations.”

The new field offices are among the changes made since the attack six months ago in which Capitol Police were quickly overwhelmed by thousands of pro-Trump supporters, hundreds of whom were able to break into the Capitol building, forcing members to temporarily halt certification of the 2020 election results and flee for safety. Capitol Police leaders told congressional committees investigating the incident that they had no information that the crowd would become violent.

Five people died in the melee or the days after. Two officers died by suicide, and more than 140 were injured — some permanently. More than 500 people have been charged for participating in the attack.

Other changes, spurred in part by congressional investigations and reports by the department’s internal watchdog, include increased training for officers alongside the National Guard, improved intelligence-gathering efforts and protocols for reporting sensitive information, and new equipment and technology for officers.

The police agency rarely provides information to the public on how it operates, citing security concerns and member safety. For example, unlike other government agencies, the internal watchdog’s reports are not publicly available.

A spokesperson did not answer questions Tuesday about how many staff would be hired or what the cost to taxpayers would be.

The spokesperson said other regional offices were expected.

Very few members of Congress are accompanied by security outside of the Capitol building, and it is unclear if the new offices will primarily investigate threats against members or also will help when security is needed in the state. The Capitol Police have jurisdiction to investigate all threats made against a member of Congress.

Re “Film and Election Politics Cross in ‘Fahrenheit 9/11,’ ” June 11: Unconcerned about public reaction to Michael Moore’s admittedly biased movie “Fahrenheit 9/11,” Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel is quoted as saying, “Voters know fact from fiction coming from Hollywood.” The question is, come November, will they know fact from fiction coming from Washington?

Rick Mittleman

Palm Desert

Nov. 28 (UPI) — President Donald Trump posted that he plans to pardon former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted in a U.S. court of trafficking drugs to the United States.

“I will be granting a Full and Complete Pardon to Former President Juan Orlando Hernandez who has been, according to many people that I greatly respect, treated very harshly and unfairly,” he posted on Truth Social Friday.

Trump also said in the post that he is supporting a conservative Honduran candidate as the Central American country prepares for election. He endorsed Tito Asfura, who is from the same party that Hernandez once led, the National Party.

In March 2024, Hernandez was convicted in a U.S. court of conspiring to import cocaine into the United States. He served as president of Honduras from 2014 to 2022. He was extradited to the United States in April 2022.

He was sentenced by a U.S. judge to 45 years in prison for running a “narco-state” that helped send South American cocaine to the United States.

U.S. prosecutors said he built his political career on millions of dollars in bribes from drug traffickers in Honduras and Mexico. They also said he helped move at least 400 tons of cocaine to the United States and protected traffickers from extradition and prosecution, the Washington Post reported.

The post by Trump said, “If Tito Asfura wins for President of Honduras, because the United States has so much confidence in him, his Policies, and what he will do for the Great People of Honduras, we will be very supportive. If he doesn’t win, the United States will not be throwing good money after bad, because a wrong Leader can only bring catastrophic results to a country, no matter which country it is. Tito will be a Great President, and the United States will work closely with him in order to ensure the success, with all of its potential, of Honduras! Additionally, I will be granting a Full and Complete Pardon to Former President Juan Orlando Hernandez who has been, according to many people that I greatly respect, treated very harshly and unfairly. This cannot be allowed to happen, especially now, after Tito Asfura wins the Election, when Honduras will be on its way to Great Political and Financial Success. VOTE FOR TITO ASFURA FOR PRESIDENT, AND CONGRATULATIONS TO JUAN ORLANDO HERNANDEZ ON YOUR UPCOMING PARDON. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE HONDURAS GREAT AGAIN!”

On Wednesday, Trump endorsed Asfura, called the opposition in Honduras “Narcoterrorists,” and compared them to Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro.

“Tito and I can work together to fight the Narcocommunists, and bring needed aid to the people of Honduras,” Trump said.

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Monday prepared for a showdown over whether noncitizens held at the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have a right to question the legality of their imprisonment.

A measure passed by the chamber last week on a 49-42 vote would effectively overturn a Supreme Court decision granting detainees the right to challenge their detention in federal court. A final vote on adding that language to a defense spending bill was expected today.

But two proposed amendments would slightly ease that prohibition; one of them was proposed by the author of the original language, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

If adopted by the Senate, the detainee amendment would need to be accepted by the House of Representatives to be sent to President Bush.

Graham sponsored the amendment to ban foreign captives at Guantanamo — who number about 500 — from challenging their detention with a writ of habeas corpus, a provision that dates from English common law.

In an effort to soften the prohibition, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) on Monday introduced a competing amendment that would permit prisoners to question the rationale for their incarceration but exclude petitions over other matters, including conditions of confinement.

“It is reasonable to insist that when the government deprives a person of his or her liberty, and in this case for an indefinite period of time, that the individual have a meaningful opportunity to challenge the legality of their detention,” Bingaman said on the Senate floor. “This is not a radical proposition that I’ve just enunciated. It is enshrined in our Constitution.”

But Graham, a military lawyer before he began his political career, argued that since the Supreme Court granted Guantanamo prisoners access to federal court in 2004, the system has been swamped with frivolous complaints.

“Does the United States Senate want [to give] enemy terrorists, Al Qaeda members being detained at Guantanamo Bay, unlimited access to our federal courts to sue our troops?” Graham asked. “Never in the midst of warfare has an [enemy] prisoner been allowed” such judicial rights.

In response to concerns raised by some senators, Graham was offering to amend his initial provision to give Guantanamo prisoners some legal rights to appeal findings by the military that they are enemy combatants. In addition, detainees sentenced to 10 years or more would receive an automatic appeal; those who received a lesser sentence could ask for a hearing.

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said he hoped his colleagues would adopt Bingaman’s more permissive language. But if not, he added, he hoped the Senate would accept Graham’s revisions to his amendment as an improvement over the measure adopted last week.

“All of us really believe that we must operate according to our Constitution and our laws,” Levin said.

The announcement comes as undocumented people flee neighbouring Chile in anticipation of an immigration crackdown.

Peruvian President Jose Jeri has announced on social media that he will declare a state of emergency on the border with Chile, sparking concerns of a humanitarian crisis.

Jeri’s statement on Friday comes just more than two weeks before a presidential run-off takes place in Chile.

Leading far-right candidate Jose Antonio Kast is facing leftist Jeannette Jara on December 14, and he has pledged to detain and expel migrants who are in Chile without documentation if he wins.

The campaign pledges have led to a surge in crossings into Peru, mostly by Venezuelans who long sought opportunity in Chile amid economic woes at home.

Jeri is himself a far-right leader. Formerly the head of Peru’s Congress, he succeeded his impeached predecessor, Dina Boluarte, in October.

He confirmed media speculation of the state of emergency in a brief post on the social media platform X.

“We ARE going to declare a state of emergency at the border with Chile to generate tranquility before the risk of migrants entering without authorisation,” Jeri wrote.

He further added that the influx could “threaten the public safety” of Peru’s population of about 34 million.

At least 100 people were at the border seeking to enter Peru on Friday, Peruvian police General Arturo Valverde told local television station Canal N.

Peruvian media have for days broadcast images of families seeking to cross the border from Chile.

This came shortly after candidate Kast filmed a campaign video at the border, warning undocumented people to leave before the country’s December 14 election.

Chile’s current left-wing president, Gabriel Boric, is limited by law to one four-year term at a time, though non-consecutive re-election bids are allowed.

The new president will be sworn in on March 11, 2026. Kast is considered the frontrunner going into December’s vote.

“You have 111 days to leave Chile voluntarily,” Kast said in his campaign video, referring to the inauguration.

“If not, we will stop you, we will detain you, we will expel you. You will leave with only the clothes on your back.”

Earlier this week, Peruvian President Jeri also visited the border and declared he would surge troops to the area.

About 330,000 undocumented people are estimated to live in Chile. It was not immediately clear how many had crossed into Peru in recent days.

Chilean Minister of Security Luis Cordero has criticised Kast’s campaign tactics, telling reporters that “rhetoric sometimes has consequences”.

“People cannot be used as a means to create controversy for the elections,” he said.

“Our main purpose is to prevent a humanitarian crisis.”

Reporting from Washington — Numbers released by the Trump administration Friday show an 80% drop in some penalties levied against polluters, the latest sign that the Environmental Protection Agency has become a less aggressive watchdog.

Injunctive relief — the amount of money polluters commit to pay to correct problems and prevent them from reoccurring — fell from $20.6 billion in fiscal 2017 to $3.95 billion in fiscal 2018. That represents a 15-year low for the agency.

Civil penalties in 2018 declined to $69 million. That was far less than the $1.68 billion in 2017, but that year’s figure was impacted by fines negotiated during the Obama administration.

Volkswagen agreed in 2016 to a $1.45-billion penalty as punishment for its diesel emissions scandal.

In releasing the figures, EPA officials said they were focused in 2018 on ensuring that facilities were in compliance and expediting site cleanup.

The latest from Washington »

“A strong enforcement and compliance assurance program is essential to achieving positive public health and environmental outcomes,” Susan Bodine, assistant administrator of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, said in a statement.

The EPA’s data span fiscal year 2018, which ended Sept. 30. For the most part, the figures reflect enforcement activity — cases that were settled, fines that were assessed — that took place under the Trump administration.

Civil penalties are at their lowest since 1994, when the enforcement office was created, said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for the EPA’s enforcement office during the Obama administration.

“EPA is trying to convince media and the public that EPA is still doing its job on enforcement, despite all of the reports showing that isn’t the case,” Giles said in a statement. “Not only are the Trump EPA’s enforcement numbers at historic lows, they are on track to get worse.”

Some of the numbers in Friday’s report suggest that future declines in enforcement are in store. For example, federal inspections and evaluations conducted by the EPA have continued to drop. Last year, the agency conducted about half as many inspections as it did in 2010.

David Coursen, who was an attorney in the EPA’s office of general counsel until 2015, said that the danger of drastically lowering penalties is that it removes the incentive for corporations to follow environmental laws.

“Anytime there’s a reduction, there’s going to be a suggestion that there’s a free pass,” Coursen said. “So the requirement to follow the law is going to be less compelling.”

Last month, the Department of Justice released numbers showing that the EPA had hit a 30-year low in 2018 in the number of pollution cases it referred for criminal prosecution.

More stories from Anna M. Phillips »

Nov. 28 (UPI) — The Israeli Defense Forces launched an attack on Beit Jinn in southern Syria, which killed 13 residents, including two children, and seriously wounded some Israeli soldiers.

The Israeli military described the event as an “exchange of fire” in Beit Jinn, where three of its soldiers were seriously injured. It also said it arrested three people associated with Jamaa Islamiya, a Lebanon-based militant group.

The Washington Post reported that, according to their families, there were two girls, ages 4 and 17, and a 10-year-old boy killed.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry called it a “criminal attack carried out by an Israeli occupation army patrol in Beit Jinn. The occupation forces’ targeting of the town of Beit Jinn with brutal and deliberate shelling, following their failed incursion, constitutes a full-fledged war crime,” Al Jazeera reported.

Syrian civil defense said they weren’t able to enter the city to rescue the wounded because the IDF continues to target any movement.

Since the civil war in Syria overturned the Bashar al-Assad regime, the Israeli military seized a demilitarized buffer zone in the Golan Heights and in Syria. It has also launched hundreds of air strikes across Syria, including in Damascus. Human Rights Watch has declared some operations war crimes.

Earlier this month, Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa met with President Donald Trump in the White House, and Trump paused all sanctions against the country for six months. But so far, Al-Sharaa has refused to normalize relations with Israel.

Nov. 28 (UPI) — President Donald Trump has announced that all orders signed by former President Joe Biden via autopen are “null and void,” and that if Biden tried to argue that he was involved, he would be charged with perjury.

The president posted on his social media platform Truth Social on Friday: “Any document signed by Sleepy Joe Biden with the Autopen, which was approximately 92% of them, is hereby terminated, and of no further force or effect. The Autopen is not allowed to be used if approval is not specifically given by the President of the United States. The Radical Left Lunatics circling Biden around the beautiful Resolute Desk in the Oval Office took the Presidency away from him. I am hereby cancelling all Executive Orders, and anything else that was not directly signed by Crooked Joe Biden, because the people who operated the Autopen did so illegally. Joe Biden was not involved in the Autopen process and, if he says he was, he will be brought up on charges of perjury. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

The president seemed to be arguing that the autopen was used by his staff without the input of Biden. It’s not clear who will validate the orders or under what legal authority he will cancel Biden’s orders.

Using the autopen is legal, according to an investigation in 2005 by the Justice Department under former President George W. Bush, which found that “the President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill to sign it within the meaning of Article I, Section 7.”

Trump has acknowledged using the autopen. He said in March that he has used it “only for very unimportant papers.”

In September, the White House unveiled a Presidential Walk of Fame, which posted portraits of past presidents. In Biden’s place, the White House showed a photo of an autopen signing his name.

Biden has denied that any decisions were made without him during his presidency.

“I made the decisions during my presidency,” Biden said in a statement. “I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false.”

United States President Donald Trump has said that he will throw out all executive orders issued under predecessor Joe Biden that he believes were signed using an autopen, pushing a dubious claim to delegitimise Democratic policies.

In a social media post on Friday, Trump, a Republican, estimated that the majority of Biden’s orders were executed with autopen, a machine that mimics a given signature.

“Any document signed by Sleepy Joe Biden with the Autopen, which was approximately 92% of them, is hereby terminated, and of no further force or effect,” Trump wrote.

Trump has long maintained that Biden — who was 82 when he left office in January — was not in control of the executive office due to his advanced age and declining mental state.

The Republican leader, himself 79 years old, reiterated that message in Friday’s post and threatened to prosecute Biden if the Democrat denied it.

“I am hereby cancelling all Executive Orders, and anything else that was not directly signed by Crooked Joe Biden, because the people who operated the Autopen did so illegally,” Trump said.

“Joe Biden was not involved in the Autopen process and, if he says he was, he will be brought up on charges of perjury.”

The autopen and similar mechanical signature devices have a long history in the White House, stretching back to the third US president, Thomas Jefferson, in the early 19th century. Trump himself has used the device, particularly during his first term.

But Trump has had an acrimonious relationship with his Democratic predecessors, including Biden and former President Barack Obama.

He has trolled Biden in particular for his age and his use of the autopen while in office. After setting up a “presidential walk of fame” near the White House Rose Garden earlier this year, Trump replaced Biden’s portrait with a picture of the mechanical device.

He recently showed off the picture to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman during a visit this month.

Biden and Trump faced each other twice in presidential elections: once in 2020, when Trump lost, and once in 2024, when Biden dropped out of the race. Trump ultimately won the latter.

He has also consistently denied his defeat in the 2020 election, falsely claiming widespread voter fraud.

Trump has made other misleading and unfounded statements about Biden, including that White House staffers took advantage of the Democrat’s declining age to sign policy documents without his knowledge.

There is, however, no definitive proof that the autopen was used under Biden without his consent. Biden himself denied the allegation in a June statement.

“Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency,” he wrote. “I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false.”

Nevertheless, Trump revisited that allegation in Friday’s message on his platform Truth Social.

“The Radical Left Lunatics circling Biden around the beautiful Resolute Desk in the Oval Office took the Presidency away from him,” the Republican leader wrote.

Friday’s announcement is the latest effort by Trump to frame the actions of his political rivals as illegitimate.

In March, for instance, Trump posted a Truth Social message attempting to invalidate the pardons Biden issued before his departure from the White House.

Biden had controversially awarded “preemptive” pardons to politicians who served on a House select committee investigating Trump for his actions on January 6, 2021, when his supporters stormed the US Capitol.

“The ‘Pardons’ that Sleepy Joe Biden gave to the Unselect Committee of Political Thugs, and many others, are hereby declared VOID, VACANT, and OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT, because of the fact that they were done by Autopen,” Trump wrote in March, reiterating familiar claims.

“Joe Biden did not sign them but, more importantly, he did not know anything about them!”

Legal experts largely dismissed the president’s post at the time as unconstitutional, as US law does not require presidential pardons to be signed in any given way — or even that they be written down.

A 2005 memo from the US Office of Legal Counsel also explains, “The President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign in order for the bill to become law.”

It adds that using an autopen to “affix the President’s signature” to legislation — or “directing a subordinate” to do so — is considered acceptable.

Still, Biden did face significant public concern about whether his age had hindered his ability to carry out his duties, particularly in the final years of his four-year term.

A disastrous performance in the June 2024 presidential debate heightened those concerns, as Biden appeared stiff and struggled to maintain his train of thought.

Members of the Democratic Party afterwards pressured Biden to drop out of the 2024 presidential race, a step he eventually took in July of that year.

Some critics have speculated whether Biden’s age diminished his ability to dedicate time and attention to areas such as foreign policy, giving senior staff members greater influence over policymaking.

This year, Biden revealed he had advanced prostate cancer, and he is currently undergoing radiation therapy.

Should Trump complete his second term, he will also be 82 years old, a few months older than Biden was at the end of his presidential term. Concerns about age and mental health have also dogged Trump’s time in the White House.

Just this week, The New York Times ran an article titled, “Shorter Days, Signs of Fatigue: Trump Faces Realities of Aging in Office”. It detailed instances where Trump appeared to fall asleep during public appearances and described how Trump has limited his public appearances during his second term.

Trump responded on social media by calling the female reporter on the story “ugly” and posting that he had “aced” his physical and cognitive exams.

CONCORD, N.H. — A college freshman trying to fly from Boston to Texas to surprise her family for Thanksgiving was instead deported to Honduras in violation of a court order, according to her attorney.

Any Lucia Lopez Belloza, 19, had already passed through security at Boston Logan International Airport on Nov. 20 when she was told there was an issue with her boarding pass, said attorney Todd Pomerleau. The Babson College student was then detained by immigration officials and within two days, sent to Texas and then Honduras, the country she left at age 7.

“She’s absolutely heartbroken,” Pomerleau said. “Her college dream has just been shattered.”

According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an immigration judge ordered Lopez Belloza to be deported in 2015. Pomerleau said she wasn’t aware of any removal order, however, and the only record he’s found indicates her case was closed in 2017.

“They’re holding her responsible for something they claim happened a decade ago that she’s completely unaware of and not showing any of the proof,” the lawyer said.

The day after Lopez Belloza was arrested, a federal judge issued an emergency order prohibiting the government from moving her out of Massachusetts or the United States for at least 72 hours. ICE did not respond to an email Friday from the Associated Press seeking comment about violating that order. Babson College also did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Lopez Belloza, who is staying with her grandparents in Honduras, told the Boston Globe she had been looking forward to telling her parents and younger sisters about her first semester studying business.

“That was my dream,” she said. “I’m losing everything.”

Ramer writes for the Associated Press.