politics

It was around noon on October 25th when news broke that María Corina Machado returned to Venezuela after almost a year in exile and following her several failed attempts to come back in recent weeks. Then, reports on social media indicated that she was actually in Barquisimeto. Then I confirmed she was in Santa Rosa, a village near Barquisimeto where the Santa Rosa Sanctuary is located.

In recent years, Machado has used such religious elements in her discourse and political persona, which makes the choice of the Santa Rosa Sanctuary as the setting for the formal announcement of her return to be somewhat unsurprising. This is the temple where every January 14 starts the biggest event in Venezuela’s catholic calendar: the procession of Divina Pastora, whose image is precisely in Santa Rosa. 

Shortly after knowing this, I went to Santa Rosa in order to see the public reception. Near the entrance of the town, an unusual number of cars and motorcycles were parked, and people were walking to join the impromptu demonstration. There was already a large crowd gathered at the square in front of Santa Rosa church. Many took pictures with their phones, and some started to sing the national anthem. When it seemed like MCM was about to leave, people shouted to see her without much success. 

The small caravan of vehicles carrying her and her companions slowly made its exit through the crowd trying to get at least a glimpse of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Some carried Venezuelan flags and signs of Vente, her political party. Bystanders moved along, struggling to catch up, while the cars slowly made their way to the town’s entrance. 

There was a very small presence of chavista-governed Lara state police officers, far from the crowd, but the entire atmosphere was peaceful. As the vehicles left, people started to disperse. At that moment, a brief rain came over us. Someone said that we were getting a shower of blessings.

It’s too early to tell what will be the role María Corina will have in the ongoing political situation the country finds itself in right now, but for her supporters that showed up, this was a clear sign that good things are about to come. 

The landmark Casa Vega Mexican restaurant in Sherman Oaks was honored in May with a sign proclaiming its corner of Ventura Boulevard as “Casa Vega Square.”

Mayor Karen Bass was there, and so was City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, whose district is on the other side of the San Fernando Valley. The event was perhaps more notable for who wasn’t there: Nithya Raman, the mayoral candidate whose City Council district includes Casa Vega.

To Raman’s critics, the episode represents what they say is one of her biggest flaws as an elected official: not tending to the parochial needs of her district. Bass has sounded that theme repeatedly during the mayoral election campaign, including calling Raman “contemptuous of her constituents” during their televised debate on NBC4 and Telemundo 52 Oct. 13.

Raman called that “a lie.” Some of Raman’s constituents beg to differ, saying her office has seemed unwilling to help with a broad array of city services, including fixing broken sidewalks and removing homeless encampments.

“She’s just been MIA,” said Jessica Lewis, who owns Dragonfly Cycle and Train, a fitness studio in Sherman Oaks. “I would send photos of what I was experiencing, like human feces at my front door, encampments at the back door … all those emails just fell on deaf ears.”

Raman spokesperson Stella Stahl disputed that contention, saying the council office has “a proactive constituent service team.”

“Our approach is to listen to those who live and work in a neighborhood, then use every tool the city has to fix what they’ve told us is broken,” Stahl said.

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, left, and challenger Nithya Raman during their debate before the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn.

(David Butow / For The Times)

Raman co-presented the motion to designate Vega Square, along with Councilmember Rodriguez, according to documents filed in March. Raman was unable to attend the ceremony because of scheduling conflicts, Stahl said, but other Raman staffers were present.

Councilmember Rodriguez said her staff spearheaded the designation, part of her broader work to “enshrining the many positive contributions that Latino families have made throughout our city.”

To be sure, Raman has constituents who are big fans. Marissa Rodriguez said she wasn’t aware of the web of licenses and city permits she would have to obtain before she could open her wine shop in Studio City, Dia Natural Wine. The process felt monumental, she said, and nearly impossible to complete on her own.

She reached out to Raman’s team, and said the council office’s help was integral to Dia Natural Wine making its debut in 2022.

“I thought I could do this myself, and at a certain point, I hit a ton of roadblocks at the city,” Marissa Rodriguez said. “They were extremely helpful in just sort of helping me navigate who I needed to talk to.”

Tyler Simmons, who owns a coffee wine bar, Reunion & Co., on Hyperion Avenue in the Franklin Hills neighborhood of Los Feliz, said Raman and her team have always been receptive to his community’s needs.

In response to complaints of speeding, he said, Raman’s office helped get four speed tables — a flatter, wider version of speed bumps — installed in the intersection near his business last year.

“She’s done her best,” Simmons said. “I think there’s larger systemic issues at play within the city … it’s bigger than a councilperson, unfortunately. I’m hoping, if she wins, she’ll help change all that.”

Sidewalks in disrepair along the 1300 block of Ventura Blvd on Friday, Oct. 16, 2026, in Sherman Oaks, California. Christy Vega, owner of Casa Vega, claims that Nithya Raman, Councilmember, Fourth District, has been unhelpful and ignored her requests to get certain city services, including street sidewalk repairs and addressing homelessness in her parking lot. (Gary Coronado/For The Times)

A street in disrepair along the 1300 block of Ventura Blvd on Friday, Oct. 16, 2026, in Sherman Oaks, California. Christy Vega, owner of Casa Vega, claims that Nithya Raman, Councilmember, Fourth District, has been unhelpful and ignored her requests to get certain city services, including street sidewalk repairs and addressing homelessness in her parking lot. (Gary Coronado/For The Times)

On the other hand, Casa Vega owner Christy Vega rattles off a long list of complaints when discussing Raman and her office. She said she’s spent years seeking help from Raman’s staff, including to make repairs on sidewalks and pavement outside the restaurant, and to remove a homeless encampment that sprang up during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“With Raman’s office, they viewed me as a nuisance rather than someone who’s trying to keep her employees safe,” Vega said.

Vega is supporting Bass in the Nov. 3 election, and she sits on on the board of Thrive LA, an advocacy group backed by business and community leaders that is running ads against Raman in the mayoral race and also ran anti-Raman ads during her 2024 City Council reelection campaign.

Vega says she’s not supporting Raman because of her experience seeking help from Raman’s council office for problems her business encountered, including cars being broken into in the restaurant’s parking lot and muggings on the street out front. One employee was stabbed at a nearby bus stop, and another fell because of the potholes in the alley behind her restaurant, she said.

At one point, Vega said, she called Raman’s office to ask for help in fixing the curb near her restaurant that was damaged during a street racing incident.

Vega said she was told by Raman’s office that she would need to fix the curb herself, meaning she’d have to pull permits, hire a contractor and pay out of pocket for the repairs Vega said she pushed back, and a staff member suggested she move to another district.

Raman’s office didn’t comment on that assertion, but Stahl said that the Bureau of Street Services isn’t funded to repair damaged sidewalks, and the responsibility falls to the adjacent property owners.

“Every constituent who contacts our office deserves a response, and we take Ms. Vega’s concerns seriously. People often reach out to us on their hardest days,” Stahl said. “Unfortunately, we weren’t able to accommodate it at that time. Telling constituents no to basic service requests is frustrating for residents and for us, and it’s part of why the council member ran for office.”

Councilmember Rodriguez, who represents the northeast San Fernando Valley, said she’s stepped in to help business owners in Raman’s district over the years. Most recently, she helped Vega with permitting issues on the restaurant’s outdoor patio.

A sign for L.A. Councilmember Nithya Raman’s district office on Ventura Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley.

(Gary Coronado / For The Times)

“I’ve heard some of the same frustrations and stories from many people. … It reflects a pattern,” said Rodriguez, who is backing Bass for mayor. “If this is your audition [for mayor] based on your performance in your own district, I think it’s an example of the responsiveness of what people can expect.”

Sophia Brodetsky, who owns the Valley Inn restaurant with her husband in Sherman Oaks, isn’t happy with either mayoral candidate, but said Bass’ office has been more receptive to her needs.

Brodetsky has endured robberies, property damage and homeless encampments that have disrupted her restaurant that dates back to 1947, she said.

“They’re running for office right now. They promise you an arm and a leg, but they don’t deliver,” Brodetsky said.

According to Vega and Lewis, owner of the Dragonfly gym, a number of Sherman Oaks business owners reached out to Bass after she was elected mayor in 2022 to voice their concerns about Raman’s stewardship of the district.

The mayor met with a group of business owners in the area in 2023 and she convened weekly safety meetings between business owners, district leaders and local law enforcement to address their concerns, Vega said.

Vega said it was Bass and Rodriguez who helped her navigate the permit process when she sought to open an outdoor patio for her restaurant last year.

“I wasn’t a supporter of hers. I wasn’t someone that she owed any favors to,” Vega said of Bass. “She answered the phone immediately, and she heard the panic of my voice and my tears, and she said, ‘I’m on it.’”

Lewis, however, said she and others felt betrayed by Bass when she endorsed Raman for reelection in 2024.

“That just felt like a huge slap in the face,” Lewis said.

Lewis said she plans to vote for Bass, but reluctantly. Keeping her business afloat has felt nearly impossible at times, she said, but getting help from both the council and the mayor’s office has been an even tougher hurdle.

“The council office would blame the mayor’s office. The mayor’s office would blame the county,” Lewis said. “It was like everyone was just pointing fingers at someone else, and no one was actually doing anything about it.”

EXPLAINER

Uncertainty remains over key positions after student-led movement deals blow to longtime leader’s political dominance.

A student-led opposition movement has emerged victorious in Serbia’s snap parliamentary election, ending former President Aleksandar Vucic’s long grip on power.

The Student List’s win on Sunday followed nearly two years of youth-led protests triggered by the death of 16 people in a railway station canopy collapse in the city of Novi Sad in 2024.

Demonstrations demanding accountability quickly evolved into a wider political campaign against alleged corruption and capture of democratic institutions. In its electoral programme presented in September, the Student List said fighting corruption and organised crime were among its main priorities. It also pledged to raise living standards, boost employment, improve education, ensure media freedom and the independence of Serbia’s institutions.

After declaring victory on Sunday, the movement also said it would work to improve relations with neighbouring countries following a period of tension during Vucic’s more than decade-long rule.

Here’s what you should know:

What are the latest results?

The Republic Election Commission (RIK) announced on Monday that the Student List had won 52.54 percent of the vote, based on 8,077 processed polling stations out of 8,392.

The figures also showed the United Serbia list, led by Vucic’s Serbian Progressive Party, had secured 39.29 percent of ballots cast.

Voter turnout stood at 68.78 percent, a record high in more than 30 years, according to RIK data on Sunday.

What’s next?

While the final election result is not yet known, the figures mean that the Student List will be able to form a majority in Serbia’s 250-seat parliament on its own.

The bloc is projected to win 140 seats, well ahead of the 126 mandates required for a majority, while United Serbia is expected to have 103.

The remaining seats are set to go to the Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians (three); the Albanian political bloc (two); and the Rasim Ljajc-Ljudski and SDA Sandzak lists, with one each.

Who could be the new prime minister?

Unlike United Serbia, which named Vucic as its candidate for prime minister before the election, the Student List made no such announcement during the campaign.

Since its formal creation, the list has avoided highlighting single candidates, eager to emphasise the collective nature of the movement that brought together academics, doctors and workers.

During the campaign, the movement was led by Ilija Srdanovic, a professor at the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Novi Sad. The cardiologist is now seen as the most likely candidate to become the next prime minister, but it remains unclear who will take over key ministries, including those of internal affairs, finance and justice.

When will the new government be formed?

This depends on when the final election results will be announced and when parliament convenes.

The new National Assembly must be established within 30 days of the final results being announced.

A government must be formed within 90 days after that – but the Student List’s clear majority removes the need for lengthy coalition talks.

What about the president?

Vucic has dominated Serbia’s politics – first as prime minister and then as president – since 2014.

Following his call for the snap parliamentary vote last month and his resignation as president, the post has been held temporarily by Ana Brnabic, the president of the National Assembly.

Brnabic is obliged to call for an extraordinary presidential election which must be held no later than three months after the end of Vucic’s mandate.

Vucic resigned on September 27 , so the deadline to hold a vote is December 27 .

The president of Serbia is elected directly by the citizens, not by the representatives in the assembly, but the post is largely ceremonial.

My fellow Californians, let us begin with an intelligence test.

Our great state has been voting since early October. Folks have been mailing in their ballots, dropping them off at collection sites and even showing up at in-person centers.

So raise your hand if you know — or even just assume — elections officials have been doing something with those ballots as they arrive, other than just throwing them in a pile.

Congratulations, hand-raisers. You are now officially smarter than the entire U.S. Department of Justice. Or at least more honest.

On Sunday, the lawyers for the DOJ managed to get a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to convene a rare emergency hearing because, OMG, people are actually voting and California is processing ballots!

Who could have possibly known?

Even though it’s literally law that counties count ballots in a timely manner; even though it’s happened in every other election; even though the daily tallies of how many ballots are received are posted online by the secretary of State; even though there are live camera feeds of ballots being processed in Los Angeles — somehow the U.S. government didn’t know this normal election procedure was happening, it claimed.

It wasn’t until late Friday, when DOJ lawyers read a filing by California DOJ lawyers laying out that L.A. is, like, actually opening mail-in ballots, that the U.S. DOJ realized that ballots are being opened. About 600,000 so far in L.A.

That seemed “absurd on its face,” argued California Deputy Solicitor Gen. Samuel P. Siegel.

Armed with this previously unknowable information, Trump’s lawyers were begging the appeals court to take their flimsy, constitutionally questionable case away from the judge who had already promised to rule on their requests on Tuesday and immediately give them an injunction to further their election conspiracy claims.

Most folks are aware of the background of this drama, but here’s the quick recap.

President Trump for years has falsely but incessantly claimed that Democrats are colluding with undocumented people to help them sneak into the country in exchange for illegally voting in mass numbers for Democrats. This is not happening, but the president is obsessed with this conspiracy, so much so that he is weaponizing the Department of Justice to attack states, California in particular, in a bid to prove his delusions correct, and perhaps as a bonus, undermine democracy.

A few months ago, the DOJ came to the state of California and claimed it had a list of 190,000 people it believed were illegally registered to vote. That list has since dropped to 20,000. But with all the investigative power of the government hard at work on this, only 28 people in California have been indicted by the feds during this no-holds-barred effort, and it looks as though not all of those cases will hold up.

Undeterred, Trump lawyers tried to get a California judge to order the state (and Los Angeles) to set aside ballots that it claims to have doubts about. They asked the judge in that case for a temporary restraining order forcing L.A. County to do that, and the judge agreed to rule on that request early next week, in an already-expedited fashion.

But then the Trump lawyers learned about all that ballot processing and demanded the judge instead rule by Saturday afternoon — though the reasoning here seems iffy. When the federal judge assigned to the case didn’t rule by Saturday, an absurd ask that didn’t even allow enough time for lawyers to file briefs, the feds ran to the 9th Circuit, claiming that failing to rule on Saturday was a de facto denial of their request.

Basically, it seems the Trump lawyers were arguing two things. First, that once ballots are counted, they can’t be uncounted, and if there are illegal ballots, that hurts all voters. Sure, OK.

But again, there is no evidence this is happening in any widespread fashion, and the lists of potential vote scofflaws compiled by the government have been shown to be error-ridden. They may also involve the use of a mysterious non-government “third party” to gather the information that not even the Trump lawyers could identify Sunday.

DOJ lawyers also claimed they had just learned that once a ballot is taken out of the envelope, there was no way to reconnect that ballot to the voter who cast it — because our votes are anonymous. Therefore, the 20,000 ballots had to be grabbed before they were separated from the documents inside.

The lawyers did not explain why they needed to know how a person voted to confirm they illegally voted. The envelopes are retained by county elections officials, but apparently the Trump lawyers feel it’s critical to tie them to particular votes.

But here’s the thing — there are simply not enough illegal voters to sway a Los Angeles election, or a California one for that matter. We have a system to ferrets out problematic ballots right now, and a separate criminal system that can hold illegal voters accountable. Two weeks before an election isn’t a time to demand ballots be withheld — unless you’re trying to undermine trust.

The appellate judges did not seem impressed by the federal laywers’ arguments, questioning more than once if the 9th Circuit even had jurisdiction since states are in charge of elections, not the federal government. There was even some reading of the 10th Amendment. You know, the one the don’t-tread-on-me types love that reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States.”

We should expect a ruling sooner rather than later, but the real question remains, why the emergency? The DOJ is involved in another voting lawsuit in Washington, D.C., where the plaintiffs, led by the UCLA Voting Rights Project, have asked for a restraining order of their own stopping the government from creating national lists of who it thinks should vote, and using janky, secretive information gathering to do it.

It’s also true that the original case was reassigned from a Trump-appointed judge to one appointed by Bill Clinton. There has been speculation the switch may have been viewed unfavorably by the feds, though the Clinton-appointed judge, David O. Carter, was given the case because of his experience in the subject matter.

The D.C. restraining order could be decided in the next few days. I’m not saying the cases are related, or that the judge should or does matter, but the Trump DOJ’s argument in California is basically that its list of 20,000 is really solid, reliable information.

If the D.C. federal judge rules first that the government information gathering is potentially both an overreach and sloppy, it makes it that much harder for another judge, or the appellate court for that matter, to rule that the list is so critical that they must step in.

So maybe there is an emergency.

Just not the one the government is claiming.

WASHINGTON — At first glance, President Trump’s decision to relax U.S. sanctions on Russia despite its continuing invasion of Ukraine was a dramatic break from principles that guided American foreign policy for most of a century.

Since the end of World War II, U.S.-Russian relations have oscillated between hostility and friendship, but one element was consistent: When Russia tried to take over one if its neighbors, the United States pushed back.

This time, though, the United States appeared to favor the aggressor, not the victim.

“The Trump administration has abandoned any pretense of being an honest broker,” Richard N. Haass, a former senior State Department official under then-President George W. Bush, wrote last week. “It has gone all in on Russia’s side.”

The break from long-standing tradition was real, but it should not have been entirely surprising.

Trump has long expressed admiration for Russia’s autocratic leader, Vladimir Putin — part of a syndrome one of his former aides, Fiona Hill, has called “autocrat envy.”

“He wants to rule like them,” she said, referring to the president’s bromances with Putin, China’s Xi Jinping and other strongmen.

Meanwhile, Trump often expresses disdain for democratically elected leaders of smaller countries, and he reserves a special loathing for the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky.

He has repeatedly said Zelensky was foolish to resist Russia’s 2022 invasion because, in his view, the larger country is almost certain to win the war.

“Russia is a massive country,” he said this month. “Even if it loses a million soldiers, it still has a million more. Ukraine doesn’t have that kind of manpower.”

Moreover, Trump has long believed U.S. companies could reap an economic bonanza from Russia’s resource-rich economy. As a real estate magnate, he spent 30 years seeking deals in Moscow; in 2008, his son Donald Jr. said Russians had provided the Trump Organization “a lot of our assets.”

In the short run, the president hopes to boost Republican prospects in next week’s midterm elections by buying diesel fuel from Russia — a move aimed at lowering prices at the cost of bolstering Putin’s war economy. (It hasn’t worked; the price of diesel has risen slightly since Trump’s decision.)

But he has a longer-term goals as well. He has long believed better relations between the United States and Russia would be good for both countries, no matter who’s in power in Moscow. And he has long yearned openly for a Nobel Peace Prize — and one way might be to arrange a durable ceasefire in Ukraine.

All those factors have led Trump to overturn two major elements of traditional U.S. foreign policy.

Instead of supporting Ukraine, the victim of a foreign military invasion, he’s been pressing the Zelensky to accept Putin’s demands for territory.

“President Trump still wants a personal relationship with Putin, and he wants to change the nature of the bilateral U.S.-Russian relationship. Ukraine is in the way. So what President Trump is trying to do is get Ukraine out of the way. … President Trump wants Zelensky to capitulate,” Hill said.

“Zelensky has to want to settle this war, and if he doesn’t, I think it’s going to be a very bad thing,” Trump said last week.

As he issued that advice, Ukraine’s army was experiencing interruptions with three forms of U.S. military help: Starlink, the communications system it uses to guide its anti-drone missiles; U.S.-provided early radar warnings of Russian missile attacks; and supplies of Patriot anti-missile weapons. U.S. officials claimed the three incidents were not deliberate — but to Ukrainians, they felt like a warning.

Meanwhile, instead of putting pressure on Putin through the traditional means of economic sanctions, Trump said he was trying to entice the Russian leader to negotiate by giving him preemptive rewards.

“I am in the process of negotiating Peace in the war between Russia and Ukraine, and don’t want to do anything that will drive, foolishly, Russia away from the bargaining table,” he explained on Truth Social. “Great progress is being made.”

But signs of that progress were hard to find. In St. Petersburg last week, Trump’s personal envoy, Steve Witkoff, presented Putin with a ceasefire proposal that the Americans negotiated with Ukraine and European countries. A top Putin aide dismissed the document, saying it “contained little of real value.”

Instead, the Russian president offered to increase Russian fertilizer exports to U.S. farmers. And he said he hoped Trump would join him at a summit meeting in China with Xi.

Ukraine has not been invited to that meeting, which prompted Haass to resurrect an old diplomatic aphorism: “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.”

Haass and other veterans of U.S. negotiations with Russia fear that Putin is merely stalling for time and pocketing Trump’s concessions while he tries to grind Ukraine down with missile attacks on Kyiv and other cities.

“If Trump and Witkoff were serious, they would give Putin 15 days to say yes to their ceasefire proposal — and if he doesn’t, they would impose new and tougher sanctions,” said Steven Pifer, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. “There are still a lot of things they can do that would put Russia in a corner.”

But that has not been Trump’s inclination so far.

The irony, Hill said, is that even if Trump gets his way, that may not produce the victory he appears to expect.

“Putin and Trump are not the only actors in this,” she said. “Ukraine is not anybody’s to give. Its not Putin’s to have, and it’s not Zelensky’s. … This whole war is about Ukrainians wanting the right to determine their own future. It’s not Putin’s right or anyone else’s. It’s not Donald Trump’s to give away.”

At 80, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has pulled off an extraordinary political victory. After losing the first round to Flavio Bolsonaro, son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, by 47 percent to 45 percent, Lula defied the odds to secure a stunning second-round victory, with 51.8 percent of the vote against Bolsonaro’s 48.2 percent.

His triumph confounded every pre-election poll and crowned a dramatic campaign revival that few had anticipated.

Lula’s victory in Latin America’s largest country does more than halt the far right’s return to power in Brazil. It breaks a succession of right-wing electoral victories across the region and deals a major blow to United States President Donald Trump’s increasingly interventionist agenda in the Western Hemisphere.

When Bolsonaro unexpectedly defeated Lula in the first round, the result sent shockwaves across Brazil and beyond. For the government, the defeat was particularly startling given its strong socioeconomic record. What followed was an extraordinary three-week political mobilisation that transformed the sluggish first-round campaign of Lula’s Workers’ Party into an existential confrontation over the future of democracy and sovereignty in Brazil.

The economic record was hardly that of a government heading for defeat. Brazil’s economy grew by a cumulative 9.2 percent between 2023 and 2025, compared with an average of just 5.6 percent among its South American neighbours. Unemployment fell from 9.3 percent in 2022 to a historic low of 5.4 percent in 2026.

Brazil also exited the United Nations Hunger Map in 2025, after having returned to it under the Bolsonaro senior administration. In the Amazon, deforestation fell to its lowest level in decades, a sharp reversal of the trend under his predecessor.

Not everything has been rosy under the Lula administration. Millions of Brazilians have remained trapped in credit-card debt, struggling with extremely high interest rates, while an explosion of online gambling has devastated the livelihoods of families. The run-off result sent a clear signal that there was social discontent.

Lula responded with unusually bold measures: a sweeping debt-relief initiative and restrictions on online betting, as well as expanded social benefits, fuel subsidies, and the transition from a six-day to a five-day working week. These policies sought to reconnect the government’s macroeconomic achievements with the everyday economic anxieties of Brazilian voters.

Bolsonaro offered a radically different vision for Brazil: sweeping spending cuts, privatisations, lower taxes and, above all, an iron-fisted response to crime and insecurity. His proposals included building five maximum-security prisons modelled on El Salvador’s notorious penitentiary system and authorising lethal force against heavily armed criminals.

Bolsonaro also pledged to pardon his father, sentenced to 27 years for plotting to overturn the 2022 election, and to grant clemency to those convicted over the January 8, 2023 assault on Brazil’s democratic institutions. For his supporters, this represented an opportunity to reverse what they considered judicial persecution. For his opponents, it threatened to rehabilitate the attempted coup and undermine judicial independence.

Lula’s campaign came back re-energised, with many young Brazilians mobilising at the grassroots level. The campaign was able to overcome even algorithmic bias by social media giants like Meta, which favoured Bolsonaro.

Ultimately, the election became a battle not only over Brazil’s democracy but also its sovereignty. Trump’s administration has intervened conspicuously in Brazilian politics throughout Lula’s term, imposing punitive tariffs, sanctioning a Supreme Court justice involved in Jair Bolsonaro’s prosecution and openly embracing his son’s candidacy.

In May, Trump received Flavio Bolsonaro in the Oval Office. Two days later, Secretary of State Marco Rubio designated Brazil’s two largest crime organisations as foreign terrorist organisations, a measure Flavio had publicly requested.

These designations carry implications extending far beyond electoral politics. They potentially open the door to US military operations on Brazilian territory under Washington’s expanding war on so-called “narcoterrorism”. The world saw how one such foreign terrorist designation enabled the US to intervene militarily in Venezuela and abduct its sitting president.

Whereas Trump seeks to draw Latin America’s largest country into Washington’s expanding system of hemispheric military dominance, Lula has defended Brazil’s strategic autonomy, insisting that cooperation against organised crime must respect national sovereignty.

He framed the election as a choice between a sovereign Brazil charting its own course and one subordinated to Washington’s geopolitical agenda. Sunday’s election result shows that the Brazilian people have made their choice.

Importantly, Lula’s victory may mark a turning point in Latin America’s rightward shift. Since Trump’s return to the White House, the right has scored a string of electoral victories in Honduras, Chile, and Bolivia, among others. But Lula’s re-election suggests that its momentum may be faltering.

The result comes just ahead of the US midterms and could deliver a significant setback to the strength of Trump’s leadership in the Americas. In Argentina, President Javier Milei — who regularly attacks Lula and threw all his weight behind Bolsonaro — has been sliding in the polls ahead of next year’s presidential election. In Chile, President Jose Antonio Kast has suffered an even more precipitous collapse in public support.

Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum, for her part, has likely breathed a sigh of relief. A Lula defeat would have left her increasingly isolated in a region gravitating towards Mexico’s northern neighbour. Instead, Latin America’s two most populous countries and largest economies will remain firmly on the left for the foreseeable future.

It is too early to declare the region’s rightward turn over. But Lula’s victory raises the possibility that the wave has already crested. Brazil will not be joining Trump’s Shield of the Americas, and while the “Donroe Doctrine” remains a threat, its moment of greatest ascendancy may already be behind it.

Lula’s victory is a vindication of a lifetime spent fighting for society’s most marginalised and disenfranchised. And its significance extends far beyond Brazil’s borders. For defenders of democracy, multilateralism, international law, environmental protection and the sovereignty of the Global South, it sends a powerful message: the far right’s advance is neither inevitable nor irreversible. Not in Brazil. Not anywhere.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

From judicial reform to conscription and the Palestinians, here’s where candidates stand on the key issues dominating the campaign.

For an election often billed as the most consequential in Israel’s history, many issues that outsiders might expect to divide the candidates are, in fact, points of consensus among the frontrunners.

None of the leading contenders in Tuesday’s election has questioned the case for unleashing a genocide on Gaza in response to the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023, or the wars that have followed, including the one on Iran. Nor have most candidates for the premiership offered a clear path towards implementing a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict that was envisaged in the 1990s, or towards an equitable settlement with the Palestinians whose territory Israel occupies.

Instead, the points of division centre almost exclusively on Israel’s internal politics and how voters see the future character of their country. The choice is between the hard-right government of incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, unconstrained by the judicial oversight he has railed against, and the future outlined by the disparate coalition of his opponents, which promises a broadly similar policy agenda but within the confines of the law and without the more extreme elements of the current governing coalition.

So, what have the leading candidates said about the main issues?

The two-state solution

Despite having committed to working towards a two-state solution in the 1990s’ Oslo Accords, with many of their allies adjusting their policies towards Israel to reflect that commitment, few of the contenders in Tuesday’s election appear ready to honour it. Instead, their government stands widely accused of abetting the settler pogroms now raging across the West Bank, while supporting continued construction in the occupied territory in defiance of international law. This includes the E1 settlement plan, which ministers openly boast will bury the two-state solution.

Here’s what some of the contenders have said:

• Likud party leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “We are going to fulfill our promise that there will be no Palestinian state; this place belongs to us.”
• Yashar party Gadi Eisenkot: “My position on the Palestinian issue has remained consistent: The principle of two states for two peoples is a mistake.”

• Religious Zionist party leader, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich: The next government should “destroy the idea of an Arab terror state; finally, formally and practically cancel the cursed Oslo Accords and get on the path of sovereignty, while encouraging migration both from Gaza and from Judea and Samaria [occupied West Bank]. There is no other long-term solution.”
• The Democrats leader Yair Golan: “We need to understand that Israeli society is still in trauma from October 7. To make the galactic leap from the current situation to a two-state solution is impossible. It’s not enough to return to old formulas, we need to adjust our plans, our ideas, our perceptions. My concept is about civil separation and security responsibility.”

Haredi draft

The conscription of Israel’s growing ultra-Orthodox, or Haredi, population into the army is an issue largely unique to Israel, and one whose prominence has grown as the human and economic costs of the wars in which many refuse to take part have mounted.

Netanyahu has continued to rely on the two main Haredi parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism (UTJ), for support in the Knesset. They have in turn insisted that he pass legislation overturning the Supreme Court ruling of June 25, 2024 and offering ultra-Orthodox youth a legislative shield against conscription.

Here is what leaders have said:

• Netanyahu after the arrest this month of about 40 Haredim – plural for Haredi – for avoiding the draft: “We must preserve the world of Torah because it preserved us. These arrests are a deliberate attempt to harm the process of drafting Haredim without coercion.”
• Shas leader Aryeh Deri: “There will be no government in Israel with Shas’s support or participation unless the status of yeshiva [seminary] students is regulated.”
• Eisenkot: “That is what the upcoming election is about: Netanyahu’s draft-dodging government, or a government of conscription led by me.”
• Yisrael Beiteinu party leader Avigdor Liberman: “Netanyahu is issuing an impassioned call against the arrest of draft evaders, once again proving that he is a hostage to the draft evaders – without them, he has no government.”

Judicial overhaul

Days after taking office in 2022, Netanyahu’s government unveiled a plan to curb the powers of Israel’s courts, which triggered months of mass protests in 2023 before the war on Gaza paused the fight.

The coalition has passed measures reshaping how judges are appointed, while in July a law stripped Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara of many of her powers, allowing the government to reject her legal advice and choose its own lawyers in court. Both are due to take effect after the election and most of the opposition has promised to reverse them.

The government has also boycotted Chief Justice Isaac Amit. Critics call it a deliberate assault on democracy by a prime minister embroiled in a long-running corruption trial of his own, while Justice Minister Yariv Levin says the election is a historic chance to finish the job.

Here are some of the contenders’ statements:

• Netanyahu: “Democracy is the rule of the people. It’s ‘we the people,’ not ‘we the judges … In Israel, [judicial reform] was completely derailed, and we have to bring it back. We don’t have to crush the judiciary, but we have to make sure it doesn’t crush the legislative branch, the Knesset or the executive branch of government.”
• Together alliance co-leader, former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett: “I want to be clear. We will cancel all the legal revolution laws immediately upon the convening of the Knesset.”

October 7 inquiry

While the killing of more than 74,000 people in Gaza has been entirely absent during the campaign of the two main alliances, questions over political accountability for security failures ahead of and during the Hamas-led attack in 2023 have dominated this election cycle.

Inquiries into failings by the security services ahead of and during the Hamas-led attack led to the resignation of Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi, announced in January 2025. They also fed a long, drawn-out and bitter fight with the prime minister that ended with the departure of Shin Bet head Ronen Bar in June last year.

However, despite recent news reports suggesting that Netanyahu was warned by both the UAE and Egypt ahead of the attack, and longstanding criticism of his policy of keeping Hamas in power in Gaza as a bulwark against the Palestinian Authority, no similar inquiry into his own alleged failings before October 7 has happened.

Here are some of the leaders’ statements:

• Eisenkot: “Netanyahu was warned and did not act. A State Commission of Inquiry that we will establish will investigate the disaster. The heads of the systems took responsibility and resigned long ago. We will not allow the master of evaders to escape the truth.”
• Netanyahu: The prime minister told the Knesset that his government “wants to establish a commission of inquiry with as broad public support as possible” and not one dismissed by what he claimed is “at least half the country”. The proposed government-led inquiry never reached its final reading and has been deferred to the next session.

Aleksandar Vucic, who has shaped Serbia’s political life for more than a decade, has lost snap parliamentary elections to a student-led movement that led protests against him for almost two years.

After a heated race, Vucic conceded defeat to the Student List in Sunday’s elections, which saw voter turnout reach its highest level in more than 30 years.

“It is clear that we have lost these elections,” the leader of the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) told supporters after a sample of votes showed his electoral list was expected to win 105 seats in Serbia’s 250-member parliament, compared with 135 to 140 for the Student List.

The student movement emerged after 16 people were killed when a train station canopy collapsed in the city of Novi Sad on November 1, 2024.

The youth-led protests grew into a broader wave of social unrest and evolved into the Student List political platform, which promised to tackle corruption, depoliticise public institutions and restore citizens’ rights.

During the election campaign, the movement was led by Ilija Srdanovic, a professor at the Faculty of Medicine in Novi Sad.

Vucic referred to the demonstrators, who included university professors, doctors and workers, as “blockaders” and accused them of seeking to destabilise Serbia.

A former ultranationalist, Vucic cultivated an image of a pragmatic leader who maintained ties with the European Union, Russia and China as well as, increasingly, with Israel in recent years.

Born in Belgrade in 1970, the nearly 2-metre-tall (6.5ft-tall) Vucic graduated from the University of Belgrade’s faculty of law. He entered politics in 1993, joining the ultranationalist Serbian Radical Party led by Vojislav Seselj.

His political record during the 1990s was marked by nationalist rhetoric. One of his most remembered statements came in Serbia’s parliament in July 1995, nine days after the Srebrenica genocide: “Kill one Serb, and we will kill 100 Muslims.” Vucic made the comments during a debate on possible NATO strikes against positions held by the Army of Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Vucic’s political mentor at the time, Seselj, was sentenced in 2018 to 10 years in prison by the Appeals Chamber of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals for persecution, deportation and forcible transfer of non-Serbs during the wars in the Balkans in the 1990s.

Aleksandar Seselj, the son of Vojislav Seselj, was on Vucic’s electoral list in Sunday’s elections.

After a split within the Serbian Radical Party, Vucic and Tomislav Nikolic founded the SNS in 2008. The new party sought to move closer to mainstream European politics.

Safeta Bisevac, a Serbian journalist who has long followed Vucic’s political career, believes he was initially less popular than Nikolic, who appeared closer to common citizens.

“Vucic lagged far behind in popularity at the time and was essentially the organiser of the newly formed party,” Bisevac told Al Jazeera.

In 2012, the SNS came to power promising to fight corruption, organised crime and abuses committed under previous governments.

One of the most prominent cases was the December 2012 arrest of businessman Miroslav Miskovic and his son Marko on suspicion of financial irregularities and tax evasion. After years of legal proceedings, both were acquitted and the state paid them compensation.

Bisevac said the results of the fight against corruption remained modest while the authorities expanded their control over institutions, the media and political life.

Vucic served as first deputy prime minister from 2012 to 2014 before ascending to the post of prime minister in 2014. Three years later, he became president of Serbia and won re-election in 2022. His term was due to run until 2027.

Under pressure from the student-led protests, he resigned in September and called early elections. Although the Serbian presidency is constitutionally limited, Vucic has retained a dominant influence over his party and state policy.

“He made many promises and fulfilled few of them, but in the meantime, he established almost complete control over the state apparatus,” Bisevac said.

Economic growth and the debate over living standards

The Serbian economy has expanded significantly since Vucic took Serbia’s political centre stage in 2012. Unemployment dropped from 26 percent to 8 to 9 percent while nominal gross domestic product nearly tripled, reaching about 90 billion euros ($101bn), according to official data cited by the Reuters news agency.

Annual foreign direct investment inflows rose from about 800 million euros ($896m) in 2012 to a record 5.2 billion euros ($5.8bn) in 2024.

A network of modern motorways has also been built.

However, rising wages have not necessarily translated into a proportional improvement in living standards. The rising cost of living and public debt remain important elements of the debate over the government’s economic record.

Political scientist Dusko Radosavljevic said “the students simply gave a voice to the justified anger of citizens.”

Speaking to Al Jazeera about Vucic’s policies, Radosavljevic said the past decade was characterised by “systematic pressure and the destruction of social institutions”.

“State intelligence services have spent less time on their actual duties and more time monitoring political opponents while critical thinking has been pushed out of the public media,” Radosavljevic said.

Judge questions the Trump administration’s efforts to exert greater influence over elections process ahead of upcoming midterm vote.

A United States appeals court has expressed doubt over the Department of Justice’s lawsuit against California, which seeks to force the state to throw out mail-in ballots it has deemed likely to go to non-citizens.

Circuit Judge Mark Bennett said on Sunday that the three-judge panel would issue a decision as soon as possible, following a rare weekend oral argument.

But Bennett, an appointee of Republican President Donald Trump, voiced concern that the lawsuit would not hold up to scrutiny.

He pointed to the Elections Clause in the US Constitution, which allows states — not the federal government — to administer elections.

“It seems to me that you want us to issue an injunction that is entirely inconsistent with the law that the California legislature has adopted pursuant to the Elections Clause,” Bennett told Justice Department lawyer Matthew Donnelly. “How can we do that?”

The case is part of a larger effort under the right-wing Trump administration to crack down on alleged non-citizen voting ahead of the crucial November 3 midterm elections.

On October 15, less than three weeks before the midterm races, the Justice Department issued a complaint targeting California, a left-wing stronghold.

It asked the federal court system to set aside thousands of mail-in ballots that the government says were sent to “likely non-citizens”.

The lawsuit indicates the Trump administration sent California officials a list of 20,000 names it believes are not eligible to vote, based on citizenship.

Trump has often pushed the discredited claim that the Democratic Party is benefiting from widespread voting by non-citizens.

California has long been one of the targets for his election misinformation.

Earlier this year, Trump denounced the state’s primaries after right-wing candidates like Los Angeles mayoral hopeful Spencer Pratt felt short of his expectations.

“There’s BIG cheating by the Dumocrats in California,” he wrote on social media at the time.

He then announced that the state would be under investigation from the US attorney’s office.

Trump’s efforts have caused alarm, with critics accusing him of seeking to dampen voter turnout through intimidation and confusion.

The midterms will decide which party controls the US Congress, as well as key state and local positions.

Polls, however, predict steep odds for Republican candidates, given Trump’s souring approval ratings and dissatisfaction with issues like the cost of living and the US-Israeli war against Iran.

Voting rights advocates have warned that the Trump administration has not publicly revealed how it has compiled its list of non-citizen voters, and whistleblower reports have cast doubt on the accuracy of such lists.

In response to the October 15 lawsuit, California has countered that it has strong safeguards to prevent non-citizens from voting.

It also said that the Justice Department’s claims are based on dubious data.

“This is a sad, desperate attempt by Trump to use his politicized Justice Department to try to suppress California voters just three weeks before Election Day,” California Governor Gavin Newsom said in a statement earlier this month.

“We will continue to carry out free and fair elections in the Golden State — and call out this authoritarian as he tries every play in the dictator’s playbook.”

Leftist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has defeated right-wing Senator Flavio Bolsonaro in Brazil’s contentious presidential race, pulling off a remarkable comeback after a first-round loss that galvanised the country’s political right.

Shortly after 9:00pm Brasilia time on Sunday (00:00 GMT), Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court called the race for Lula, who had earned more than 51 percent of the vote. More than 64 million ballots were cast for the incumbent.

Bolsonaro, meanwhile, netted 48 percent, or north of 59 million ballots. More than 4 million votes separated the two candidates, with the final votes still being counted.

With his victory, Lula has made history. No other politician in modern Brazilian history has lost the first round of a presidential election only to win the second round.

“A historic turning point for democracy,” Edinho Silva, the head of Lula’s Workers’ Party, posted on social media, along with a video of supporters chanting, “Ole, ole, ole, ole, ola! Lula, Lula!”

Still, the vote process was marred by allegations of voter suppression after reports emerged that public transport in some areas had been suspended.

Lula’s allies accused Bolsonaro’s supporters of reducing bus availability, in an attempt dampen the president’s working-class base.

Heavy rains, meanwhile, affected southern areas considered to be Bolsonaro strongholds.

The campaigns of both Lula and Bolsonaro ultimately petitioned the Supreme Court for a voting extension. Polls across the country were kept open two hours later than expected, until 7pm Brasilia time (22:00 GMT).

Sunday’s victory means Lula will retain the presidency of Latin America’s largest country, denying a crucial victory to the region’s right wing.

In recent years, right-wing leaders have swept presidential races in nearby countries like Peru, Colombia, Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador. Many have ridden a wave of anti-incumbent energy and enjoyed support from United States President Donald Trump, who returned to office in January 2025.

A former union leader for metalworkers, Lula – at age 80 – will be sworn in on January 5, 2027, when he will beat his own record as the oldest Brazilian president to take the oath of office since the country’s return to democracy.

His victory has earned him an unprecedented fourth non-consecutive term.

Lula came into Sunday’s run-off as an underdog. While he narrowly led pre-election, the first round of voting on October 4 showed him trailing Bolsonaro.

He earned 45 percent of the first-round vote, compared with the right-wing senator’s 47 percent, both tallies short of the 50 percent needed to avoid a run-off.

But in the weeks since, Lula has rallied supporters around cost-of-living issues. He championed a constitutional amendment passed this month that shortened the Brazilian workweek, and floated the possibility of providing free public transport on weekends.

Having entered politics in the 1980s, during the twilight of the country’s military dictatorship, Lula has run for president seven times.

He won two consecutive terms from 2002 through 2010, as well as a third term in 2022, in what was the tightest race in modern Brazilian history up to that point.

His rival in that election, former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro, is the father of Senator Bolsonaro, Lula’s adversary in this race.

Jair Bolsonaro has since been sentenced to 27 years in prison for his role in plotting a coup following his loss to Lula.

Despite overseeing a decline in poverty and low unemployment during his third term in office, Lula has faced questions about his age, his ability to combat crime, and the country’s polarised political landscape.

An explosion of household debt has also left many Brazilians feeling their economic circumstances have worsened.

In September, Lula banned online gambling and sport betting apps to address the issue.

While the victory over Bolsonaro cements Lula’s status as one of the most significant and influential figures in Brazil’s modern history, efforts to advance legislative priorities during his fourth term could be stymied by the most right-wing Congress in recent memory.

Demonstrators allege Prime Minister Andrej Babis and his coalition’s proposed reforms pose a threat to press freedom.

Several thousand people have taken to the streets in Prague to protest against plans to change the funding system for the Czech Republic’s public media, accusing the government of stifling press freedom.

On Sunday, protesters demanded the withdrawal of legislation seeking to abolish household licence fees and replace them with state budget allocations for public radio and television.

The Czech lower house of parliament approved fast-tracking the bill in a rare overnight vote on Saturday after governing coalition lawmakers rushed to open the issue, limiting the opposition’s ability to engage in debate before the vote was held.

The bill, proposed by the governing coalition led by billionaire Prime Minister Andrej Babis, which includes two far-right parties, must still be passed by the upper house before becoming law.

The opposition has pledged to challenge the legislation in the constitutional court. The plan would cut funding for public media by about 15 percent, possibly as early as next year.

At the protest in Prague’s Old Town Square, demonstrators chanted, “We’ve had enough”, “This must not be allowed to pass”, and “4:36”, referencing the early morning hour when the draft was approved by parliament.

Babis has said the plan is not an attack on media independence but a matter of funding transparency.

Critics warn the proposed change would allow the governing coalition to take control of the media. They compare it with the actions of populist governments, such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico.

Babis and his coalition, whose agenda includes reducing support for Ukraine as it fights off a Russian invasion, have a record of attacks against the media.

Public media staffers announced they would go on strike on November 3. They are backed by labour unions, university rectors, churches, international media organisations and many others.

A rally is also planned at Prague’s Letna park on November 15, two days before the anniversary of the 1989 anti-communist Velvet Revolution that ended more than 40 years of totalitarian government.

In a rare Sunday hearing, a federal appeals court judge appointed by President Trump questioned how the Trump administration’s request to intervene in California’s ongoing midterm election in order to force state officials to set aside 20,000 ballots from voters whose citizenship it questions squares with the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Mark J. Bennett said that while the executive branch is “unhappy” with what California law requires for ensuring voters are citizens, the state has the right to determine the manner of its elections under the Elections Clause of the Constitution and Congress has not challenged that process, despite having the ability to do so.

“It seems to me that you want us to issue an injunction that is entirely inconsistent with the law the California legislature has adopted pursuant to the Elections Clause,” Bennett said. “How can we do that?”

Matthew Donnelly, a Justice Department attorney, said the Trump administration has good reason to believe those ballots are from ineligible noncitizen voters, and has the legal right under seperate federal criminal law to challenge their tabulation until state officials can prove otherwise.

Donnelly said both federal criminal law and state election law bar noncitizen voters from casting ballots, but “the problem is that California isn’t interested in enforcing that provision.”

The exchange came during an hour-long hearing before a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, over the Justice Department’s unprecedented emergency request that the court order California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan to immediately stop counting ballots from the 20,000 flagged voters until they can definitively prove those voters are U.S. citizens.

The appellate panel — on which Bennett was joined by circuit Judges Patrick J. Bumatay, another Trump appointee, and Gabriel P. Sanchez, an appointee of President Biden — did not issue a ruling, though a decision is expected soon given the emergency nature of the appeal.

How it will rule is unclear, though both Bennett and Sanchez hammered Donnelly with questions about how the Trump administration’s position squared with the law.

Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law, wrote online Sunday that the court seemed “very likely to reject” the Trump administration’s appeal, with Bennett and Sanchez having “expressed great skepticism on both jurisdiction and the merits.”

In addition to questioning its constitutionality, Bennett also questioned how the appellate court even had jurisdiction over the case, given that the Trump administration appealed the matter to the appellate court before the lower district court had a chance to assess the facts in the case or issue an order.

“How do we have jurisdiction when the district court has said it’s going to rule expeditiously?” Bennett said. “I don’t see how we have jurisdiction.”

Bennett also questioned why the appellate court should ignore the claims of state elections officials that having to comply with the Trump administration’s demands in the few remaining days before the Nov. 3 election would be catastrophically disruptive to the election, given that the lower court has had no chance to assess those claims.

“Isn’t that sufficient to give us pause as to whether we should do exactly what [a state expert] avers is going to cause a catastrophe?” Bennett asked.

Bennett’s questions evoked many of the arguments made by the state in its own filings in the matter, which were repeated by California Deputy Solicitor Gen. Samuel P. Siegel during the hearing.

Siegel said there was “nothing” for the appellate court to review, given there has been no fact finding and no order out of the lower court, and that the administration’s demands were unconstitutional and illegal. He said the court did not have to wrestle with many of the arguments being put forward by the Trump administration, because it should simply reject the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and send the matter back down to the lower court.

Bumatay appeared most interested of the three judges in the damage done when noncitizens do vote, and the underlying question of how the state should handle objections to alleged noncitizen voters when they arise.

Siegel and Seth Waxman, an attorney for Logan, said there are existing processes for that — which require the challenger to present extraordinary proof, which they said the Trump administration has not done for the 20,000 voters it has flagged.

Sanchez repeatedly questioned the provenance of the administration’s list, asking which third parties were involved in providing the data. Donnelly could not answer, which Sanchez said raised questions about the reliability of the list.

The Justice Department appealed the case after a lower district court judge declined to immediately rule last week on its request for a temporary restraining order barring California officials from tabulating the flagged ballots.

In court filings, the administration argued that once mail ballots are removed from their envelopes in California, or a ballot has been cast in person, there is “no way to associate the voter with the ballot” or resegregate it from other cast ballots.

Attorneys for California, Weber and Logan have argued the demands are illegal, impossible to comply with before the Nov. 3 election and based on deeply flawed federal immigration and third-party data sets shown to be inaccurate and inclusive of legitimate voters.

In court filings, they have argued that the Trump administration’s argument “rests on mere suspicion, aroused by suspect data,” and that its lawsuit is at best “a reckless political stunt” and at worst “threatens to disenfranchise thousands of Californians this election.”

Independent elections experts have said the Justice Department’s efforts break with longstanding department policy of not wading into election-related issues within 90 days of an election, to avoid disenfranchising legitimate voters.

They also have said the Trump administration’s lists of alleged noncitizen voters and its authority to intervene are both questionable, including because the U.S. Constitution empowers states to run elections with oversight from Congress, not the executive branch.

The Justice Department sued California, Weber and Logan on Oct. 15, two days after Acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter wrote to Weber and Logan giving them 48 hours to set aside the ballots for the 20,000 flagged voters — whom McCotter claimed were “likely noncitizens.”

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead federal prosecutor in L.A., has claimed federal authorities have “overwhelming evidence” that tens of thousands of noncitizens are registered to vote in California, and has defended the methods used to identify those voters. He and other federal prosecutors in the state also recently charged 28 legal permanent residents in California with election-related crimes, including illegally registering to vote.

On Friday, the Justice Department sent letters to county elections offices statewide with demands that they segregate ballots from voters the Trump administration believes are noncitizens, drawing from the same list of 20,000 at issue in the case against Weber and Logan. In those letters, the Justice Department gave the county officials 48 hours to comply, and threatened them with criminal punishment if they refuse.

State officials have said neither Essayli nor other Trump administration officials have provided proof to back up their claims, and that their list of 20,000 voters is clearly inaccurate. Logan said a preliminary review of a subset of those voters found many were born in the U.S., weren’t registered and had never voted.

More than 3 million people have already cast ballots in California — and more than 500,000 have already done so in Los Angeles County.

The challenge to the 20,000 ballots in California is just the latest Trump administration attempt to intervene in state-run elections ahead of the midterms.

Federal judges in dozens of states have rejected Justice Department lawsuits demanding the states turn over their voter rolls to the Trump administration. Federal judges also have rejected multiple Trump executive orders trying to institute national voter ID and citizenship checks, and his administration’s attempt to empower the U.S. Postal Service to vet mail ballots.

Other cases — including over the Trump administration using unproven and inaccurate federal data sets to question the citizenship of state voters — are pending.

Democrats and voting rights groups are also bracing for fresh litigation from the Trump administration to challenge the outcome of pivotal election results the president doesn’t like — and are already defending against a lawsuit the Justice Department brought at Trump’s urging in Alaska, preemptively challenging a Democratic win in the Senate race there based on a third candidate sharing a similar name as the Republican incumbent.

Times staff writer Brittny Mejia contributed to this report.

Orleans, France – Marine Le Pen took to the stage with a clear message: She would lead France’s “renaissance” as the country sank into crisis – and she would do so soon.

The far-right figure’s words were met with cheers from thousands of supporters gathered in Orleans in central France on Sunday, as she launched her presidential campaign against a backdrop of mass demonstrations and widespread social and economic discontent.

“Marine présidente!” the crowd chanted, waving French flags beneath a sea of red and blue lights. Organisers said 8,500 supporters had gathered in a venue transformed into a fort for the event.

Standing tall on stage in a pink blazer, her hair impeccably coiffed, Le Pen spoke with the confidence of a leader who believes the presidency is within reach.

Riding high in the polls, with candidates from the right, left and centre trailing behind her, she presented the election as a historic opportunity to restore France’s past glory.

“This is a story to be written, a destiny to be fulfilled,” she told the crowd, which erupted in cheers.

Her pitch was a promise to restore authority and security in a country she portrayed as having lost control.

“We are going to re-establish the rule of law,” she said, drawing loud applause from supporters wearing “Marine présidente” T-shirts.

Manon Funeau, 21, a business school student, was among the supporters.

“What they propose are values that resonate with me, that vibrate within me,” she said. “Honestly, I feel at home here.”

Le Pen’s speech comes as the country is at a crossroads. France has been shaken by a wave of protests since mid-September, a movement sparked by high school students in a Paris suburb that grew into a nationwide mobilisation tapping into widespread discontent.

Over the past two weekends, largely peaceful protests have been accompanied by episodes of violence on a scale rarely seen in recent years.

On October 17, shops were looted and ransacked, and more than 2,000 people were arrested as hundreds of thousands took to the streets of French cities. A similar dynamic unfolded the following weekend, though on a smaller scale. The protests show little sign of abating, with calls for further demonstrations already circulating.

The unrest has given Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) an opportunity to play one of its favourite cards: presenting itself as the guarantor of law and order. It has fuelled criticism of President Emmanuel Macron over his handling of public security, allowing Le Pen to accuse him of incompetence and the far-left leader Jean-Luc Melenchon – a contender in the coming elections – of encouraging the violence.

‘My country is drifting off course’

“I believe that my country is currently drifting off course,” said Nadede, a 56-year-old who began voting for RN in 2024 over what she said was the country’s growing lack of security. She did not spell out any specific event.

“I think that the only person capable of setting it back on the right track is Marine Le Pen – especially since, up until now, everyone else who has run for office has struggled to do so,” she said.

Outside the convention hall, the scale of the security operation offered a glimpse of the tensions surrounding the event. Police checks began at departure stations in Paris and continued on arrival, while officers in full gear moved through train carriages during the journey.

Orleans itself had been brought to a near standstill. All businesses were shut and public transport suspended.

Standing almost alone in the city’s main square was the statue of Joan of Arc, surrounded only by fences. A day earlier, about 3,000 police officers had been deployed to prevent unrest as anti-RN protesters gathered against what they say is a xenophobic and racist party.

Orleans was no casual choice. For a party that has long sought to cast itself as the guardian of French identity and national sovereignty, the city is inseparable from the story of Joan of Arc, the 15th-century heroine who helped lift the English siege of Orléans in 1429 and became a symbol of France’s resistance and liberation.

For decades, the far right has claimed her as an emblem of national pride, invoking the image of a warrior who came to save France from foreign domination. Le Pen herself has drawn parallels between Joan’s mission and her political ambitions.

The crowd at the RN Congress offered a glimpse of how the party has expanded its appeal to a wider section of society: from young people from urban centres to middle-class workers who used to vote for the centrist party.

Only a few years ago, the party was still considered on the fringes of French politics. Its growth has been driven in part by a carefully crafted strategy known as dédiabolisation, or de-demonisation, developed over the past two decades to broaden the party’s base while tempering its rhetoric and distancing it from positions that had made it toxic to many voters.

The party has long been associated with racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism. Le Pen’s father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, was convicted of hate speech, including for describing Nazi gas chambers as “a detail of history”. He was expelled from the party in 2015.

Far right ‘gaining ground’

Marine Le Pen has sought to broaden RN’s appeal, combining restrictive immigration policies with promises of social protection. The party has gained ground in working-class areas traditionally associated with the left, including former Communist strongholds, by presenting itself as a defender of public services and the purchasing power of everyday people.

While RN has long abandoned some of its most radical proposals, including leaving the Eurozone and pursuing a fully fledged “Frexit”, the election of such a eurosceptic to the helm of the European Union’s second-largest economy would send shockwaves. She has pledged a referendum to challenge the primacy of EU law over migration policy, as well as an annual 11-billion-euro ($12.3bn) reduction in France’s contribution to the bloc.

The party’s membership has nearly tripled, with approximately 112,000 members now paying their dues, up from fewer than 37,000 in 2022.

“The party has been gaining ground at every level: mayors, deputies, senators. Usually, when a movement seems on the rise, people join,” said Baptiste Roger-Lacan, a historian and political analyst with a focus on far-right parties in Europe. “It also shows how it is less and less socially damaging to be a member of the RN.”

But the party’s programme “is still fraught with fiscal absurdity”, Roger-Lacan said. “They still want to implement racist laws, which are bound to provoke widespread anger, and their diplomatic agenda is still pro-Russian and anti-EU – even if they don’t advocate Frexit any more.”

Jordan Bardella, Le Pen’s second-in-command and Le Pen protégé – an impeccably dressed 31-year-old who looks like a cross between the Wolf of Wall Street and Superman’s alter ego, Clark Kent – also spoke at the event.

“No one should be intimidated by their political opinions,” he said, speaking ahead of his mentor.

Some observers say the October 17 protests and their aftermath have proved a gift to RN, allowing the party to not only reinforce its law-and-order message but also to shift attention away from recent difficulties.

In September, investigative outlet Mediapart published allegations that Bardella had expressed anti-Semitic views in private messages dating back to his teenage years. He denied the allegations and announced legal action against the journalists.

The episode posed a challenge for a party that has spent years trying to shed its xenophobic image and recast itself as a supporter of Israel.

Bardella has also reportedly differed with Le Pen over the party’s economic agenda and whether to make her proposed ban on the wearing of the Islamic headscarf in public spaces a central campaign issue.

Yet, at the Congress, those tensions appeared to have been set aside, at least publicly.

“Marine president – a Bardella government” was the slogan, projecting unity as Le Pen launched her presidential bid and Bardella positioned himself as her prospective head of government.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche on Sunday defended the Trump administration’s lawsuit to block certification of Alaska’s Senate results if Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan loses the race, arguing that the legal challenge was a necessary step to avoid confusing voters in the closely watched midterm race.

Some election experts have said the move is another attempt by the Trump administration to meddle in the Nov. 3 midterm elections in the event Republicans don’t fare well. Democrats as well as some Republicans have criticized it.

Blanche, however, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that President Trump — who said Friday in reference to the lawsuit that he was “the one that said do it” — is not trying to overturn state election results “in any way, shape or form.”

“We wish that we didn’t have to do this. We hope for a resolution that works,” Blanche said.

Republicans fear that a second candidate on the ballot who is named Dan Sullivan — a retired teacher and school administrator from the tiny fishing community of Petersburg — could siphon away votes from the GOP senator and tip the outcome in favor of Democrat Mary Peltola, a former congresswoman. Because Alaska has ranked-choice voting, there are more than two candidates on the general election ballot.

A day after the lawsuit was filed Thursday, Peltola called it “just flagrant, flagrant corruption, in my opinion,” and a diversion tactic by Republicans. Alaska’s other Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski, also criticized the lawsuit in a social media post.

Trump told reporters Sunday that he believed the ballot was illegal because it was unfair and that Sen. Sullivan should be identified to voters as the sitting senator. Courts, however, have ruled otherwise, upholding both Sullivans’ spots on the ballot.

“At least let him use the name Sen. Dan Sullivan as opposed to incumbent, because a lot of people don’t know what incumbent means,” Trump said.

Alaskan voters will see “Dan S. Sullivan” identified as a “registered Republican” and “incumbent” on their ballots, while “Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.” is listed without party affiliation.

Blanche represented Trump as a personal attorney — including the case in which Trump was convicted of felony fraud — before the Republican president appointed him to lead the Department of Justice, which filed the lawsuit in Alaska. Blanche defended Trump in his election inference case before voters elected Trump to a second White House term, effectively ending the criminal prosecution.

Blanche told CNN host Dana Bash that it was “crazy” for her to ask him if Trump was trying to lay the groundwork for the same sort of election challenges that occurred before a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — the source of the election interference case, in which Trump was indicted on felony charges, and for which he was impeached.

“We are not doing anything improper. We’re not doing anything we’re not allowed to do. And we have to let the process play out,” Blanche said. “But I do think it’s important for the American people to understand that we are not — [and] President Trump is not — trying to take over a state election in any way shape or form.”

The lawsuit, Blanche said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” is meant to “put guardrails in place” to preserve possible evidence of voter confusion at the polls.

“It’s not saying, ‘Don’t certify.’ It’s saying, ‘If a court ultimately determines that it was decided because of confusion and not the will of the voters, then we do not think the states should certify.’ And that’s consistent with federal law and consistent with even Alaskan law, if that happens,” he said.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Josh Boak contributed to this report.

United States Attorney General Todd Blanche has defended the Department of Justice’s decision to sue to prevent the certification of a Republican loss in Alaska’s tight Senate race.

On Sunday, Blanche did a tour of the morning political shows in the US, making stops at CNN’s State of the Union TV programme and CBS’s Face the Nation.

In each appearance, he faced pointed questions about the legality of the Justice Department’s efforts, responding, in some cases, with open frustration.

“ Why is this controversial?” Blanche asked CNN host Dana Bash at one point. He proceeded to accuse one of the candidates in the Senate race of intentionally trying to confuse voters.

“We’re going to try to create a situation where that can be remedied,” he said. “That shouldn’t be something that is causing this shock and horror.”

But the Justice Department’s lawsuit, filed on October 22, has been the subject of bipartisan criticism.

Many have accused the administration of President Donald Trump of laying the groundwork to block a Democratic win in the race. Trump himself claimed to have authorised the lawsuit.

“I’m the one who said do it,” he told reporters on Friday.

Inside the Alaska Senate race

During the midterm elections on November 3, citizens in Alaska will be asked to vote in one of the closest Senate races in the country, one which will help decide whether Republicans maintain their majority in the chamber.

Senator Dan S Sullivan, the Republican incumbent, is seeking to defend his seat in the Senate. But he faces fierce competition from former US Representative Mary Peltola, a Democrat.

Also in the running is another candidate named Dan J Sullivan, a former Forest Service employee.

The second Sullivan’s decision to also run has raised concerns that he is a spoiler candidate, whose presence on the ballot is designed to draw votes away from the incumbent.

But the Forest Service worker has denied any such intent. Such allegations, he said, are “entirely false”.

“I am not a registered Democrat, and I have had no conversations whatsoever with the Peltola campaign about my candidacy,” the second Sullivan wrote in a letter to Alaska’s lieutenant governor before the state’s primaries.

“I have considered running for political office for over a decade. I made the decision to formally run for the United States Senate in the upcoming primary election because Senator Sullivan has routinely failed the people of Alaska, and they deserve a better representative. It is my right to do so.”

Four candidates advanced to the final round of voting after Alaska’s August primaries. They included Peltola and both Sullivans. The two men are running as Republicans.

A controversial lawsuit

The Department of Justice has argued that its lawsuit — filed less than two weeks before the midterm elections — is necessary “to protect the integrity” of the election.

Any result in the Senate race, it argues, would be “tainted by the inclusion on the ballot of Daniel J Sullivan”.

The department has therefore called on the US district court in Alaska to issue an order declaring the race’s certification “unlawful” and barring the state from “allowing such a certification to occur”.

Under the US Constitution, only states have the power to administer elections, though Congress has the right to pass regulations concerning federal votes.

It is highly unusual for a presidential administration to inject itself into issues of state election certification — and experts say such a move is likely to be deemed illegal.

Already, in June, Alaska’s Supreme Court ruled that both Sullivans could compete in the Senate race. The state’s Division of Elections has also taken steps to reduce voter confusion.

The November 3 ballot, for instance, will list Dan S Sullivan as the incumbent and as a “registered Republican”.

Dan J Sullivan, meanwhile, will have the suffix “Jr” added to his name, and his party affiliation will be left blank, despite the candidate identifying as Republican.

But in Sunday’s TV appearances, Blanche — who leads the Department of Justice and formerly served as Trump’s personal lawyer — argued that merely having two Sullivans on the ballot is a recipe for confusion.

“It is wrong,” Blanche told CNN. “Putting aside whether we’re going to win or lose in the courts, putting aside what the Alaskan Supreme Court has done, in our system we should not have a candidate who has to worry about another candidate being on the ballot for no other reason than to confuse voters.”

Blanche also denied any impropriety in Trump saying he ordered the lawsuit.

“He’s supposed to make sure that everything in this country is running right, including elections,” Blanche said.

The race for the Senate

Historically, the Department of Justice has embraced a norm of judicial independence, though critics have accused the Trump administration of wielding its prosecutorial powers for political gain.

Bash, the CNN host, raised some of those concerns, pointing to Trump’s comments accusing Democrats of cheating, as well as his history of election denialism.

The president has long denied his loss in the 2020 presidential race, and his supporters sought to block the certification of that election, notably by storming the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

When Bash pointed to that incident, Blanche chided her: “Oh, you’ve got to stop it with that.”

“Why are you yelling at me?” Bash responded, as the two talked over each other.

“You are not being a real person. Come on, man,” Blanche continued. “That is crazy.”

He also denied that Trump was setting the stage for a contested election if the Democrat Peltola were to win. Instead, he framed the lawsuit as setting the stage for further investigations into any eventual results.

“The relief that we’re seeking — which, again, isn’t to determine who the senator is, it’s not to try to overturn something the state is going to do — it’s just to make sure that the ballots that come in are kept in a way that may allow a court to investigate further,” Blanche said.

Speaking to CBS, Blanche also dodged a question about whether Trump personally asked him to file the lawsuit.

“I will never, ever, ever talk about communications that I have with the president of the United States. I never have, and I never will,” Blanche said.

The race to control the US Senate is expected to be a nail-biter, with the Republicans holding a slim majority at present: They have 53 seats in the 100-member chamber.

Only a third of the Senate’s seats — 35 in total — will be up for grabs in the midterm races, though, as terms in the chamber last six years and are staggered across different election years.

Trump’s Republican Party is projected to face an uphill battle to protect its congressional majorities, amid backlash against the rising cost of living and Trump’s own withering poll numbers.

Roughly seven Senate elections are considered toss-ups, including the Alaska race.

In early October, The New York Times and Siena College released a poll finding Peltola leading the incumbent Sullivan by nearly seven percentage points, one of the widest margins of any of the toss-up states.

Alaska’s Democratic Senate candidate, Mary Peltola, and her family suffered minor injuries in a car crash while driving to a campaign stop, her campaign said Sunday.

Peltola required medical attention after the accident Saturday, which happened when another vehicle crashed into the one transporting Peltola and her family, the campaign said. The family was on their way to the Alaska Federation of Natives Annual Banquet in Anchorage.

Peltola, an Alaska Native and former congresswoman, is challenging Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, hoping to become the first Democrat in nearly two decades to represent the state in the Senate.

Both candidates have tried to rally support from Alaska Native voters, a key constituency in the high-stakes race that has become one of the most watched in the nation.

On Friday, President Trump — who held a rally in support of Sullivan earlier this month — said he told his administration to sue to block certification of the race if the incumbent loses. The lawsuit cites potential confusion with another candidate who is listed on the ranked choice ballot as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.

Peltola’s campaign manager, Cheryl Bruce, wrote in a statement that the candidate was in “good spirits” following the accident, but her medical providers recommended she reschedule events Sunday and Monday to recover.

The incident delayed what her campaign announced as the “Alaska Always Tour,” an eight-stop push through the last week before election day. Her campaign said she will resume events Tuesday, with a stop in Homer, Alaska.

The ad was repugnant.

You know the one I’m talking about — Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy’s attack on opponent Amy Acton using her clearly troubled mother, who failed to protect Acton as a child from her rapist stepfather and instead abandoned her kids to stay with the now-deceased pedophile.

Wow. Even in 2026, that’s a lot.

The ad, released last week on the internet and set for a television blitz through the election, has sparked condemnation even from Republicans. Some anyway. President Trump and Vice President JD Vance (a close friend of Ramaswamy’s) have defended it, much to the chagrin of decent people everywhere who have labeled this a make-it-or-break-it moment for the Grand Old Party.

Trump called getting Acton’s mom on camera “hitting pay dirt.”

“Why shouldn’t somebody use that?” Trump said Friday. “To me, that’s something that’s very much fair game.”

Trump’s right, in his world anyway. His faithful may not like the ad, but it’s not a deal-breaker.

The appalled, left and right, are wrong on this one — this is not a turning point for the Republican Party or the moment it realized its soul was in the frying pan.

When Ramaswamy loses — and he’s likely going to lose, if polls are right — it won’t be because Republican voters finally believe the party has sunk too low, lost its way or lacks morals. And when the postmortem happens on the right, it won’t examine whether exploiting victims of sex abuse is a smart move. (Full disclosure: One of my relatives is an advisor of Ramaswamy.)

Instead, the ad will eventually be seen as a great gift to Donald Trump for two reasons.

First, it allows Ramaswamy — his endorsed candidate — to lose without it being the president’s fault for starting a war, tanking the economy and generally being entirely unpopular with average Americans. Get ready, because if Ramaswamy goes down, Trump will spin it that Democrats and the corrupt media misrepresented the ad and lied about Ramaswamy. Not Trump’s fault, just further proof of why his battle is righteous.

Second, it allows him to test the loyalty of his MAGA acolytes ahead of 2028, and folks, I’m sorry to say it’s a test they are likely to pass with flying colors. Vance laid this out clearly in his defense, reserving his scorn for Republicans who dared to be anything but steadfast.

“Stop whining about an advertisement and go win the race in 13 days,” Vance said in response to a question about the ad. He added he was “disgusted” that his fellow Republicans were seemingly more upset about the ad “than they are about what the congressional Democrats and other Democrats want to do to the United States of America.”

For all the angst about sexual abuse, even of minors, the forever Trumpers honestly don’t care as long as their candidates win and maintain power. Just ask Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. Ask E. Jean Kelly. Ask Victim A in the Matt Gaetz allegations, or Christine Blasey Ford if you can remember that far back. The list goes on.

MAGA diehards may holler and stomp about how much they hate pedophiles, but they hate Democrats more. Trump has told these voters to ignore the ad and vote Ramaswamy. I predict more of them do it than decency permits — because we’ve seen this MAGA mental split before, where they somehow set aside all of their so-called outrage when Trump tells them to do something.

These voters are clear that the Trump regime presents a real opportunity to remake the country into a conservative bastion in ways that will be hard to undo, and they will overlook even the indecency of exploiting childhood rape.

“Vivek is Great, there is no one better for Ohio. That’s a wild story,” responded one supporter on Truth Social after Trump posted a defense of the ad.

“I love how Vivek does not hesitate to call out wrongdoings,” wrote another.

Others tried to turn the topic to their conspiracies about Rep. Ilhan Omar and Michigan senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, two bogeyman of the right for their race and religion. The responses of Trumpers to his post were exactly on brand — deflecting or blaming media and disinformation for skewing the issue. (Trump and Ramaswamy are claiming that the ad isn’t about sexual abuse, but only about whether Acton is truthful.)

With that veneer of justification, it’s likely his most devout base in Ohio, led by the 20% of voters who consider themselves white evangelicals, will stick with their guy. Nearly 8 in 10 white evangelical Protestants support Trump, and they are motivated voters who have disconnected the Trump reality from the Trump promise for years.

Despite all the outrage across the country about the ad, it’s likely the final tally in Ohio will remain largely as it would have been before the kerfuffle. Ramaswamy was down in the polls before he dove into the muck of the past few days. A reliable Cook’s poll put Acton ahead 49% to 44% — one of the reasons Ramaswamy was desperate enough to try this last-ditch smear.

I’ll bet an Ohio buckeye the final count isn’t far outside that margin, with no sign of a massive drop in Republican support of Ramaswamy, despite all the posturing and hand-wringing. If he loses, it is likely more about the surging racism against Indian Americans, especially with young conservatives, than one ugly ad.

But those Republicans who denounced the ad will face the president’s punishment. The ad is not a mistake. It is an inadvertent test. By embracing the ad even as it’s disparaged nationally, the president is discovering exactly who he can, and can’t, trust as he heads into the two most difficult years of his decadelong rule — the part where he stops pretending to be anything but what he is, a corrupt and greedy man intent on maximizing power and wealth. The part where he challenges elections.

We are watching the last of the old-guard Republicans being purged thanks to the ad. Republicans who have gathered up the tattered shreds of their integrity and courage over this ad are shredding them to nothing on this moment, giving Trump insight into who might stand up to him when the protection of our democracy is on the line.

Trump has started lashing out already, making sure those potential last-round conscientious objectors are damaged.

After current Ohio Republican Gov. Mike DeWine called for Ramaswamy to stop airing the spot, labeling it “deeply troubling,” Trump attacked him — even though DeWine said he continued to support Ramaswamy as his replacement. (DeWine is facing term limits.)

“Mike DeWine, who I unfortunately helped get elected years ago, when he was losing by 16 points prior to my doing a Rally for him was, as usual, disloyal to the Republican Party,” Trump wrote on social media.

DeWine was far from alone.

Trump’s days of conning himself into a coalition are behind him — well into his second term, is now consolidating power behind his core, public opinion be damned.

The independent voters that may indeed not vote or change votes because of the ad were just as likely to switch over gas prices or wars.

The ad was never for them, but rather just for this outrage, this push to motivate the base with just the sort of grimy bullying Trump does best — I believe him when he says he wishes he could make an ad like this. Trump will rally in Ohio this week with Ramaswamy, and it’s likely most Republicans will somehow have transmuted their outrage into support by the time he appears in person.

His base understands his support of the ad is an expression of power. His base understands the trade they are making. His base doesn’t care what happened to Acton, because she will never give them the America they want.

His base likes the ad, even if they won’t admit it.

The Nobel laureate’s homecoming follows national protests demanding free elections.

Venezuela’s opposition leader Maria Corina Machado has successfully returned to the country after more than 10 months in exile.

Machado announced her arrival on social media on Sunday, writing, “I am here. With you.”

The current opposition leader, Edmundo Gonzalez, confirmed the news, writing on X that “our leader, my dear Maria Corina, is on Venezuelan soil”.

The Comando Con Venezuela political organisation shared footage of Machado arriving at a church in Lara, where she was greeted by supporters.

Machado first disappeared from public life after being briefly arrested in January 2025. She re-emerged last December in Norway, where she won the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts to challenge Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro. Maduro was abducted from Caracas by the United States military in January 2026.

Venezuela’s Vice President Delcy Rodriguez has stood in as acting president since then, with the endorsement of US President Donald Trump, and has cooperated with his administration regarding reforms in the country, as well as a deal to grant the US control of over 65 billion barrels’ worth of Venezuela’s oil reserves.

Calls for elections to be held

Rodriguez’s presidency has extended far beyond the 90-day period she was authorised to serve following Maduro’s removal. But she has yet to call an election despite public demand and despite her promise to do so at the United Nations General Assembly in September. The US maintains that the country is not ready yet.

Earlier this week, thousands of Venezuelans took to the streets to call for elections in the first nationwide opposition protest in nearly two years.

Although the opposition is widely believed to have won Venezuela’s disputed 2024 elections, Trump has cast doubt on Machado’s abilities to lead, claiming in January that she “doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country”.

Machado presented Trump with her Nobel medal when visiting him in the White House weeks later, in what she said was “a recognition for his unique commitment with our freedom”. The US leader has repeatedly voiced his desire to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize himself.

Machado has made previous unsuccessful attempts to enter Venezuela. In September, her team said she had made seven attempts in the space of a few weeks.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on X that “the conditions allowing for the safe return of Ms. Machado to Venezuela is the direct result of the U.S. supported reconciliation talks which has already seen hundreds of political prisoners freed and hundreds of political opposition figures return from exile.”

Asked to comment about Machado’s return, Trump told reporters on Sunday, “I don’t know anything about it, but I think she’s a very nice woman.”

“She gave me her Nobel Prize, so how can I say anything else? And I hope she’s safe.”

Oct. 25, 2026 10:03 AM PT

ANCHORAGE — A little more than one week before the midterm elections, the leading candidates in Alaska’s U.S. Senate race are trying to rally support from Alaska Native voters, a key constituency.

Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan and Democratic former Rep. Mary Peltola both spoke at last week’s Alaska Federation of Natives conference in Anchorage.

The organization previously endorsed Peltola, who is Yup’ik, during her House races in 2022 and 2024, but it did not issue endorsements this year.

Both candidates have highlighted support from Native organizations and leaders ahead of the Nov. 3 election. Sealaska Corp., a regional Native corporation in southeast Alaska, has endorsed both of them, calling it a way to “honor their contributions and commitment to our communities, and to honor the diverse positions of our shareholders.”

The race is among the most closely watched nationally, with control of the Senate at stake. On Friday, President Trump — who held a rally in support of Sullivan earlier this month — said he told the Department of Justice to sue to block certification of the race if the incumbent loses. The lawsuit cites potential confusion with another candidate who is listed on the ranked-choice ballot as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.

Sen. Sullivan is listed as a Republican and the incumbent, while Sullivan Jr. is listed without a party designation. U.S. Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche wrote on social media that the lawsuit is necessary to make sure officials “have the information necessary to make a determination as to whether Alaskan voters were confused or [misled].”

Many voting rights advocates and Democrats have pointed the lawsuit as an improper political use of the Justice Department and an example of Trump’s interference in the upcoming election, following up on his threats to assert federal control over the vote.

Alaskan Natives represent about one-fifth of the state’s population, but they can face challenges to voting in remote communities. Advocates have raised concerns in recent years with polling locations in some villages opening late or ballots not arriving on time to be fully counted due to mail delays.

There’s also cynicism about whether participating in elections will make a difference.

“There’s legitimate hesitations about whether whoever they vote for is actually going to impact them,” said actor and activist Dallas Goldtooth, who is Bdewakantunwan Dakota and Dine and came to Alaska to encourage conference attendees to vote. “And our job is to say, hey, whether that matters or not, there’s an opportunity for you to make sure that your voice is counted. And I want to encourage people just to take the opportunity as much as possible.”

Sheri Buretta, who chairs the board of Chugach Alaska Corp., an Alaska Native corporation, introduced Sullivan to the conference Thursday as “one of our strongest champions.”

Sullivan, speaking as part of a congressional delegation update, said he’s learned important lessons from Native leaders. He cited work he’s done on issues such as pushing to ensure that Alaska Native Vietnam War-era veterans have access to land allotments.

Peltola, during a candidate forum Friday, became emotional speaking about the crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous people and said additional law enforcement resources are needed. She also expressed support for fisheries. Subsistence fishing is critical in many Native communities.

“I will always fight to restore our fisheries. I feel like working on fish issues is my life’s work,” she said.

Energy is also a crucial issue in Alaska, including within Native communities.

Peltola recently said Alaskan Native people were being “absolutely crushed” by high costs from the ongoing war with Iran, which Sullivan has supported. Many rural communities rely on diesel for electricity and to heat their homes.

Sullivan has argued the war against Iran is temporary and that the “forever war is the Democrats’ war against Alaskan energy.”

Many Native leaders on Alaska’s petroleum-rich North Slope see oil drilling as crucial to their region’s economy, and they believed their voices weren’t heard while President Biden was in office. His administration sought to restrict drilling in places like the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but Trump and the Republican-led Congress have rolled those efforts back.

Peltola has said she supports expanded oil and gas drilling and would work with Trump to accomplish that. But Sullivan and his allies have tried to align her with what they refer to as “Lower 48 liberals” who oppose more drilling.

Bohrer and Daley write for the Associated Press. Bohrer reported from Juneau.

Prince Ali bin Hussein said nobody was allowed to speak, question, debate or talk with the media at the AFC Congress.

The head of Jordan’s Football Association (JFA), Prince Ali bin Hussein, has accused FIFA President Gianni Infantino of hijacking the Asian Football Confederation Congress for political purposes ahead of his re-election bid for a fourth term.

At the AFC’s extraordinary congress in Tokyo on Friday, its president Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al-Khalifa endorsed Infantino’s bid for re-election as FIFA president.

Months after the confederation accused Infantino of a “fundamental breach of trust” over the abandoned FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) proposal, Sheikh Salman told the congress that Asia was now united behind Infantino.

But JFA’s Prince Ali, who has been a vocal critic of FIFA’s leadership, painted a starkly different picture of events in Tokyo.

“Having come back from Tokyo where the AFC Congress took place, the first two days were about football, which we all serve. The last day was pure politics at the behest of Gianni Infantino,” Prince Ali wrote on X.

“There were reports that Asia has a united position when it comes to electing the next FIFA President. In fact, nobody was allowed to speak, question, debate or talk with the media.

“Lack of transparency leads to lack of accountability. No amount of coercion, threats or bribes should be allowed.”

Prince Ali did not elaborate on his statement.

Al Jazeera reached out to FIFA and the AFC for a comment but had not received a response at the time of publication.

Infantino also addressed the AFC Congress, giving Sheikh Salman his backing for another term.

In August, Prince Ali launched a public attack on Infantino, accusing him of “blackmail” and saying FIFA had offered to help solve the kingdom’s problems in exchange for his endorsement.

Two days later, Prince Ali confirmed Jordan’s players and staff had received outstanding reward money for their participation in the 2025 Arab Cup.

The association had been waiting since December for prize money for reaching the Arab Cup final in Qatar.

On Saturday, Infantino laughed off questions about whether he had considered resigning in the wake of the failed FFE proposal, pointing to what he described as overwhelming support from member associations around the globe.

The Swiss-Italian administrator’s re-election prospects were strengthened significantly after the AFC endorsement, leaving Europe increasingly isolated and exposing the lack of a challenger.

Many of us were running errands, working out, or having breakfast when, in true 2026 Venezuelan fashion, one event we expected happened: María Corina Machado came back to her country.

She reappeared in the middle of a Sunday mass at the Santa Rosa basilica, a church near the city of Barquisimeto, home to the most popular Virgin Mary cult: la Divina Pastora. 

Surrounded by churchgoers and members of her party, Vente Venezuela, Machado joined the mass and embraced people, in a public demonstration of prayer, faith, and hope, in line with her religious persona that made her massively popular in 2023 and 2024, when she crossed the country meeting the communities more affected by mass migration and economic collapse. 

Now, many questions arise. 

How did Machado come back? For the region where she is now, in western Venezuela, we can speculate she took a private plane or a boat from the Dutch islands near the Falcon coast, on a route similar to the one she made during her clandestine trip to Oslo to collect her Nobel Peace Prize in December 2025.  

What will the chavista regime, and their Washington sponsors, do? As we described many times in our Political Risk Report, the chavista regime was preparing for this for months, speaking as if it wasn’t their fault that Machado wasn’t there, as if they would not have persecuted her and charged her with several crimes. Donald Trump just said that she is nice because she gifted him the Nobel Prize, so he hopes she is right. 

What can happen now? Machado will organize pressure to accelerate the complicated roadmap towards rebuilding the institutions and hold elections, including a presidential one where she is finally allowed to compete. At the same time, we expect Machado to channel the public ire about blackouts and inflation, and lead a more coherent and productive campaign towards a true democratic -not only economic- transition. With the appointment of the committee that will choose new justices for the Supreme Court, while the repressive apparatus led by Diosdado Cabello continues to show muscle by harassing activists, we must expect more street action and political negotiation. This is a challenge to both Machado and Delcy Rodríguez, and a shock to the dead calm chavismo was trying to settle. 

More to come. But Venezuela will get frenzied, and be interesting to global media, again.