Politics

Fort Lauderdale, Fla. — Some airports around the country are refusing to play a video with a message from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in which she blames Democrats for the federal government shutdown and its impacts on TSA operations because of its political content.

Airports in Las Vegas, Charlotte, Atlanta, Phoenix, Seattle and more say the video goes against their airport policy or regulations that prohibit political messaging in their facilities.

Various government agencies, in emails to workers and on websites, have adopted language that blames Democrats for the shutdown, with some experts arguing it could be in violation of the 1939 Hatch Act, which restricts certain political activities by federal employees.

The shutdown has halted routine operations and left airports scrambling with flight disruptions. Democrats say any deal to reopen the government has to address their healthcare demands, and Republicans say they won’t negotiate until they agree to fund the government. Insurance premiums would double if Congress fails to renew the subsidy payments that expire Dec. 31.

In the video, Noem says that TSA’s “top priority” is to help make travel pleasant and efficient while keeping passengers safe.

“However, Democrats in Congress refuse to fund the federal government, and because of this, many of our operations are impacted, and most of our TSA employees are working without pay,” she continues.

The Transportation Security Administration falls under the Department of Homeland Security. Roughly 61,000 of the agency’s 64,130 employees are required to continue working during the shutdown. The Department said Friday that the video is being rolled out to airports across the country.

A DHS spokeswoman responded to a request for comment restating some of the message from Noem’s video.

“It’s unfortunate our workforce has been put in this position due to political gamesmanship. Our hope is that Democrats will soon recognize the importance of opening the government,” spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said.

The Harry Reid International Airport, in Las Vegas, said it had to “remain mindful of the Hatch Act’s restrictions.”

“Per airport regulations, the terminals and surrounding areas are not designated public forums, and the airport’s intent is to avoid the use of the facility for political or religious advocacy,” the statement said.

Westchester County Executive Ken Jenkins said the county north of New York City won’t play the video at its local airport. In a statement, he called the video “inappropriate, unacceptable, and inconsistent with the values we expect from our nation’s top public officials,” and said its tone is “unnecessarily alarmist” as it relates to operations at Westchester County Airport.

“At a time when we should be focused on ensuring stability, collaboration and preparedness, this type of messaging only distracts from the real issues, and undermines public trust,” he said.

Even in red states, airports weren’t showing the video for various reasons. Salt Lake City International Airport wasn’t playing the video because state law prohibits using city-owned property for political purposes, said airport spokesperson Nancy Volmer.

The airport in Billings, Mont., “politely declined” even though it has screens that could show the video with audio, assistant aviation director Paul Khera said Tuesday.

“We don’t want to get in the middle of partisan politics,” Khera said. “We like to stay middle of the road, we didn’t want to play that video.”

Gomez Licon writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Rio Yamat in Las Vegas and Mead Gruver in Fort Collins, Colo. contributed to this report.

Oct. 14 (UPI) — The Trump administration recently began charging fees for Chinese ships docking at U.S. ports, prompting China to retaliate.

The move, which has been long planned, is intended to correct the imbalance between American and Chinese shipbuilding businesses. The U.S. shipbuilding business has dwindled over the years as China has become dominant.

On Friday, China vowed reciprocal fees on American-made ships in its ports.

“This is symbolic — less than 1% of U.S. vessels docking in China annually are U.S.-flagged vessels, so the reality is this basically has no real impact,” Cameron Johnson, a senior partner at Shanghai-based supply chain consultancy Tidalwave Solutions, told Politico. “But it signals that Beijing will match every single effort the United States targets against China — if the U.S. sanctions a Chinese company, they’re going to sanction a U.S. company. If we impose export controls on technology, they’re going to do export controls on technology. We have just now escalated to a whole new level of trade warfare that nobody was expecting.”

Supporters say that China has used subsidies for an advantage in shipbuilding, and that the fees can deter ocean carriers from buying Chinese ships, The New York Times reported.

“Anything we can do to chip away at the disparity in shipbuilding that exists between the United States and China is to our benefit,” Mihir Torsekar, a senior economist at the Coalition for a Prosperous America, a group that supports many of Trump’s trade moves, told The Times.

Chinese-owned shipping companies must pay the levies, as well as non-Chinese-owned companies, when they send Chinese-made ships to U.S. ports.

The new fees will also target all foreign car-carrying ships that come to the United States. Car-makers lobbied against the fees, arguing that they could add hundreds to the cost of a vehicle. Shipping analysts say it could take many years for the U.S. shipbuilding industry to build a car-carrier ship.

“The idea that these fees will lead to anyone ordering a U.S.-built car carrier are, I think, extremely remote,” Colin Grabow, an associate director at the Cato Institute, told The Times.

The port fees levied against Chinese ships are $50 per ton, with the fee set to increase by $30 per ton each year over the next three years. Politico reported. China’s port charges will also annually escalate to a maximum of $157 in 2028.

“If the goal is to get U.S. shipbuilding back up and running, we think there are other ways that we need to focus on doing that — just putting fees on Chinese vessels isn’t going to solve that issue,” said Jonathan Gold, vice president of supply chain and customs policy at the National Retail Federation, told Politico.

WASHINGTON — The United States struck another small boat accused of carrying drugs in the waters off Venezuela, killing six people, President Trump said on Tuesday.

Those who died in the strike were aboard the vessel, and no U.S. forces were harmed, Trump said in a social media post. It’s the fifth deadly strike in the Caribbean as Trump’s administration has asserted it’s treating alleged drug traffickers as unlawful combatants who must be met with military force.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the strike Tuesday morning, said Trump, who released a video of it, as he had in the past. Hegseth later shared the video in a post on X.

Trump said the strike was conducted in international waters and “Intelligence” confirmed the vessel was trafficking narcotics, was associated with “narcoterrorist networks” and was on a known drug trafficking route.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to an email from the Associated Press seeking more information on the latest boat strike.

Frustration with the Trump administration has been growing on Capitol Hill among members of both major political parties. Some Republicans are seeking more information from the White House on the legal justification and details of the strikes. Democrats contend the strikes violate U.S. and international law.

The Senate last week voted on a war powers resolution that would have barred the Trump administration from conducting the strikes unless Congress specifically authorized them, but it failed to pass.

In a memo to Congress that was obtained by The Associated Press, the Trump administration said it had “determined that the United States is in a non-international armed conflict with these designated terrorist organizations” and that Trump directed the Pentagon to “conduct operations against them pursuant to the law of armed conflict.”

The Trump administration has yet to provide underlying evidence to lawmakers proving that the boats targeted by the U.S. military in a series of fatal strikes were in fact carrying narcotics, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The strikes followed a buildup of U.S. maritime forces in the Caribbean unlike any seen in recent times.

Last week, Venezuelan Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino told military leaders that the U.S. government knows the drug-trafficking accusations used to support the recent actions in the Caribbean are false, with its true intent being to “force a regime change” in the South American country.

He added that the Venezuelan government does not see the deployment of the U.S. warships as a mere “propaganda-like action” and warned of a possible escalation.

“I want to warn the population: We have to prepare ourselves because the irrationality with which the U.S. empire operates is not normal,” Padrino said during the televised gathering. “It’s anti-political, anti-human, warmongering, rude, and vulgar.”

Price and Toropin write for the Associated Press. AP writer Ben Finley contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump is making this government shutdown unlike any the country has ever seen, enabling his budget office a rare authority to pick winners and losers — who gets paid or fired — in an unprecedented restructuring across the federal workforce.

As the shutdown enters its third week, the Office and Management and Budget said Tuesday it’s preparing to “batten down the hatches” with more reductions in force to come. The president calls budget chief Russ Vought the “grim reaper” who’s seized on the opportunity to fund Trump’s priorities, paying the military while slashing employees in health, education, the sciences and other areas with actions that have been criticized as illegal and are facing court challenges.

“Pay the troops, pay law enforcement, continue the RIFs, and wait,” OMB said in a social media post.

With Congress at a standstill — the Republican-led House refusing to return to session and the Senate stuck in a loop of failed votes to reopen government as Democrats demand health care funds — the White House’s budget office quickly filled the void.

From Project 2025 to the White House

Vought, a chief architect of the conservative Project 2025 policy book, is reshaping the size and scope of federal government in ways similar to those envisioned in the blueprint. It is exactly what certain lawmakers, particularly Democrats, feared if Congress failed to fund the government.

Trump’s priorities — supporting the military and pursuing his mass deportation agenda — have been kept largely uninterrupted, despite the closures. But employees in health, education, the sciences and other federal departments are among those being laid off. As many as 750,000 workers are being furloughed.

“Donald Trump and Russ Vought and all of their cronies are using this moment to terrorize these patriots,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., standing with federal workers Tuesday outside the White House budget office.

Van Hollen said it’s “a big fat lie” when Trump and his budget director say that the shutdown is making them fire federal workers. “It is also illegal and we will see them in court,” Van Hollen said.

Shutdown grinds into a third week

Now on its 14th day, the federal closure is quickly becoming among the longest government shutdowns. Congress failed to meet the Oct. 1 deadline to pass the annual appropriations bills needed to fund the government as the Democrats demanded a deal to preserve expiring health care funds that provide subsidies for people to purchase insurance through the Affordable Care Act.

House Speaker Mike Johnson on Tuesday said he has nothing to negotiate with the Democrats until they vote to reopen the government.

The Republican speaker welcomed OMB’s latest actions to pay some workers and fire others.

“They have every right to move the funds around,” Johnson said at a press conference at the Capitol. If the Democrats want to challenge the Trump administration in court, Johnson said, “bring it.”

Typically, federal workers are furloughed during a lapse in funding, traditionally with back pay once government funding is restored. But Vought’s budget office announced late last week the reductions in forces had begun. More than 4,000 workers received layoff notices over the weekend.

Military pay, deportations on track

At the same time, Trump instructed the military to find money to ensure service personnel wouldn’t miss paychecks this week. The Pentagon said over the weekend it was able to tap $8 billion in unused research and development funds to make payroll.

On Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said her agency was relying on Trump’s big tax cuts law for funding to make sure members of the Coast Guard, which falls under the department, are also paid.

“We at DHS worked out an innovative solution to make sure that didn’t happen,” Noem said in a statement. Thanks to “the One Big Beautiful Bill,” she said, “the brave men and women of the US Coast Guard will not miss a paycheck this week.”

In past shutdowns, the Office of Management and Budget has overseen agency plans during the lapse in federal fundings, ensuring which workers are essential and remain on the job. Vought, however, has taken his role further by speaking openly about his plans to go after the federal workforce.

As agencies started making their shutdown plans, Vought’s OMB encouraged department heads to consider reductions in force, an unheard of action. The budget office’s general counsel, Mark Paoletta suggested in a draft memo that the workforce may not be automatically eligible for back pay once government reopens.

‘Grim reaper’ replaces Elon Musk’s chainsaw

Trump posted an AI-generated video last week that portrayed Vought dressed with cloak and dagger, against the backdrop of the classic rock staple “(Don’t Fear) The Reaper.”

“Every authoritarian leader has had his grim reaper. Russell Vought is Donald Trump’s,” said Rep. Steny Hoyer, the senior Democrat from Maryland.

Hoyer compared the budget chief to billionaire Elon Musk wielding a chainsaw earlier this year as part of the Department of Government Efficiency’s slashing of the workforce “Vought swings his scythe through the federal government as thoughtlessly,” he said.

In many ways, the “Big, Beautiful Bill, Act” as the law is commonly called, gives the White House a vast new allotment of federal funding for its priority projects, separate from the regular appropriations process in Congress.

The package unleashed some $175 billion for the Pentagon, including for the Golden Dome missile shield and other priority projects, and another $175 million to Homeland Security largely for Trump’s mass deportation agenda. It also included extra funds for Vought’s work at OMB.

Trump’s big bill provides billions

Certain funds from the “big bill” are available to be used during the shutdown, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

“The Administration also could decide to use mandatory funding provided in the 2025 reconciliation act or other sources of mandatory funding to continue activities financed by those direct appropriations at various agencies,” according to CBO.

The CBO cited the Department of Defense, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of Management and Budget as among those that received eligible funds under the law..

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Kevin Freking, Stephen Groves and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

PHILADELPHIA — President Trump’s legal team suffered yet another defeat in court Friday as a federal appeals court in Philadelphia roundly rejected its latest effort to challenge the state’s election results.

Trump’s lawyers vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court despite the judges’ assessment that the “campaign’s claims have no merit.”

“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote for the three-judge panel.

The case had been argued last week in a lower court by Trump lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, who insisted during five hours of oral arguments that the 2020 presidential election had been marred by widespread fraud in Pennsylvania. However, Giuliani failed to offer any tangible proof of that in court.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann had said that the campaign’s error-filled complaint, “like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together,” and he denied Giuliani the right to amend it for a second time.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals called that decision justified. The three judges on the panel were all appointed by Republican presidents, including Bibas, a former University of Pennsylvania law professor appointed by Trump. Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, Trump’s sister, sat on the court for 20 years, retiring in 2019.

Friday’s ruling comes four days after Pennsylvania officials certified their vote count for President-elect Joe Biden, who defeated Trump by more than 80,000 votes in the state. Nationally, Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris garnered nearly 80 million votes, a record in U.S. presidential elections.

Trump has said he hopes the Supreme Court will intervene in the race as it did in 2000, when its decision to stop the recount in Florida gave the election to Republican George W. Bush. On Nov. 5, as the vote count continued, Trump posted a tweet saying the “U.S. Supreme Court should decide!”

Ever since, Trump and his surrogates have attacked the election as flawed and filed a flurry of lawsuits to try to block the results in six battleground states. But they’ve found little sympathy from judges, nearly all of whom dismissed their complaints about the security of mail-in ballots, which millions of people used to vote from home during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trump perhaps hopes a Supreme Court he helped steer toward a conservative 6-3 majority would be more open to his pleas, especially since the high court upheld Pennsylvania’s decision to accept mail-in ballots through Nov. 6 by only a 4-4 vote last month. Since then, Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett has joined the court.

“The activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover up the allegations of massive fraud,” Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis tweeted after Friday’s ruling. “On to SCOTUS!”

In the case before Brann, the Trump campaign asked to disenfranchise the state’s 6.8 million voters, or at least the 700,000 who voted by mail in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and other Democratic-leaning areas.

“One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption,” Brann wrote in his Nov. 21 ruling. “That has not happened.”

A separate Republican challenge that reached the Pennsylvania Supreme Court this week seeks to stop the state from further certifying any races on the ballot. Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration is fighting that effort, saying it would prevent the state’s Legislature and congressional delegation from being seated in the coming weeks.

On Thursday, Trump said the Nov. 3 election was still far from over. Yet he offered the clearest signal to date that he would leave the White House peaceably on Jan. 20 if the electoral college formalizes Biden’s win, which appears certain.

“Certainly I will. But you know that,” Trump said at the White House, taking questions from reporters for the first time since election day.

Yet on Friday, he continued his baseless attacks on Detroit, Atlanta and other Democratic cities with large Black populations, calling them sources of “massive voter fraud.” And he claimed, without evidence, that a Pennsylvania poll watcher had uncovered computer memory drives that “gave Biden 50,000 votes” apiece.

All 50 states must certify their results before the electoral college meets Dec. 14, and any challenge to the results must be resolved by Dec. 8. Biden won both the electoral college and popular vote by wide margins.

Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu faces two no-confidence motions this week as France’s political crisis deepens.

France’s embattled prime minister says he backs suspending a pension reform until after the 2027 presidential election in a bid to end the political turmoil that has gripped the country for months.

Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu, 39, announced on Tuesday that he supports pausing an unpopular reform that raised the age of retirement from 62 to 64 in the hopes of securing enough votes to survive two no-confidence votes.

“I will propose to parliament this autumn that we suspend the 2023 pension reform until the presidential election. There will be no increase in the retirement age from now until January 2028,” he promised lawmakers during his policy speech, responding to a key request from the Socialists, a swing group in parliament crucial to his cabinet’s survival.

President Emmanuel Macron signed into law the bill to raise the retirement age, a signature economic reform that became the biggest domestic challenge of Macron’s second mandate as he faced widespread popular opposition to the changes and also sliding personal popularity.

Hundreds of thousands protested against the change in 2023 in towns and cities across the country.

Lecornu has faced an uphill battle since being appointed prime minister in early September. At the time of his appointment, he was the fifth prime minister in less than two years and faced deep political divides and a high debt load.

He ultimately stepped down from the post in early October, further deepening the country’s long-running political crisis. Macron then reappointed Lecornu as prime minister last week.

Lecornu faces two no-confidence motions by the hard-left France Unbowed and far-right National Rally parties. The two parties do not hold enough seats to topple Lecornu’s government on their own, but the prime minister could be ousted if the Socialist Party were to join forces with them.

The leader of the Socialists in the National Assembly said the decision to suspend the pension reform was a victory for the left.

Boris Vallaud did not explicitly say if his party would vote against the two motions of no confidence this week, but he said he believed in parliamentary debate and he would be ensuring the prime minister’s pledges be turned into actions.

Cyrielle Chatelain confirmed on Tuesday that France’s Greens party will support a no-confidence motion.

Earlier on Tuesday, Macron had warned that any vote to topple Lecornu’s cabinet would force him to dissolve parliament and call elections.

France, the eurozone’s second largest economy, is facing deep economic turmoil as Lecornu fights to keep his cabinet alive long enough to pass an austerity budget by the end of the year. During a speech on Thursday, he warned suspending the pension reform would cost about 400 million euros ($464m) in 2026 and 1.8 billion euros ($2.1bn) the year after and it should be offset by savings.

France’s ratio of debt to its gross domestic product is the European Union’s third highest after Greece and Italy and is close to twice the 60-percent limit fixed by EU rules.

France has been rocked by protests in recent months. In September, the Block Everything campaign spurred a nationwide wave of antigovernment protests that filled streets with burning barricades and tear gas as demonstrators rallied against budget cuts and political instability.

In October, about 195,000 people, including 24,000 in Paris, turned out for another day of nationwide strikes at the urging of French trade unions. The protests were triggered by widespread opposition to an austerity budget that the government has been trying to push through parliament.

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina — Argentina’s libertarian leader is lavishing praise on President Trump ahead of his first White House visit on Tuesday. It’s a tactic that has helped transform President Javier Milei ’s cash-strapped country into one of the Trump administration’s closest allies.

The effusive declarations are nothing new for Milei — whose dramatic cuts to state spending and attacks on “woke leftists” have won him a following among U.S. conservatives.

“Your commitment to life, freedom and peace has restored hope to the world,” Milei wrote on social media Monday, congratulating the U.S. president on securing a ceasefire deal in Gaza, where a truce is holding after a devastating, two-year Israel-Hamas war.

“It is an honor to consider you not only an ally in the defense of those values, but also a dear friend and an example of leadership that inspires all those who believe in freedom,” he said.

The Trump-Milei bromance has already paid off for Argentina — most recently, to the tune of a $20 billion bailout.

Experts say Milei comes to the White House with two clear objectives. One is to negotiate U.S. tariff exemptions or reductions for Argentine products.

The other is to see how the United States will implement a $20 billion currency swap line to prop up Argentina’s peso and replenish its depleted foreign currency reserves ahead of crucial midterm elections later this month.

In a crisis, turning to Trump

The Trump administration made a highly unusual decision to intervene in Argentina’s currency market after Milei’s party suffered a landslide loss in a local election last month.

Along with setbacks in the opposition-dominated Congress, the party’s crushing defeat created a crisis of confidence as voters in Buenos Aires Province registered their frustration with rising unemployment, contracting economic activity and brewing corruption scandals.

Alarmed that this could herald the end of popular support for Milei’s free-market program, investors dumped Argentine bonds and sold off the peso.

Argentina’s Treasury began hemorrhaging precious dollar reserves at a feverish pace, trying shore up the currency and keep its exchange rate within the trading band set as part of the country’s recent $20 billion deal with the International Monetary Fund.

But as the peso continued to slide, Milei grew desperate.

He met with Trump on Sept. 23 while in New York City for the United Nations General Assembly. A flurry of back-slapping, hand-shaking and mutual flattery between the two quickly gave way to U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent publicly promising Argentina a lifeline of $20 billion.

Markets cheered, and investors breathed a sigh of relief.

Timing is everything

In the days that followed, Argentine Economy Minister Luis Caputo spent hours in meetings in Washington trying to seal the deal.

Reassurance came last Thursday, when Bessent announced that the U.S. would allow Argentina to exchange up to $20 billion worth of pesos for an equal sum in dollars. Saying that the success of Milei’s program was “of systemic importance,” Bessent added that the U.S. Treasury directly purchased an unspecified amount of pesos.

For the Trump administration, the timing was awkward as it struggles to manage the optics of bailing out a nine-time serial defaulter in the middle of a U.S. government shutdown that has led to mass layoffs.

But for Argentina, it came in the nick of time.

Aware of how a weak currency could threaten his flagship achievement of taming inflation and hurt his popularity, Milei hopes to stave off what many economists see as an inescapable currency devaluation until after the the Oct. 26 midterm elections.

A devaluation of the peso would likely fuel a resurgence in inflation.

“Milei is going to the U.S. in a moment of desperation now,” said Marcelo J. García, political analyst and Director for the Americas at the Horizon Engage political risk consultancy firm.

“He needs to recreate market expectations and show that his program can be sustainable,” García added. “The government is trying to win some time to make it to the midterms without major course corrections, like devaluing or floating the peso.”

No strings attached

Milei was vague when pressed for details on his talks with Trump, expected later on Tuesday. Officials say he would have a two-hour meeting with the U.S. president, followed by a working lunch with other top officials.

He was also expected to participate in a ceremony at the White House honoring Charlie Kirk, the prominent right-wing political activist who was fatally shot last month. Milei often crossed paths with Kirk on the speaking circuit of the ascendant global right.

“We don’t have a single-issue agenda, but rather a multi-issue agenda,” Milei told El Observador radio in Buenos Aires Monday. “Things that are already finalized will be announced, and things that still need to be finalized will remain pending.”

It’s not clear what strings, if any, the Trump administration has attached to the currency swap deal, which Democratic lawmakers and other critics have slammed as an example of Trump rewarding loyalists at the expense of American taxpayers.

There has been no word on how Argentina, the IMF’s largest debtor, will end up paying the U.S. back for this $20 billion, which comes on top of IMF’s own loan for the same amount in April. And that one came on top of an earlier IMF loan for $40 billion.

Despite all the help, Milei’s government already missed the IMF’s early targets for rebuilding currency reserves.

“The U.S. should be concerned that Argentina has had to return for $20 billion so quickly after getting $14 billion upfront from the IMF,” said Brad Setser, a former Treasury official now at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“I worry that this may prove to just be a short-term bridge and won’t leave Argentina better equipped” to tackle its problems, he added.

But in the radio interview before his flight, Milei was upbeat. He gushed about U.S. support saving Argentina from “the local franchise of 21st-century socialism” and waxed poetic about Argentina’s economic potential.

“There will be an avalanche of dollars,” Milei said. “We’ll have dollars pouring out of our ears.”

Debre writes for the Associated Press.

Madagascar’s parliament has voted to impeach embattled President Andry Rajoelina just hours after he fled the country in the wake of an elite army unit appearing to turn against him and seize power following weeks of deadly Gen Z protests.

The vote on Tuesday afternoon came as Rajoelina moved to dissolve parliament via a decree posted on social media earlier in the day, but which the opposition rejected.

“I have decided to dissolve the National Assembly, in accordance with the Constitution,” Rajoelina posted on X on Tuesday. “This choice is necessary to restore order within our Nation and strengthen democracy. The People must be heard again. Make way for the youth.”

The protests, which initially erupted over power and water shortages, have evolved into the most serious crisis the country and Rajoelina’s government has faced in years. “I was forced to find a safe place to protect my life,” Rajoleina, who did not disclose his location, said in a 26-minute-long live broadcast on Monday after a top army unit, known widely as CAPSAT, reportedly seized the state broadcaster. The same unit announced on Tuesday afternoon that it was “in charge” as parliament concluded the impeachment proceedings.

Rajoleina has not responded to the impeachment and has not renounced his title as head of state. Opposition parties initiated the impeachment vote on charges that Rajoelina “abandoned” his post.

There’s no clear leader in the country.

Madagascar has a long history of political crises and uprisings. Rajoelina’s own apparent exit from the country appeared to be an eerie replay of protests in 2009 that led to the collapse of a previous government, and his ascent to power. However, his government has been accused of corruption and of managing a stagnant economy.

Here’s what to know about how the protests unfolded and the army unit that has turned against the president:

What led to the protests?

Hundreds of angry protesters, led by a young movement called “Gen Z Madagascar,” began taking to the streets of the capital Antananarivo on September 25, with protests over the weekend recording the largest number of demonstrators in the three weeks of unrest.

What began as anger about persistent water and power cuts that leave businesses and homes without electricity or running water for more than 12 hours quickly escalated into frustrations with general governance.

Protesters decried widespread poverty, high costs of living, and state corruption that they say has seen business elites benefit from close contacts in government. Demonstrators began calling for the end of Rajoelina’s 15-year-old government, and for a “free, egalitarian and united society”.

Although Rajoelina sacked his prime minister and attempted a government reshuffle, protesters were not satisfied, culminating in the CAPSAT backing protesters on Saturday in what the president called an “attempt to seize power”. The unit, in a statement, said it refused “orders to shoot” demonstrators.

Some 80 percent of the country’s 31 million people lived in extreme poverty by 2022, according to the World Bank, largely due to political instability and severe climate disasters affecting food supplies. Only a third of the population has access to electricity, according to the International Monetary Fund, with the state-owned energy company, Jirama, accused of corruption and mismanagement.

Angry demonstrators blocked roads with burning tyres and rocks, and reportedly attacked public buildings, transport infrastructure, and private shops. In response, security officials responded with “violent force” according to the United Nations, with reports noting police fired rubber bullets, stun grenades, and tear gas. At least 22 people have died and dozens of others are injured, the UN said in a statement last week, although the government disputed those figures.

Rajoelina ignored calls for his resignation and accused protesters calling for his exit of wanting to “destroy our country.” His attempts to quell the anger by dissolving the government and appointing army General Ruphin Fortunat Zafisambo as the new prime minister on October 6, as well as inviting protesters for talks, were rejected by the demonstrators, who accused the government of ruling “with weapons”.

Who led the protests?

Young protesters, led by the “Gen Z Madagascar” group, started the demonstrations in late September, following similar youth-led uprisings witnessed in the past year in countries like Nepal, Morocco, Kenya, and Bangladesh.

In Madagascar, protesters say they’re demanding an end to 16 years of “inaction” by Rajoelina’s government, and have promised that they will not be silenced.

“They didn’t want to hear us in the streets,” a statement on the Gen Z Madagascar website reads. “Today, thanks to digital technology and the voice of Generation Z, we will make our voices heard at the table of power on the opposition side. To put an end to 16 years of inaction, let’s demand transparency, accountability, and deep reforms.”

The movement highlighted three demands from the government: the immediate resignation of Rajoelina and his government, the dismantling of the Senate, the electoral commission, and the constitutional court, as well as the prosecution of “the businessman close to the president”, referring to Rajoelina’s adviser and businessman, Maminiaina Ravatomanga.

It warned Rajoelina would be dragged to the International Court of Human Rights on various charges ranging from repression to embezzlement if the demands are not met.

The Gen Z Madagascar’s emblem, a flag featuring a pirate skull and crossbones wearing a distinctive Madagascan hat, is a reference to the Japanese comic series, One Piece, which follows a young pirate banding with others to fight an authoritarian government. The flag has become a hallmark of youth-led protests globally. It was raised by Indonesian protesters to show discontent in the run-up to the nation’s independence day in August, as well as by youth protesters who overthrew the Nepal government in September.

Who is President Rajoelina, and where is he?

President Rajoelina’s location is currently unknown. There is speculation that he was flown out of the country on a French military plane, according to French broadcaster RFI, but France has not commented. Madagascar is a former French colony, and Rojoelina is reported to have French citizenship – an issue which has angered some over the years.

In his Facebook statement on Monday evening, the president called for dialogue “to find a way out of this situation” and urged Madagascans to respect the constitution. He did not reveal his location and did not state his resignation.

The move to dissolve the parliament from exile further escalated the crisis and caused confusion, but opposition groups rejected it and voted for the president’s impeachment.

“The legal basis for this is unclear at the moment,” Kenya-based analyst Rose Mumunya told Al Jazeera. “Is he still the president? Legally, he is, but now that the army has announced they are taking over [security institutions], the legality of his decision to dissolve parliament is not really clear,” she said.

The 51-year-old first came to power in 2009 as the leader of a transitional government following a bloodless coup against the former president, Ravalomanana. As an opposition member and mayor of Antananarivo, Rajoelina led weeks of violent protests starting from January 2009 against Ravalomanana, whom he criticised for “restricting freedom” in the country.

Some 130 people died in the crisis. Rabalomanana fled to South Africa in March 2009 following a military coup. Rajoelina’s announcement as leader was ironically backed by CAPSAT. The international community criticised the military intervention and sanctioned Madagascar for years.

Rajoelina was elected in 2019 and re-elected in disputed 2023 polls that were boycotted by the opposition. His government, while popular at first, faced accusations of corruption, increasing repression and rights violations, analysts say. Fired Prime Minister Christian Ntsay and businessman Maminiaina Ravatomanga, were among prominent figures widely criticised in the country. Both arrived in Mauritius on a private flight on Sunday, authorities there said.

What’s CAPSAT, the army unit accused of a coup?

CAPSAT, or the Corps d’administration des personnels et des services administratifs et techniques, is an elite unit based in Soanierana district on the outskirts of Antananarivo. The group’s leader, Colonel Michael Randrianirina announed on Tuesday the unit was “in charge.”

While Rajoelina had influential backers in other important army units, analyst Mumunya noted he has not able to gain such support with CAPSAT.

The unit first appeared to mutiny after members joined thousands of protesters in Antananarivo on Saturday and called for Rajoelina’s resignation. Demonstrators hailed armed CAPSAT members packed in trucks and waving Madagascan flags. There were reports of CAPSAT teams clashing with pro-Rajoelina security forces.

A representative of the contingent said in a video statement on Saturday that “from now on, all orders of the Malagasy army, whether land, air, or navy, will originate from CAPSAT headquarters.” The unit urged all security forces to refuse “orders to shoot” and to stand with protesters.

On the same day, CAPSAT installed a new chief of defense staff, General Demosthene Pikulas, at a ceremony at the army headquarters. Armed Forces Minister Manantsoa Deramasinjaka Rakotoarivelo endorsed the move at the ceremony, saying, “I give him my blessing.”

On Sunday, CAPSAT Colonel Randrianirina told reporters that his unit’s actions did not amount to a coup. “We answered the people’s calls, but it wasn’t a coup d’etat,” he said, speaking at a gathering on Sunday outside the Antananarivo city hall, where large crowds gathered to pray for victims of the violence. One CAPSAT soldier was reportedly killed in a clash with other security units on Saturday.

Madagascar’s military has intervened in politics in several crises since 1960, when the country gained independence from France. Analyst Mumunya said CAPSAT leaders were carefully avoiding an outright coup declaration to avoid international backlash, as in the 2009 revolt. The move by the opposition to impeachment the president would legalise the takeover while the army holds the fort to ensure there’s no counter coup, she said.

“It’s a bit of push and pull between Rajoelina and the army … but the balance of power is not in Rajoelina’s favour,” Mumunya said. “There are likely ongoing negotiations between the political opposition, business elite and security forces to install a new civilian government that will appeal to the youth,” she added.

“So has his government effectively collapsed? I think we can probably conclude that,” she said.

The High Court, where Rajoelina has supporters, analysts say, will likely scrutinise and confirm whether the president can dissolve the parliament from an unknown location, or whether his impeachment can hold.

In the last few weeks, USC has found itself caught in a political tug-of-war that could potentially change campus life permanently.

Gov. Gavin Newsom threatened on Oct. 2 to cut “billions” in state funding, including the popular Cal Grants that many students rely upon, if California schools bowed to pressure from the Trump administration.

Newsom’s messaging came in response to a White House directive that asked USC and eight other major national universities to commit to President Trump’s views on gender identity, admissions, diversity and free speech in exchange for priority access to federal dollars.

The topic was covered in depth by my colleagues Jaweed Kaleem and Melody Gutierrez.

Let’s jump into their article and see what options lie ahead for USC.

What the White House told USC

USC and other universities were asked to sign a “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” which commits them to adopt the White House’s conservative vision for America’s campuses.

The Oct. 1 letter also suggests colleges should align with Trump’s views on student discipline, college affordability and the importance of hard sciences over liberal arts.

The compact asks universities to accept the government’s definition of gender — excluding transgender people — and apply it to campus bathrooms, locker rooms and women’s sports teams.

But the White House letter to USC and other campuses is more stick than carrot.

The government says it will dole out new federal money and give preference to the universities that accept the deal over those that do not agree to the terms.

Signing on would give universities priority access to some federal grants, but White House officials say the government money would not be limited solely to those schools.

How Trump wants to cut back on international students

The federal compact would also severely restrict international student enrollment to 15% of a college’s entire undergraduate student body. Plus, no more than 5% could come from a single country.

That provision would hit USC hard, where 26% of the fall 2025 freshman class is international. Half of those students hail from either China or India.

Cutting into that rate would be a financial blow to USC, where full-fee tuition from international students is a major source of revenue. The university has already endured hundreds of layoffs this year amid budget troubles.

How Newsom is responding

Newsom wrote that “if any California university signs this radical agreement, they’ll lose billions in state funding — including Cal Grants — instantly.”

He added, “California will not bankroll schools that sell out their students, professors, researchers, and surrender academic freedom.”

Students become eligible for Cal Grants through the Free Application for Federal Student Aid or California Dream Act Application. In 2024-25, $2.5 billion in Cal Grants were doled out to California students.

What is USC doing?

The school’s faculty members strongly denounced Trump’s offer at a meeting Monday, calling it “antithetical to principles of academic freedom.”

But interim President Beong-Soo Kim told the roughly 500 attendees that the university “has not made any kind of final decision.”

One of the nine schools presented with Trump’s deal, MIT, forcefully rejected the White House’s proposal last week. (It is unclear how the White House selected the nine schools that were offered the deal.)

Notes from a reporter’s notepad

Kaleem, one of the Times reporters on this story, noted that universities throughout Southern California, including USC, UCLA and others in the UC or Cal State systems, find themselves under siege from the White House, whether they were offered Trump’s proposal or not.

“Grants for funding and research are being held up because of investigations into antisemitism or diversity or other issues,” he said. “There are very few universities untouched by the push from Trump on higher education.”

Kaleem spoke with several politically active students and professors at USC who see Newsom’s gesture as a blessing in disguise.

“They felt the governor’s threat to take away money actually gives the USC campus cover to resist Trump more forcefully,” Kaleem said.

Now USC administrators could defy the White House under the guise of trying to avoid losing funding from the state, according to those who spoke with Kaleem.

“They could say they can’t be blamed because they’re being forced to resist Trump,” he said. “It’s an interesting potential strategy.”

For more, check out the full article here.

Today’s top stories

Part of the debate over the ongoing federal government shutdown focuses on funding for the treatment of undocumented immigrants at hospital emergency rooms.

(Ashley Landis / Associated Press)

Trump claims Democrats want to use federal funds to give undocumented residents healthcare. That’s misleading

• Undocumented immigrants cannot access federal programs, but California law provides state-funded Medi-Cal coverage costing the state $11.2 billion annually.
• President Trump claimed recently that Democrats “want to have illegal aliens come into our country and get massive healthcare at the cost to everybody else.”
• Democrats called Trump’s assertion an absolute lie, accusing Republicans of wanting to slash federal healthcare benefits to Americans in need to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy.

Beutner launches bid for L.A. mayor, vowing to fight ‘injustices’ under Trump

• Former L.A. schools Supt. Austin Beutner kicked off his campaign for mayor on Monday with a video message that hits not just Mayor Karen Bass but also President Trump and his immigration crackdown.
• Beutner vowed to counter Trump’s “assault on our values,” while also criticizing City Hall over homelessness, housing costs and rising city fees.

Three more L.A. County deaths tied to synthetic kratom

• The deaths have been linked to kratom, a compound that is being synthetically reproduced and sold over the counter as a cure-all for a host of ailments, the county Department of Public Health announced Friday.
• The compound was found to be a contributing cause of death in three residents who were between the ages of 18 and 40, according to the county health department.
• That brings the total number of recent overdose deaths related to kratom in L.A. County to six.

What else is going on

Commentary and opinions

This morning’s must read

Other must reads

For your downtime

The Griselda’s Revenge cocktail from the Black Lagoon pop-up bar.

(Black Lagoon)

Going out

Staying in

A question for you: What frustrates you the most about parking in L.A.?

Karen writes: “My frustration is that the city started making people pay to park along the road up to the Griffith Observatory. That was the one free and delightful place to get both some sight-seeing and some good walking in after the hunt for a spot. It felt very unfair and opportunistic of the city to limit access to city parks by charging that fee.”

Email us at [email protected], and your response might appear in the newsletter this week.

And finally … your photo of the day

Theatergoers take their seats to see “Les Miserables” on Oct. 8 in Los Angeles.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Today’s great photo is from Times photographer Jason Armond at opening night of “Les Misérables” at the Hollywood Pantages Theatre.

Have a great week, from the Essential California team

Jim Rainey, staff writer
Kevinisha Walker, multiplatform editor
Andrew J. Campa, reporter
Hugo Martín, assistant editor
Karim Doumar, head of newsletters

How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to [email protected]. Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on latimes.com.

As Californians start voting on Democrats’ effort to boost their ranks in Congress, former President Barack Obama warned that democracy is in peril as he urged voters to support Proposition 50 in a television ad that started airing Tuesday.

“California, the whole nation is counting on you,” Obama says in the 30-second ad, which the main pro-Proposition 50 campaign began broadcasting Tuesday across the state. The spot is part of a multimillion-dollar ad buy promoting the congressional redistricting ballot measure through the Nov. 4 election.

Proposition 50 was spearheaded by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other California Democratic leaders this summer after President Trump urged GOP-led states, notably Texas, to redraw their congressional districts to boost the number of Republicans elected to the House in next year’s midterm election, in an effort to continue enacting his agenda during his final years in office.

“Republicans want to steal enough seats in Congress to rig the next election and wield unchecked power for two more years,” Obama says in the ad, which includes footage of ICE raids. “With Prop. 50, you can stop Republicans in their tracks. Prop. 50 puts our elections back on a level playing field, preserves independent redistricting over the long term, and lets the people decide. Return your ballot today.”

Congressional districts were long drawn in smoke-filled chambers by partisans focused on protecting their parties’ power and incumbents. But good-government groups and elected officials, notably former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, have fought to take the drawing of congressional boundaries out of the hands of politicians to end gerrymandering and create more competitive districts.

Obama, long a supporter of ending gerrymandering, had already endorsed the ballot measure.

In California, these districts have been drawn by an independent commission created by voters in 2010, which is why state Democrats have to go to the ballot box to seek a mid-decade partisan redistricting that could improve their party’s chances in five of the state’s 52 congressional districts.

The ad featuring Obama, who spoke Monday on comedian Marc Maron’s final podcast about Trump’s policies testing the nation’s values, appears on Californians’ televisions after mail ballots were sent to the state’s 23 million registered voters last week.

The proposition’s prospects are uncertain — it’s about an obscure topic that few Californians know about, and off-year elections traditionally have low voter turnout. Still, more than $150 million has been contributed to the three main committees supporting and opposing the proposition, in addition to millions more funding other efforts.

Obama is not the only famous person to appear in ads about Proposition 50.

In September, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who championed the creation of the independent redistricting commission while in office and has campaigned for similar reforms across the nation since then, was featured in ads opposing the November ballot measure.

He described Proposition 50 as favoring entrenched politicians instead of voters.

“That’s what they want to do, is take us backwards. This is why it is important for you to vote no on Proposition 50,” the Hollywood celebrity and former governor says in the ad, which was filmed last month when he spoke to USC students. “The Constitution does not start with ‘We, the politicians.’ It starts with ‘We, the people.’ … Democracy — we’ve got to protect it, and we’ve got to go and fight for it.”

It’s not my habit to preface my columns with “trigger alerts,” so this is a first:

If talking about circumcision makes you cringe, feel free to move along.

If, on the other hand, you wish to understand what Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was talking about during a White House meeting Oct. 9 when he tried to connect circumcision with autism, follow along with me.

The offhand reference to circumcision’s possible role in autism by Kennedy, Trump’s secretary of Health and Human Services, is part and parcel of Kennedy’s documented assault on science-based medicine.

His campaign encompasses attacks on COVID-19 vaccines, which have been shown over the years to have saved millions of people from death, hospitalization or long-term disability; his firing members of professional advisory boards at his agency and replacing them with anti-vaccine activists; his promotion of unproven “cures” for vaccine-preventable diseases; and his inaction in the face of a nationwide surge in cases of measles, a disease that was declared eliminated in the U.S. in 2000.

Let’s pause for a few words about the broader consequences of the erosion of our public health infrastructure. It not only exposes Americans to more disease and more serious disease, but has profound economic effects.

That’s true worldwide, but especially in the U.S., which spends much more per capita on healthcare than other developed countries, for lower results. Undermining the existing system for partisan ends won’t make the picture look any lovelier.

“The U.S. health disadvantage threatens the country’s global competitiveness and national security, as well as the hopes and prospects of future generations,” according to a 2021 paper from the Department of Health and Human Services, the agency that Kennedy now leads.

“U.S. employers depend on a healthy workforce to maximize productivity and minimize healthcare costs,” the paper stated. “Population health also affects the consumer market, whereby the demand for nonessential products and services suffers when families are struggling with illnesses and much of their disposable income is required for medical expenses.”

The chaos imposed on our public health system under the Trump administration only intensifies the damage.

On Friday, hundreds of employees at Kennedy’s agency, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, abruptly received layoff notices. Some were hastily informed that their firings were erroneous, but the experience rattled the CDC, an agency tasked with overseeing the national response to seasonal respiratory illnesses at a time when those illnesses typically spike.

“The damage is beyond repair,” Demetre Daskalakis, who resigned as director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, a unit of the National Institutes of Health, over conflicts with Kennedy, told CNN. “Crippling CDC, even as a ploy to create political pressure to end the government shutdown, means America is even less prepared for outbreaks and infectious disease security threats.”

That brings us back to Kennedy’s preoccupation with autism. He has claimed that the autism rate is on the rise due to “environmental toxins” such as childhood vaccinations and the use of Tylenol — or acetaminophen, its generic name — by mothers during pregnancy.

As I’ve reported, however, the roots of the increase in reported autism rates in recent decades are well understood: They have much to do with a broader definition of autism, which is widely described today as “autism spectrum disorder,” and with improved access to screening and diagnostic services by formerly overlooked groups such as Blacks, Hispanics and other nonwhite cohorts.

Kennedy’s comment about circumcision came during a White House Cabinet meeting. At first, he and Trump traded misconceptions they had previously aired about Tylenol use by pregnant women — Trump asserting that “obviously,” the rise in autism rates is “artificially induced” and adding, “I would say don’t take Tylenol if you’re pregnant, and … when the baby is born don’t give it Tylenol.”

That advice dismayed physicians, who say that fevers during pregnancy are a greater risk for the unborn and that acetaminophen is safer than alternative fever-reducing medicines.

Kennedy then injected circumcision into the discussion. “There’s two studies that show children who were circumcised early have double the rate of autism,” he said. “It’s highly likely because they were given Tylenol.”

Unsurprisingly, Kennedy’s remark got extensive play in the news media, prompting him to try walking it back via a tweet on X. Rather than accept responsibility for his confusing words, he responded with Bondi-esque truculence, writing: “As usual, the mainstream media attacks me for something I didn’t say in order to distract from the truth of what I did say.”

He even took arms against the Murdoch-owned New York Post, which posted its story with the headline, “RFK Jr. says Tylenol after circumcisions linked to autism,” and proceeded to debunk the claim.

In trying to clarify his point, however, Kennedy dug himself a deeper hole. According to his tweet, the two studies he was referring to at the cabinet meeting were a Danish study from 2015 and a non-peer-reviewed preprint posted online in August, which refers to the Danish paper. Kennedy mischaracterizes both.

Contrary to Kennedy’s implication, the Danish study did not address the use of acetaminophen (called “paracetamol” in the paper) in connection with circumcision. The reason, its authors wrote, was that “we had no data available on analgesics or possible local anesthetics used during ritual circumcisions in our cohort, so we were unable to address the paracetamol hypothesis directly.”

They did note, however, that the acetaminophen theory had only “limited empirical support.” In other words, evidence was lacking. Anyway, the Danish study was criticized — in the same journal that had published it — for its reliance on a very small sample of children.

As for the preprint, contrary to Kennedy’s description, it did not identify the Danish paper as offering “the most compelling ‘standalone’ evidence” for an autism-acetaminophen link. That language referred to three studies, one of which was the Danish paper. Of the other papers, one was based on later interviews with parents. The other was a study of the effects of acetaminophen on 10-day-old mice, not human children.

I asked Kennedy’s agency to clarify his claim and to explain the discrepancies between his words and the papers themselves, but received no reply.

To summarize, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nation’s top federal healthcare official, conjured up a connection between circumcision and autism via a relationship between circumcision and Tylenol that is unsupported by the research he cited. Indeed, the Danish paper describes the idea that boys undergoing circumcision invariably are given acetaminophen for pain as “a questionable assumption.”

In searching for empirical support for the acetaminophen theory, moreover, the Danish paper cited a 2010 paper funded by NIH that cautioned: “No evidence is presented here that acetaminophen in any way causes autism. … This hypothesis is largely based on multiple lines of often weak evidence.” Anyway, the paper was focused on a possible link between acetaminophen use and asthma, not autism.

Sadly, this sort of mischaracterization of research described as “a rigorous scientific framework” (RFK Jr.’s words) isn’t surprising coming from today’s Department of Health and Human Services. This is the agency, it may be recalled, that in May issued an “assessment” of the health of America’s children that cited at least seven sources that did not exist.

Nothing can stop unwary parents from relying on the judgment of Donald Trump or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to make healthcare decisions for their infants and children. But they should be warned: They do so at their own and their offsprings’ risk.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber on Monday pushed back against a torrent of misinformation on social media sites claiming that mail-in ballots for the state’s Nov. 4 special election are purposefully designed to disclose how people voted.

Weber, the state’s top elections official, refuted claims by some Republicans and far-right partisans that holes on ballot envelopes allow election officials to see how Californians voted on Proposition 50, the ballot measure about redistricting that will be decided in a special election in a little over three weeks.

“The small holes on ballot envelopes are an accessibility feature to allow sight-impaired voters to orient themselves to where they are required to sign the envelope,” Weber said in a statement released Monday.

Weber said voters can insert ballots in return envelopes in a manner that doesn’t reveal how they voted, or could cast ballots at early voting stations that will open soon or in person on Nov. 4.

Weber’s decision to “set the record straight” was prompted by conspiracy theories exploding online alleging that mail ballots received by 23 million Californians in recent days are purposefully designed to reveal the votes of people who opposed the measure.

“If California voters vote ‘NO’ on Gavin Newscum’s redistricting plan, it will show their answer through a hole in the envelope,” Libs of TikTok posted on the social media platform X on Sunday, in a post that has 4.8 million views. “All Democrats do is cheat.”

GOP Texas Sen. Ted Cruz earlier retweeted a similar post that has been viewed more than 840,000 times, and Republican California gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, a conservative commentator, called for the November special election to be suspended because of the alleged ballot irregularities.

The allegation about the ballots, which has been raised by Republicans during prior California elections, stems from the holes in mail ballot envelopes that were created to help visually impaired voters and allow election workers to make sure ballots have been removed from envelopes.

The special election was called for by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats in an effort to counter President Trump urging GOP-led states, notably Texas, to redraw their congressional districts before next year’s midterm election to boost GOP ranks in the House and buttress his ability to enact his agenda during his final two years in office.

California Democrats responded by proposing a rare mid-decade redrawing of California’s 52 congressional boundaries to increase Democratic representation in Congress. Congressional districts are typically drawn once a decade by an independent state commission created by voters in 2010.

Nearly 600,000 Californians have already returned mail ballots as of Monday evening, according to a ballot tracker created by Political Data, a voter data firm that is led by Democratic strategist Paul Mitchell, who drew the proposed congressional boundaries on the November ballot.

Republican leaders in California who oppose the ballot measure have expressed concern about the ballot conspiracy theories, fearing the claims may suppress Republicans and others from voting against Proposition 50.

“Please don’t panic people about something that is easily addressed by turning their ballot around,” Roxanne Hoge, the chair of the Los Angeles County Republican Party, posted on X. “We need every no vote and we need them now.”

Jessica Millan Patterson, the former chair of the state GOP who is leading one of the two main committees opposing Proposition 50, compared not voting early to sitting on the sidelines of a football game until the third quarter.

“I understand why voters would be concerned when they see holes in their envelopes … because your vote is your business. It’s the bedrock of our system, being able to [vote by] secret ballot,” she said in an interview. “That being said, the worst thing that you could do if you are unhappy with the way things are here in California is not vote, and so I will continue to promote early voting and voting by mail. It’s always been a core principle for me.”

Leading opposition candidate unilaterally declares himself the victor, and calls on incumbent Paul Biya to concede.

Cameroon opposition leader Issa Tchiroma Bakary has unilaterally declared victory in the country’s presidential election.

Tchiroma made the statement in a nearly five-minute speech posted to social media early on Tuesday. Although official channels have not declared results, he urged long-term incumbent, 92-year-old President Paul Biya, to call him to concede.

“The people have chosen, and this choice must be respected,” Tchiroma demanded in the video.

However, the government warned earlier this week that only results announced by the Constitutional Council can be considered official. The body has almost two weeks to make the announcement.

A former government spokesman and ally of Biya for 20 years, Tchiroma was considered the top contender to unseat Biya in Sunday’s elections.

After he resigned from the government in June, his campaign drew large crowds and key endorsements from a coalition of opposition parties and civic groups.

But Biya – in power for 43 years and the world’s oldest serving head of state – has been widely expected to secure another seven-year term in office, given his tight grip on state machinery and the fragmented nature of the opposition.

Cameroon’s government has not responded officially to Tchiroma’s declaration.

However, Minister of Territorial Administration Paul Atanga Nji warned recently that only the Constitutional Council has the authority to announce the winner, and that any unilateral publication of results would be considered “high treason”.

Cameroon’s electoral law allows results to be published and posted at individual polling stations, but final tallies must be validated by the Constitutional Council, which has until October 26 to announce the outcome, the Reuters news agency reported.

‘Honour’ the ballot box

In the video, filmed in his northern hometown of Garoua in front of the national flag, Tchiroma urged Biya to “honour the truth of the ballot box”, and to concede and offer congratulations.

Doing so, he said, would be a mark of Cameroon’s political maturity and the strength of its democracy.

The election results, he said, represent “a clear sanction” of Biya’s administration and marked “the beginning of a new era”.

Tchiroma also thanked rival candidates “who have already congratulated me and recognised the will of the people”.

He called on government institutions and the military to recognise his victory and “stay on the side of the republic”.

“Do not let anyone divert you from your mission to protect the people,” he said.

New Delhi, India – For the last month, Indian police have raided multiple markets and homes, arresting Muslim men in states governed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist party. Some of their homes have been bulldozed.

The genesis of their alleged crime is common: writing, “I Love Muhammad”, a reference to Prophet Muhammad, on posters, t-shirts, or in social media posts. The authorities say the expression is threatening “public order”.

So far, at least 22 cases have been registered against more than 2,500 Muslims. At least 40 people have been arrested across multiple states governed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), according to the nonprofit Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR).

So, what is happening? How and where did this start? And is it illegal to say ‘I Love Muhammad’ in India?

What’s happening?

On September 4, Muslims living in Kanpur city of the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh were observing Eid al-Milad al-Nabi, the celebration of the birth of Prophet Muhammad, when a neighbourhood put up an illuminated board saying, “I love Muhammad”.

But the board, mimicking the popular “I Love New York” signage that has been copied all over the world, drew criticism from some local Hindus. Initially, their complaint alleged that the illuminated board was a new introduction to traditional festivities on the occasion, when Uttar Pradesh’s laws bar new additions to public religious celebrations. About 20 percent of Kanpur’s population is Muslim.

However, based on complaints, the police filed a case against two dozen people on much more serious charges: promoting enmity on the grounds of religion. The charge carries a punishment of up to five years in jail if the accused individual is convicted.

The Kanpur episode drew widespread criticism from Muslim political leaders, and protests against the police action spread to other states, including Telangana in southern India, Gujarat and Maharashtra in the west, and in Uttarakhand and Jammu and Kashmir in the north. The  “I love Muhammad” hoardings and writings came up across the country – from people’s social media handles to t-shirts.

Nearly 270km (168 miles) away from Kanpur, in Uttar Pradesh’s Bareilly, a group of people participating in a demonstration called by a local imam against the Kanpur arrests, violently clashed with the police on September 26.

The police hit back with a crackdown, arresting 75 people, including the imam, Tauqeer Raza, his relatives and his aides. At least four buildings belonging to the accused individuals have been bulldozed by the local authorities.

In recent years, hundreds of Indian Muslims have lost their homes to such demolitions, which are often carried out without any notice issued by authorities, or any court order. India’s Supreme Court has observed that demolitions cannot be used as a form of extra-legal punishment, warning that state authorities must give prior notice before razing any property. Yet, on the ground, that order is often not followed, say activists.

Meanwhile, dozens of other Muslims have been arrested in different states – including some in Modi’s home state of Gujarat – for social media posts and videos carrying the “I love Muhammad” slogan.

Is it illegal?

India’s constitution guarantees the freedom of religion and the right to express it. Article 25 protects every individual’s freedom to practise their religion. Citizens are also protected under Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression, unless it directly incites violence or hatred.

In the cases of people arrested as part of the “I Love Muhammad” crackdown, the police have mostly charged them under legal provisions that bar large gatherings aimed at committing “mischief”, or for acts that allegedly provoke religious tensions. However, these provisions have been applied against those arrested for social media posts, or wearing t-shirts with “I Love Muhammad” emblazoned on them.

Nadeem Khan, the national coordinator of APCR, the nonprofit that has been tracking these cases, has fought previous lawsuits against government officials for similarly targeting Muslims for social media expressions, or when their homes have been bulldozed.

Khan told Al Jazeera that authorities were carefully using legal provisions that focus not on the “I Love Muhammad” expression itself, but on alleged offences carried out by those who used the expression or protested against related police crackdowns.

“They know that there is no law that criminalises just the mere expression of ‘I Love Muhammad’,” Khan said.

Khan noted that across India, images of Hindu gods wielding their traditional weapons have long been commonplace. “These images are at every corner of the country; should it also offend or threaten all Muslims then?” he asked. “Everyone should understand that the government cannot criminalise a religion like this,” he added, referring to Islam.

Since 2014, when Modi took over the power in New Delhi, India has consistently slid in a range of international democratic indices.

Criminalising people’s right to freedom of expression and religious belief sets a deeply troubling precedent, said Aakar Patel, the chair of Amnesty International India’s board.

“Targeting people for slogans such as ‘I Love Muhammad’, which is peaceful and devoid of any incitement or threat, does not meet the threshold for criminal restriction under either Indian constitutional law or international human rights law,” Patel told Al Jazeera.

“Public order concerns must be addressed proportionately and cannot justify the blanket suppression of religious identity or expression,” he added.

“The role of the state is to safeguard rights equally, not to police expressions of belief,” said Amnesty’s Patel. “Upholding constitutional and international commitments is not optional; it is a legal obligation.”

Is there a pattern?

Critics say that the crackdown is only the latest instance of Indian Muslims facing marginalisation, violence or the targeted brunt of the law since Modi came to power in 2014.

In the past 11 years, the incidents of hate speech targeting religious minorities have skyrocketed. Documented instances of hate speech jumped from 668 in 2023 to 1,165 last year, a rise of about 74 percent. A significant majority of these incidents happened in BJP-governed states, or places where elections were upcoming.

Increasingly, local Hindu-Muslim disputes now rapidly transform into national issues, said Asim Ali, a political analyst based in Delhi.

“There is an entire ecosystem in place, from pliant media to social media organisation, to spread this hate rapidly,” said Ali. “And the law is read in such a way that any expression of religious identity, especially of Muslims, can be seen as inciting religious hatred,” he added.

After the “I Love Muhammad” episode in Kanpur, BJP leaders in Modi’s own constituency, Varanasi, put up posters saying, “I Love Bulldozer” at major intersections of the city, in a reference to the bulldozing of houses of the accused.

How does it affect young Muslims?

Rasheed Kidwai, a political analyst, said that the row over “I Love Muhammad” is “overtly very political, and not religious”.

And in India, there is growing frustration among Muslims, especially youth, where they see that one set of rules is not applied for all, when it comes to matters of cultural identity and eating habits, said Kidwai.

Several of the accused, or arrested, as part of the “I Love Muhammad” crackdown, include young adult Muslims, according to data from APCR, including those who were arrested for social media posts.

The crackdown on “I Love Muhammad” expression risks alienating young Muslim adults even more, said Ali. “In theory, everyone is already guilty and can face action for just being,” he told Al Jazeera.

“It is getting difficult to imagine what the future may hold now,” he said. “The tempo of hate is increasing day by day.”

Reporters must promise not to publish unauthorised material to obtain press credentials.

Major media organisations, including conservative outlets, say the Pentagon is placing unlawful restrictions on journalists and their ability to cover the US military under a new set of reporting guidelines.

The guidelines were first announced in a September memo from the Department of Defense, and said that reporters must sign an affidavit pledging they would not publish unauthorised material – including unclassified documents – to keep their Pentagon press credentials.

Following pushback from the media, the wording was modified last week to say that reporters must simply “acknowledge” the new rules, but many organisations remain critical of the latest version of the rules.

Media companies, including public broadcaster NPR, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, CNN, and the Reuters and Associated Press news agencies, have all said they will not sign the rules in recent statements.

They also say the rules violate the US Constitution, which offers broad protections for freedom of speech and freedom of the press under the First Amendment. These rights were reaffirmed in a landmark 1971 Supreme Court case, New York Times Co v United States, that allowed US media to publish classified military documents during the Vietnam War.

“The proposed restrictions undercut First Amendment protections by placing unnecessary constraints on gathering and publishing information. We will continue to vigorously and fairly report on the policies and positions of the Pentagon and officials across the government,” said Matt Murray, executive editor of The Washington Post, in a statement on X.

Conservative news outlets The Washington Times and Newsmax, a cable news channel and competitor to Fox News, also said they would not sign the rules.

Newsmax cited “unnecessary and onerous” rules in a statement to Axios.

The Pentagon Press Association, an industry group representing defence reporters, said in a statement on Monday that the Pentagon has the right to make its own reporting rules, but they cannot set “unconstitutional policies as a precondition” to report there.

The association previously said the rules were “designed to stifle a free press”, and could open reporters up to legal prosecution.

The Pentagon reporting rules have been championed by US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News presenter who was sworn into his post in January under President Donald Trump.

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said the department had “good faith negotiations” with the Pentagon Press Association, but that “soliciting [military] service members and civilians to commit crimes is strictly prohibited” in a statement on X.

During a trip to the Middle East marking the end of Israel’s war on Gaza, United States President Donald Trump turned to another source of strife in the region: the tensions between Tehran and Washington.

In remarks to the Israeli Knesset on Monday, Trump, who took the unprecedented step of bombing Iranian nuclear facilities earlier this year amid a 12-day war between Israel and Iran, offered a “hand of friendship”.

“We are ready when you are, and it will be the best decision that Iran has ever made, and it’s going to happen,” Trump said of a possible agreement with Tehran.

“The hand of friendship and cooperation is open. I’m telling you, they [Iran] want to make a deal. It would be great if we could make a deal.”

But despite the dovish rhetoric, the Trump administration has continued to take a hard line against Iran, and analysts say that a path towards better relations between the two countries remains filled with obstacles.

Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a US-based think tank, said that the Israeli and US attacks in June, which came as nuclear negotiations between Washington and Tehran were ongoing, undermined advocacy for diplomacy in Iran.

“There’s a perception that the US is using diplomacy to lull Iran into a false sense of security,” Parsi said.

‘Iran is open to a deal’

Iran itself has not closed the door to diplomacy, but its leaders have not rushed to renew talks with the US, either.

“If we receive a reasonable, balanced, and fair proposal from the Americans for negotiations, we will certainly consider it,” Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi said during a television interview on Saturday.

Iran had rejected an Egyptian invitation to attend a summit on the war in Gaza in Sharm el-Sheikh on Monday, citing US attacks and sanctions.

Talks over Iran’s nuclear programme have not resumed since the Trump administration’s bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel started the war in June, days before the US and Iranian officials were set for another round of talks.

The US, which during Trump’s first term in 2018 withdrew from a previous deal limiting Iran’s nuclear programme, has also insisted that any new agreement include a total ban on Iranian uranium enrichment.

That demand goes beyond the original deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which only curbed Iran’s uranium enrichment programme under a strict international inspection system.

Iran has depicted that new demand as a denial of its rights as a sovereign country, noting that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) does not prohibit uranium enrichment.

The impasse over enrichment has become a sticking point in negotiations.

“Iran is open to a deal,” Parsi told Al Jazeera. “But regardless of Trump’s positive tone and kind words, what he is looking for is for Iran to capitulate. As long as he insists on zero enrichment, I don’t think he will get a deal.”

Israel’s war with Iran, which included Israel’s assassination of high-level military figures and civilian nuclear scientists, as well as air strikes that killed hundreds of people, has also increased scepticism about the prospects of a lasting deal with the US.

In a speech to the Knesset on Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lauded the US decision to bomb Iran during the war as a “biblical miracle”.

Since the beginning of the war in Gaza, Israel has struck a series of blows against Iran and allied groups, such as Hezbollah, across the Middle East, leaving it significantly weakened and giving the US little incentive to make concessions on uranium enrichment and other issues.

Trump often reiterates that Iran’s nuclear programme has been “obliterated” by the US strikes on key facilities, but the extent of the damage remains unclear.

The Pentagon said earlier this year that the Iranian nuclear programme had been set back by one to two years. But Rafael Grossi, the head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has said that Iran could be enriching uranium again within months.

Trump can ‘let Iran sweat’

Iran insists that it is not seeking a nuclear weapon, while Israel is widely believed to possess an undeclared nuclear arsenal.

Gregory Brew, an Iran analyst at the US-based Eurasia Group, argued that time is on Trump’s side in the confrontation with Iran.

“Trump can sound optimistic about diplomacy, but he can also afford to wait and let Iran sweat,” Brew told Al Jazeera via email.

“With its nuclear programme in ruins, and with new Israeli strikes likely if Iran takes steps to rebuild the programme, [Supreme Leader Ali] Khamenei and the rest of the leadership don’t have many good options.”

Iran is also facing renewed sanctions from the UN after France, Germany and the United Kingdom triggered a so-called snapback of sanctions in August, arguing that Iran had violated the terms of the JCPOA.

Tehran countered that the US unilaterally withdrew from the agreement in 2018, and called another deal allowing inspections of its nuclear facilities by the IAEA “no longer relevant” after the US and Israeli strikes.

Iran was incensed at the IAEA for failing to condemn strikes against its nuclear facilities, which Tehran argues are protected under international law.

“There’s no upside for Trump in resuming talks without Iranian concessions, and there’s currently little downside in letting pressure build, as Iran has been weakened to the point that its ability to threaten Israel or US interests in the region is fairly limited,” said Brew.

“Trump may be willing to let the matter rest for a few months to see if increased economic pain forces Iran back to the negotiating table on favourable terms.”

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday vetoed legislation that would have phased out a range of popular consumer products, including nonstick pots and pans, that contain synthetic chemicals with potential links to cancer.

“I appreciate the efforts to protect the health and safety of consumers, and while this bill is well-intentioned, I am deeply concerned about the impact this bill would have on the availability of affordable options in cooking products,” Newsom wrote in his veto statement. “I believe we must carefully consider the consequences that may result from a dramatic shift of products on our shelves.”

The legislation would have prohibited the selling or distributing of cookware with intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, by 2030. It phased out PFAS in products for infants and children, ski wax, dental floss, food packaging and cleaning products starting in 2028. Previously used items would have been exempt.

Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), who introduced the legislation, Senate Bill 682, said he will continue to work on the issue moving forward.

“We are obviously disappointed,” he said. “We know there are safer alternatives — [but] I understand there were strong voices on both sides on this topic.”

Allen previously explained he introduced the bill to help protect the state’s water supply from contamination.

A study released in 2023 by the U.S. Geological Survey found tap water in urban areas of Southern and Central California is more likely to contain PFAS than the drinking water in most of the nation’s other regions.

“The water agencies, sanitation agencies and local governments are faced with increasingly impossible-to-meet standards just to keep the water supply for our constituents clean,” Allen said during a Senate committee meeting in April. “They’re facing the costs while the producers who keep pushing these products out on the market are not being held accountable.”

PFAS are commonly dubbed “forever chemicals” because of their well-established longevity. They are linked to adverse health effects, including liver enzyme changes and kidney and testicular cancer, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The chemicals have been used for decades to prevent food from sticking to pans or packaging, or to make materials more resistant to stains. California has taken steps in recent years to ban their use in certain items, like cosmetics and menstrual products.

Dozens of organizations weighed-in on Allen’s bill, with the Sierra Club, California Health Coalition Advocacy and the League of California Cities supporting the legislation.

The Chemical Industry Council of California and the Cookware Sustainability Alliance were among those opposed.

Steve Burns, president of the sustainability alliance, was especially concerned by the provision barring the distribution of the banned products.

“California is the entry point for nonstick cookware and other products that come into the Port of Long Beach, the Port of Los Angeles or the Port of Oakland, and then get distributed throughout the country,” he told The Times. “They go to warehouses, distribution centers and get loaded up on rail or usually trucks — so there’s a lot of jobs in the California economy that depend on products that have Teflon.”

Burns said science hasn’t shown that all PFAS are harmful and argued California should have studied the issue further. He pointed to Illinois, which recently passed similar legislation but ultimately nixed the line banning nonstick cookware. An amendment instead directs the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to assess scientific data on fluoropolymers, the type of PFAS used in nonstick pots and pans.

Several states have recently moved toward restricting items with PFAS. Last January, Minnesota became the first state to ban PFAS in cookware. The Cookware Sustainability Alliance filed a lawsuit arguing the law discriminated against out-of-state commerce. A judge dismissed the suit in August.

The sustainability alliance has shared letters of opposition on its website from several prominent chefs and culinary personalities, including cook and television host Rachael Ray and Mark Dommen, the chef at Hestan, a new restaurant in Napa slated to open later this year.

Dommen explained the legislation would have placed an unfair burden on restaurants and food service providers.

“Non-stick cookware is essential to our daily operations and eliminating these products without a viable alternative would drive up costs, disrupt our supply chain, and put California restaurants at a competitive disadvantage,” Dommen wrote.

Ray, who has a cookware line, argued easy-clean cookware helps families eat healthier by making it easier to prepare meals without extra oils or fats.

Her letter drew a gentle rebuke from actor and environmental activist Mark Ruffalo, who implored Ray on social media to reconsider her stance and said her advocacy on behalf of the cookware industry was putting the bill in jeopardy.

“Some of us have so much PFAS in our blood that we face a far greater risk of developing cancer,” he wrote in a recent letter shared on X. “Let’s work together to get PFAS out of the everyday products we bring into our home.”

Scientific studies about the health effects of PFAS will continue, according to the CDC.

“Ongoing research has identified associations between PFAS exposure and several health impacts,” the agency’s website states. “There are many factors that can influence the risk of these effects, such as exposure, individual factors and other health determinants. Research is ongoing to understand the mechanisms of PFAS toxicity.”

Times staff writer Melody Gutierrez contributed to this report.

Oct. 13 (UPI) — Venezuela announced Monday it will close its embassies in Norway and Australia in a “strategic re-assignment of resources” amid growing tensions with the United States and a Nobel Peace Prize for the opposition.

President Nicolas Maduro announced Venezuela would open new embassies in Burkina Faso and Zimbabwe, “two sister nations, strategic allies in the anti-colonial fight and in the resistance against hegemonic pressures,” according to the Caracas government.

“The central objective of this reorganization is to optimize state resources and redefine our diplomatic presence to strengthen alliances with the Global South, promoting solidarity among peoples and cooperation in strategic areas for mutual development,” Venezuela’s foreign ministry wrote in the statement.

Monday’s announcement that Venezuela will close its Oslo embassy comes three days after Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado won the 2025 Nobel Peace Price for her efforts to restore democracy in Venezuela and end the dictatorship of Maduro as “one of the most extraordinary examples of civilian courage in Latin America.”

Machado was chosen to run against Maduro in Venezuela’s 2011 and 2024 elections, but the government banned her from participating over her activism against the Maduro regime.

Maduro on Sunday responded to Machado’s Nobel Prize, awarded by Norway’s foreign ministry, by calling her “a demonic witch.”

Growing tensions between Venezuela and the United States, which have escalated over U.S. drug strikes on vessels off the country’s Caribbean coast, also played into the decision to relocate embassies to Zimbabwe and Burkina Faso, which are more aligned with Russia.

“The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela reaffirms that these actions reflect its unwavering will to defend national sovereignty and actively contribute to the construction of a new world order based on justice, solidarity and inclusion.”

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday vetoed legislation that would have allowed public and private colleges to provide preferential admissions to applicants directly descended from individuals who were enslaved in the United States before 1900.

The governor thanked the bill’s author for his commitment to addressing disparities and urged educational institutions to review and determine “how, when, and if this type of preference can be adopted.”

“This bill clarifies, to the extent permitted by federal law, that California public and private postsecondary educational institutions may consider providing a preference in admissions to an applicant who is a descendant of slavery,” Newsom wrote Monday in his veto. “These institutions already have the authority to determine whether to provide admissions preferences like this one, and accordingly, this bill is unnecessary.”

The legislation would not have required applicants to belong to any particular race or ethnicity — a crucial detail that proponents said distinguished it from affirmative action, which is banned at California colleges. Critics, however, argued the term “slave” was used as a proxy for race.

Legal experts told The Times last month the measure probably would have faced challenges in court if the governor signed it into law.

“The question with this sort of provision is does this count as on the basis of race?” said Ralph Richard Banks, professor at Stanford Law School and the founder and faculty director of the Stanford Center for Racial Justice. “A secondary issue is going to be whether, even if it is not formally about racial classification, was it really adopted to get around the no-racial-classification rule? The law prohibits indirect methods of doing something that would be prohibited if you were to do it directly.”

Race-based college admissions are banned by federal and state law.

Proposition 209, which California voters approved nearly three decades ago, amended the state Constitution to bar colleges from considering race, sex, national origin or ethnicity during admissions. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 in effect ended race-conscious college admissions nationwide, ruling in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard that such policies violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

California became the first state government in the country to study reparations, efforts to remedy the lingering effects of slavery and systemic racism, after the 2020 killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer sparked a national conversation on racial justice.

Newsom and state lawmakers passed a law to create a “first in the nation” task force to study and propose effective ways to help atone for the legacy of slavery. That panel spent years working on a 1,080-page report on the effects of slavery and the discriminatory policies sanctioned by the government after slavery was abolished, and the findings became the genesis for a slate of legislation proposed by the California Legislative Black Caucus.

Last week, Newsom signed Senate Bill 518, which will create a new office called the Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery. That bureau will create a process to determine whether someone is the descendant of a slave and to certify someone’s claim to help them access benefits.

Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles), who introduced Assembly Bill 7, said his legislation would have allowed colleges to grant preference to the descendants of enslaved people in order to rectify a “legacy of exclusion, of harm.”

Andrew Quinio, an attorney specializing in equality issues for the Pacific Legal Foundation, believes AB 7 was blatantly unconstitutional. The foundation is a conservative public interest law firm that seeks to prevent government overreach.

“This was a bill that was born out of the Reparations Task Force recommendations; it was part of the package of bills of the Road to Repair from the California Legislative Black Caucus so this has a very clear racial intent and racial purpose and it will have a racial effect,” he said. “[Legislation] doesn’t have to benefit the entirety or even the majority of a demographic in order for it to be unlawfully based on race.”

Lisa Holder, a civil rights attorney and president of the Equal Justice Society, a progressive nonprofit that works to protect policies that promote diversity, argued the measure’s framing made it highly likely to satisfy legal challenges.

“This (legislation) is very specifically tailored to correct the harms that we have seen, the harms from the past that continue into the present,” she said. “… Because this bill seeks to erase those harms by focusing specifically on the descendant community, it is strong enough to establish a compelling interest.”

Gary Orfield, a law and education professor and co-founder of the Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA, agreed the legislation was carefully written in a way that could have withstood legal challenges. He pointed out California allows university programs that support Native American students because they were narrowly tailored to focus on tribal affiliation — which is considered a political classification — instead of race or ethnicity.

Orfield said applicants of various races could have potentially benefited from the new admissions policy, as many Native Americans were enslaved and Asiatic coolieism, or Asian indentured servitude, was declared a form of human slavery in the state constitution in 1879.

“All Black people weren’t slaves and all slaves were not Black,” he said. “I think there is a good argument to say that slavery isn’t defined strictly by race and is not just a proxy for race and there certainly is a legitimate concern when you are thinking about remediation for historic violations.”

Orfield, however, said convincing the public was a different matter.

“I don’t think all people will easily understand this,” he said. “Americans tend to think that discrimination doesn’t cross over multiple generations. But I think that it does — I think there has been a long-lasting effect.”

Staff writer Melody Gutierrez contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday signed legislation to study inequalities in youth sports, a move likely to draw ire from Republicans who believe the measure is intended to support transgender athletes.

The legislation, Assembly Bill 749, creates a commission to examine whether a new state board or department is needed to improve access to sports regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, income or geographic location.

In an open letter last month to the governor, Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones (R-Santee) zeroed in on the term “gender identity.”

“The author and supporters of [this legislation] know if they were upfront and put forth a straightforward bill allowing biological males to compete against young women and girls, it would be easily defeated,” Jones wrote on Sept. 26. “So instead they are trying to establish a stacked commission to indirectly rig the issue in their favor.”

Jones urged Newsom to veto the bill and referenced the governor’s previous remarks about transgender athletes. During the first episode of his podcast “This Is Gavin Newsom,” the governor — a longtime ally of the LGBTQ+ community — acknowledged the struggle faced by transgender people but called transgender women’s participation in women’s sports “deeply unfair” and warned it was hurting Democrats at the polls.

Assemblymember Tina S. McKinnor, who introduced the bill, said Jones should keep his focus on Washington.

“Senator Brian Jones’ time would be better spent writing to the Republican controlled Congress to end the Trump Shutdown and reopen the federal government, rather than attacking trans students,” McKinnor (D-Hawthorne) wrote in an email to The Times.

Legislation referencing gender identity tends to be a lightning rod for controversy nationwide, with opinion polls suggesting Americans hold complex views on transgender issues.

A survey conducted this year by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found 66% of U.S. adults favor laws requiring transgender athletes to compete on teams that match their sex assigned at birth. At the same time, 56% of adults supported policies protecting transgender people from discrimination in jobs and public spaces.

During legislative committee hearings on the bill, McKinnor focused on the legislation’s potential racial impact. She said last year’s Play Equity Report found 59% of white youth participated in structured sports programs, compared with 47% of Black youth and 45% of Latino youth.

“Participation in youth sports remains unequal despite the well-documented physical, mental and academic benefits,” McKinnor told the Senate Health Committee in July. “These disparities stem from systemic barriers such as financial limitations, uneven program quality, outdated physical education standards and the lack of a coordinated statewide strategy.”

More than two dozen organizations endorsed the bill, including the Los Angeles Rams, city of San Diego, USC Schwarzenegger Institute, YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles and the Boys and Girls Clubs of West San Gabriel Valley and Eastside.

The legislation directs the state public health officer to convene the commission, which will be composed of 10 members appointed by the governor and three appointed by each the speaker of the Assembly and the Senate Committee on Rules. The health officer will also sit on the panel, or appoint their own designee.

Newsom did not issue a statement when his office announced a slate of bills he signed on Monday.

In March, Newsom infuriated the progressive wing of his party when, while hosting conservatives commentator Charlie Kirk on the governor’s podcast, he broke away from many Democrats on the issue of transgender athletes. Newsom, an outspoken champion of LGBTQ+ rights since he was mayor of San Francisco, publicly criticized the “unfairness” of transgender athletes participating in women’s sports.