politics

Shortly before releasing an after-action report on the Palisades fire, the Los Angeles Fire Department issued a confidential memo detailing plans to protect Mayor Karen Bass and others from “reputational harm” in connection with the city’s handling of the catastrophic blaze, records obtained by The Times show.

“It’s our goal to prepare and protect Mayor Bass, the City, and the LAFD from reputational harm associated with the upcoming public release of its AARR, through a comprehensive strategy that includes risk assessment, proactive and reactive communications, and crisis response,” the memo states, referring to the acronym for the LAFD’s report.

The 13-page document is on LAFD letterhead and includes email addresses for department officials, representatives of Bass’ office and public relations consultants hired to help shape messaging about the fire, although it is not known to whom it was eventually distributed. The Times obtained the memo, titled “LAFD AARR: Strategic Response Plan,” from the LAFD through the California Public Records Act.

Labeled “for internal use only,” the memo, which is unsigned, aims to shape news media coverage of the report’s findings, including through efforts to “minimize tough Q&A” by asking to hold closed-door briefings with the Fire Commission and City Council. The memo is undated but notes that “This plan has been updated with the latest timeline as of 10/7.” The after-action report was released to the public on Oct. 8.

The Times disclosed in December that the report had been altered to deflect criticism of the LAFD’s failure to pre-deploy engines and crews to the Palisades ahead of the Jan. 7, 2025 fire, among other shortcomings in the city’s preparations for and response to the deadly disaster.

Mayor Karen Bass joins L.A. City Council and community safety leaders at City Hall in downtown Los Angeles on February 17, 2026.

(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

Bass has repeatedly denied that she was involved in any effort to water down the report, which was meant to spell out mistakes and suggest measures to avoid repeating them after a fire that killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes. But two sources with knowledge of Bass’ office have said that after receiving an early draft of the report, the mayor told then-Interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva that it could expose the city to legal liabilities.

Bass wanted key findings about the LAFD’s actions removed or softened before the report was made public, the sources told The Times early this month. The mayor has said that The Times’ story based on the sources’ accounts was “completely fabricated.”

Representatives of Bass’ office and the LAFD did not immediately comment this week on the 13-page “strategic response plan” memo.

The disclosure about the effort to protect the mayor’s reputation comes after other records revealed that she was leading damage control efforts around both the after-action report and an announcement by federal prosecutors that the Palisades fire was caused by a rekindling of a smaller blaze.

The LAFD was facing scrutiny over why it failed to put out the earlier blaze.

“Any additional interviews with the Fire Chief would likely depend on the Mayor’s guidance,” LAFD spokesperson Capt. Erik Scott wrote in an Oct. 9 email to a Bass aide, Villanueva and others. “Regarding a press conference, I would be cautious as it could invite a high volume of challenging questions, and this would also be contingent on the Mayor’s direction.”

Before releasing the after-action report, the LAFD formed an internal crisis management team and brought in the public relations consultants, Beverly Hills-based Lede Co., to help shape its messaging about the fire. In the 13-page strategy memo, Lede, whose fee was covered by the nonprofit Los Angeles Fire Department Foundation, is tasked with helping to manage and monitor news media coverage of the report.

The latest set of documents obtained by The Times includes a “Tough Q&A” with proposed answers to questions that news reporters might ask Bass and Villanueva. The questions for Bass centered around the budget and former Fire Chief Kristin Crowley’s claims that budget restrictions hampered the department’s ability to fight the Palisades fire, with the proposed answers emphasizing that the budget was not cut.

Ronnie Villanueva speaks during his appointment as interim LAFD Chief on Feb. 21, 2025.

(Drew A. Kelley / Long Beach Press-Telegram via Getty Images)

Villanueva’s proposed answers focused on the “unstoppable” nature of the fire and improvements LAFD has since made to ensure adequate staffing on red flag days.

Other internal emails reviewed by The Times show that Bass met with Villanueva about the after-action report in mid-July.

The mayor’s role in altering the after-action report and managing its release has become an issue in her reelection campaign. Bass previously said through a spokesperson that her office merely encouraged the LAFD to fact-check references in the report about city finances and the forecast of high winds leading up to Jan. 7. The mayor later told The Times that the report was “technical,” saying, “I’m not a firefighter.”

The changes that ended up in the final report were significant, with some Palisades residents and former LAFD chiefs saying they amounted to a cover-up.

A week after the fire, The Times exposed LAFD officials’ decisions not to fully staff up and pre-deploy all available engines and firefighters to the Palisades and other high-risk areas before the dangerous winds hit. Bass later removed Crowley, citing the failure to keep firefighters on duty for a second shift.

An initial draft of the after-action report said the pre-deployment decisions “did not align” with policy, but the final version said the number of companies pre-deployed “went above and beyond the standard LAFD pre-deployment matrix.”

Fire fighters work to extinguish flames during the Eaton fire on Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2025 in Altadena, CA.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

The author of the report, Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook, declined to endorse the final version because of changes that altered his findings and made the report, in his words, “highly unprofessional and inconsistent with our established standards.”

Even with the deletions and changes, the report delivered a harsh critique of the LAFD’s performance during the Palisades fire, pointing to a disorganized response, failures in communication and chiefs who didn’t understand their roles. The report found that top commanders lacked a fundamental knowledge of wildland firefighting tactics, including “basic suppression techniques.”

Fire Chief Jaime Moore, an LAFD veteran whom Bass named as chief in November, has said he is focused on the future and not interested in assigning blame for changes to the report. But he said he will not allow similar edits to future after-action reports.

The after-action report included just a brief reference to the Lachman fire, a small Jan. 1, 2025, blaze that rekindled six days later into the Palisades fire.

The Times found that a battalion chief ordered firefighters to roll up their hoses and leave the Lachman burn area the day after the fire was supposedly extinguished, despite complaints by crew members that the ground still was smoldering.

After the Times report, Bass directed Moore to commission an independent investigation into the LAFD’s handling of the Lachman fire.

LAFD officials have said that most of the 42 recommendations in the after-action report have been implemented, including mandatory staffing protocols on red flag days and training on wind-driven fires, tactical operations and evacuations.

Pringle is a former Times staff writer.

Feb. 20 (UPI) — Peru’s interim President Jose Maria Balcazar was summoned to continue his trial over alleged misappropriation of funds from the Lambayeque Bar Association just one day after assuming the presidency.

The case adds legal pressure to a temporary administration already shaped by political uncertainty.

Peru’s Public Ministry alleges that during his tenure as dean of the Lambayeque Bar Association from 2019 to 2022, Balcazar committed irregularities in managing the institution’s financial income and expenditures.

Prosecutors also allege he ordered profits to be deposited into his personal bank accounts, El Comercio newspaper reported.

Balcazar, a lawmaker from the leftist Peru Libre party, assumed the interim presidency Wednesday following the removal of his predecessor Jose Jeri. News of the court summons emerged only hours after his inauguration.

The first hearing is scheduled June 16, with additional sessions set for June 23 and June 30, either virtually or at the Lambayeque Superior Court in Chiclayo, according to judicial authorities.

A judge ordered the president’s mandatory attendance and warned that failure to appear could result in him being declared in contempt and subject to a nationwide arrest warrant.

On the day lawmakers elected Balcazar, the Lambayeque Bar Association issued a statement opposing his candidacy and warning of multiple allegations against him, RPP Noticias reported.

The association expelled Balcazar permanently Aug. 13, 2022, citing violations of its statutes and code of ethics. It said his conduct caused “serious harm to his own professional association and, consequently, to the dignity and distinguished image all Peruvian lawyers must preserve.”

Balcazar has consistently denied the accusations, saying they lack legal basis.

He also has faced other investigations and complaints over several years. During his time as a judge and later as a congressman, he was the target of allegations including suspected judicial misconduct, fraud, identity impersonation and bribery, along with other questions raised about his professional conduct.

In his first remarks as president, Balcazar sought to downplay the impact of his legal cases, saying “it is not difficult to govern a country” and adding his administration will focus on ensuring “unquestionable” elections scheduled for April.

Separately, former President Pedro Castillo, who is serving an 11-year, five-month sentence for rebellion after his failed 2022 attempt to dissolve Congress, has requested a presidential pardon from Balcazar.

Castillo’s former defense minister and attorney Walter Ayala formally delivered it to the presidential office.

During Castillo’s administration, Balcazar emerged as one of his most visible defenders. He supported Castillo’s government and questioned investigations that involved officials close to the executive branch, local outlet Peru21 reported.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday lashed out at Supreme Court justices who struck down his tariffs agenda, calling them “fools” who made a “terrible, defective decision” that he plans to circumvent by imposing new levies in a different way.

In a defiant appearance at the White House, Trump told reporters that his administration will impose new tariffs by using alternative legal means. He cast the ruling as a technical, not permanent setback, for his trade policy, insisting that the “end result is going to get us more money.”

The president said he would instead impose an across-the-board 10% tariff on imports on global trade partners through an executive order.

The sharp response underscores how central tariffs have been to Trump’s economic and political identity. He portrayed the ruling as another example of institutional resistance to his “America First” agenda and pledged to continue fighting to hold on to his trade authority despite the ruling from the nation’s highest court.

Trump, however, said the ruling was “deeply disappointing” and called the justices who voted against his policy — including Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, whom he nominated to the court — “fools” and “lap dogs.”

“I am ashamed of certain members of the court,” Trump told reporters. “Absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.”

For years, Trump has insisted his tariffs policy is making the United States wealthier and giving his administration leverage to force better trade deals, even though the economic burden has often fallen on U.S. companies and consumers. On the campaign trail, he has turned to them again and again, casting sweeping levies as the economic engine for his administration’s second-term agenda.

Now, in the heat of an election year, the court’s decision scrambles that message.

The ruling from the nation’s highest court is a rude awakening for Trump at a time when his trade policies have already caused fractures among some Republicans and public polling shows a majority of Americans are increasingly concerned with the state of the economy.

Ahead of the November elections, Republicans have urged Trump to stay focused on an economic message to help them keep control of Congress. The president tried to do that on Thursday, telling a crowd in northwest Georgia that “without tariffs, this country would be in so much trouble.”

As Trump attacked the court, Democrats across the country celebrated the ruling — with some arguing there should be a mechanism in place to allow Americans to recoup money lost by the president’s trade policy.

“No Supreme Court decision can undo the massive damage that Trump’s chaotic tariffs have caused,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote in a post on X. “The American people paid for these tariffs and the American people should get their money back.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom called Trump’s tariffs an “illegal cash grab that drove up prices, hurt working families and wrecked longstanding global alliances.”

“Every dollar your administration unlawfully took needs to be immediately refunded — with interest,” Newsom, who is eyeing a 2028 presidential bid, wrote in a post on X addressed to Trump.

The president’s signature economic policy has long languished in the polls, and by a wide margin. Six in 10 Americans surveyed in a Pew Research poll this month said they do not support the tariff increases. Of that group, about 40% strongly disapproved. Just 37% surveyed said they supported the measures — 13% of whom expressed strong approval.

A majority of voters have opposed the policy since April, when Trump unveiled the far-reaching trade agenda, according to Pew.

The court decision lands as more than a policy setback to Trump’ s economic agenda.

It is also a rebuke of the governing style embraced by the president that has often treated Congress less as a partner and more as a body that can be bypassed by executive authority.

Trump has long tested the bounds of his executive authority, particularly on foreign policies, where he has heavily leaned on emergency and national security powers to impose tariffs and acts of war without congressional approval. In the court ruling, even some of his allies drew a bright line through that approach.

Gorsuch sided with the court’s liberals in striking down the tariffs policy. He wrote that while “it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problems arise,” the legislative branch should be taken into account with major policies, particularly those involving taxes and tariffs.

“In all, the legislative process helps ensure each of us has a stake in the laws that govern us and in the Nation’s future,” Gorsuch wrote. “For some today, the weight of those virtues is apparent. For others, it may not seem so obvious.”

He added: “But if history is any guide, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today’s result will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is.”

Trump said the court ruling prompted him to use his trade powers in different ways.

In December, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent asserted has the administration can replicate the tariff structure, or a similar structure, through alternative legal methods in the 1974 Trade Act and 1962 Trade Expansion Act.

“Now the court has given me the unquestioned right to ban all sort of things from coming into our country, to destroy foreign countries,” Trump said, as he lamented the court constraining his ability to “charge a fee.”

“How crazy is that?” Trump said.

It was an extraordinary media moment: CBS late-night host Stephen Colbert on Tuesday publicly blasted his own employer over its handling of his interview with Democratic U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico of Texas.

Colbert contended that his own network prevented him from airing the interview in an effort to appease the Trump administration, which CBS has denied. He chose instead to put the sit-down with the Texas state legislator on YouTube, which is not regulated by the FCC.

The standoff not only highlighted the simmering tensions inside CBS with the late-night host, it also marked the latest flash point in the ongoing clash between the Trump administration and leading media and entertainment figures — including other late-night hosts Seth Meyers and Jimmy Kimmel — who have been openly critical of the president’s policies.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has been leading the charge, aggressively attempting to wield the long dormant equal time rules forcing broadcast TV stations to offer equal time to opposing candidates as a means of influencing the legacy media companies who President Trump believes treats him unfairly.

Carr contends the effort is a long overdue corrective to combat what he and Trump believe is liberal bias in broadcast network news coverage. He has even threatened to pull TV station licenses if programmers don’t get in line.

Last fall, he warned ABC that it could lose its TV station licenses after Kimmel made remarks on his program about slain right-wing activist Charlie Kirk that upset conservatives. Two major TV station groups pulled the program and the network suspended Kimmel‘s program for a week.

But experts say the efforts — along with the recent arrest of former CNN journalist Don Lemon over civil rights charges — pose a threat to constitutionally protected freedom of speech and would likely face court challenges.

“We don’t want the government trying to make decisions as to what counts as political speech and what doesn’t and what counts as fairness and what doesn’t,” media consultant Michael Harrison told The Times last month.

Some experts are also skeptical that Carr will ever make good on those threats through greater enforcement of the equal time provision.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, a public interest communications attorney, said Carr is using his bully pulpit at the FCC to intimidate “a timorous broadcasting industry.”

“The Late Show with Stephen Colbert “ on July 23, 2024.

(Scott Kowalchyk / CBS)

“It’s just all bluster,” said Schwartzman. “Broadcasters are more interested in short-term regulatory relief from the FCC, and in the case of [CBS parent] Paramount, getting approval of a possible Warner Bros. Discovery deal.”

CBS cited financial losses as the reason for the cancellation of Colbert’s show, which ends in May, just two months before CBS parent Paramount Global closed its merger deal with Skydance Media, which required regulatory approval from the Trump administration. Paramount also has been attempting a hostile bid for Warner Bros. Discovery.

Paramount also drew scrutiny over its controversial decision to pay $16 million to settle Trump’s legal salvo against “60 Minutes” over the editing of an interview with his 2024 opponent, then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Most legal analysts viewed the case as frivolous.

Jeffrey McCall, a communications professor at DePauw University, said he understands why CBS did not want to invite FCC scrutiny.

“CBS could have other matters in front of the FCC,” McCall said. “So, I don’t blame CBS for trying to tell Colbert like, ‘hey, back off.’”

But McCall added that he sees no reason for the FCC to end or curtail the exemption daytime and late-night television talk shows have from laws requiring stations to offer equal broadcast opportunities to political candidates.

“They have a lot to do otherwise and I’m just not sure this is worth their trouble,” he said.

The equal time rules were devised at a time when consumers had a limited number of media options. Broadcast TV is no longer dominant in the era of streaming as evidenced by how the Talarico interview drew 8 million views on YouTube — more than three times the typical TV audience for Colbert’s “Late Show.”

Schwartzman noted that equal time provision cases are typically resolved quickly, as the rule only applies during an election campaign.

If Talarico’s interview had aired on TV and his opponents requested time, CBS would have to accommodate them ahead of the Texas primary election on March 3. (The network would not have been required to give time to Republican candidates).

CBS could have fulfilled the request by providing time on its affiliated stations in Texas. The opposing candidates did not have to appear on Colbert’s show.

“The remedy is you have to give them airtime,” Schwartzman said. “That’s all.”

CBS wanted Colbert to steer clear of Talarico because the FCC previously announced it is “investigating” ABC over the candidate’s appearance on “The View,” according to a network executive not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. Talarico was on the daytime talk show Feb. 2, which has led to the FCC launching an “enforcement action” on the matter.

Representatives from CBS and ABC declined comment.

Appearing Wednesday on Fox News Channel’s “The Ingraham Angle,” Carr brushed off accusations by Democrats that he was using the rule to silence their candidates.

“What we’re doing now is simply applying the law on the books,” Carr said.

When host Laura Ingraham noted that if CBS had aired the Talarico interview, it would have meant free airtime for Tarico’s primary opponent and high-profile Trump critic Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), Carr replied, “Ironically, yes.”

But Schwartzman noted that if the FCC punished a network for ignoring the rule, the move would likely be challenged in court and take years to resolve. Even if the policy were violated, that would not be enough to get a station license pulled.

“A single violation or even a couple of violations of FCC policy are meaningless,” Schwartzman said. “You have to demonstrate a pattern of violations.”

Carr has also publicly supported Nexstar Media Group’s proposed $6.2-billion merger with Tegna, which would require the government to lift the ownership cap that limits TV station owners to coverage of 39% of the U.S. with their outlets.

Not surprisingly, the merger has the support of Trump, who is pals with top Nexstar executive Sean Compton, who oversees its cable channel NewsNation.

“We need more competition against THE ENEMY, the Fake News National TV Networks,” Trump wrote Feb. 7 on Truth Social. “Letting Good Deals get done like Nexstar — Tegna will help knock out the Fake News because there will be more competition, and at a higher and more sophisticated level.”

How Nexstar could take on the broadcast networks is a mystery. Nexstar is highly dependent on its affiliations with ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox due to their contracts with the NFL, which provide the stations with their highest-rated programming. Those network affiliations also give Nexstar leverage in its negotiations to get carriage on cable and satellite providers.

BUENOS AIRES, Feb. 20 (UPI) — The announcement of the closure of FATE, the only tire manufacturer entirely owned by the Argentine capital and with more than 80 years of history, became the most visible symbol of the fracture facing industry under the government of Javier Milei.

FATE’s decision, announced on Wednesday, was made due to the company’s inability to compete with a wave of imported tires arriving from Asia at prices far below local costs.

FATE’s case was not isolated. According to the association Industriales Pymes Argentinos, or IPA, more than 22,000 companies have closed and more than 300,000 formal jobs have been lost over the past two years as a result of a trade liberalization policy that reduced tariffs with the promise of lowering consumer prices.

This strategy left local production facing competition that many business owners describe as unequal and difficult to sustain.

Daniel Rosato, the IPA president, told UPI that over the past two years, the country experienced an avalanche of imports, ranging from capital goods to food products.

He said Milei’s government reduced tariffs to boost competitiveness, but the outcome was different.

“Argentina has very high dollar-denominated costs and the domestic industry was unable to compete against cheaper imported products, many of these come from Asia,” Rosato said.

“It is very difficult to compete with China. This led the industry to begin producing less due to a lack of competitiveness. The recession is deepening. Factory closures affect not only small companies, but the entire industrial sector,” he said.

Economist Leonardo Park, a researcher at the think tank Fundar, said the government implemented a sweeping deregulation of foreign trade.

Some of these measures, he said, were necessary, such as eliminating bureaucratic systems that previously delayed or limited product imports and simplifying the permits companies needed to bring goods from abroad.

However, tariffs were also reduced, technical standards relaxed, customs controls loosened and the anti-dumping system was reformed.

“All of these reforms generated strong growth in imports since last year,” he said.

Park warned that a rapid increase in foreign purchases creates a risk for local production, as it competes directly with it.

“A drop in production can translate into a risk for the employment associated with that activity,” he said, adding that FATE’s case illustrates such an impact.

“More imported tires mean less domestic production,” Park said. “When production falls, companies downsize or close. The final effect is layoffs and job losses.”

The economist also pointed to two central concerns: the loss of industrial capabilities the country already developed and employment.

“Displaced workers often face difficulties finding jobs in other sectors, whether due to a lack of dynamism in the labor market, a shortage of new skills or because growing activities are concentrated in other regions,” Park said.

From a legal perspective, labor attorney Walter Mañko, partner at Deloitte Legal Argentina, said the company cited a loss of competitiveness that made the business unviable.

“It is true that tires coming from China have a much lower cost than those manufactured in Argentina and that generates a decline in domestic demand,” he said.

Mañko also underscored the social impact. The 920 jobs lost with FATE’s closure represent families that could be left without income. In economic terms, he added, the country loses its main tire manufacturer, a loss that he said cannot be overlooked.

After the closure announcement, Milei’s government intervened through the Labor Secretariat and ordered mandatory conciliation. It is a legal tool the state can activate without prior request from the company or the union to halt the conflict and restore the situation to the point before the crisis.

For 15 days, with the possibility of extending the period by five more, both sides must sit down to negotiate. The room for agreement is narrow. What happens in those talks will not only define FATE’s future, but also send a signal about Argentina’s industrial direction in this new economic phase.

WASHINGTON — Immigrant advocates fear a Trump administration proposal released Friday amounts to an indefinite pause on new work permits for asylum seekers.

The draft regulation from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services would halt the acceptance of work permit applications when average processing times at the agency exceed 180 days.

The regulation also would extend the time asylum seekers must wait before becoming eligible to apply for a work permit, lengthening the period from 150 days to 365 days.

The proposal says USCIS expects that new work permit applications for asylum seekers “would be paused for an extended period, possibly many years.”

Conchita Cruz, co-executive director of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, said the regulation would be catastrophic for asylum seekers, their families and U.S. communities.

“Forcing individuals who are working and living in the United States legally out of their jobs is not only cruel, but it is bad policy,” she said. “If this regulation goes into effect, it will hurt U.S. families, businesses and the U.S. economy.”

The proposed regulation change comes amid broad efforts by the Trump administration to end humanitarian benefits and restrict legal immigration.

For example, Homeland Security has sought to terminate Temporary Protected Status benefits that provided work permits and deportation protection to hundreds of thousands of immigrants. And in a memo released this week, the agency said agents are authorized to detain refugees who have not yet filed applications for lawful permanent residence after their first year in the U.S.

Under the first Trump administration, agency officials in 2020 similarly proposed increasing the employment eligibility waiting period to one year.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Friday that President Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs are illegal and cannot stand without the approval of Congress.

The 6-3 decision deals Trump his most significant defeat at the Supreme Court.

Last year, the justices issued temporary orders to block several of his initiatives, but Friday’s ruling is the first to hold that the president overstepped his legal authority.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., speaking for the court, said Congress has the power to impose taxes and tariffs, and lawmakers did not do so in an emergency law that does not mention tariffs.

“The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it,” he wrote.

“And until now no President has read the International Emergency Economics Act to confer such power. We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” Roberts wrote.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch in a concurring opinion stressed the role of Congress.

“The Constitution lodges the Nation’s lawmaking powers in Congress alone,” he said.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Brett M. Kavanaugh dissented.

Trump claimed his new and ever-shifting tariffs would bring in trillions of dollars in revenue for the government and encourage more manufacturing in the United States.

But manufacturing employment has gone down over the past year, in part because American companies have been hurt by higher costs for parts that they import.

Critics said the new taxes hurt small businesses in particular and raised prices for American consumers.

The justices focused on the president’s claimed legal authority to impose tariffs as responses to an international economic emergency.

Several owners of small businesses sued last year to challenge Trump’s import taxes as illegal and disruptive.

Learning Resources, an Illinois company which sells educational toys for children, said it would have to raise its prices by 70% because most of its toys were manufactured in Asia.

A separate suit was filed by a New York wine importer and Terry Precision Cycling, which sells cycling apparel for women.

Both suits won in lower courts. Judges said the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 cited by Trump did not mention tariffs and had not been used before to impose such import taxes.

The law said the president in response to a national emergency may deal with an “unusual and extraordinary threat” by freezing assets or sanctioning a foreign country or otherwise regulating trade.

Trump said the nation’s long-standing trade deficit was an emergency and tariffs were an appropriate regulation.

While rejecting Trump’s claims, the lower courts left his tariffs in place while the administration appealed its case to the Supreme Court.

Ukraine expressed frustration with its ongoing peace talks with Russia and the United States this week, saying US pressure was too one-sided against it.

“As of today, we cannot say that the outcome is sufficient,” Zelenskyy told Ukrainians in a Wednesday evening video address.

Before Wednesday’s talks in Geneva had begun, Zelenskyy told Axios news service that ceding the remaining one-fifth of the eastern Donetsk region that Russia doesn’t control, as Moscow has demanded, would not be accepted by Ukrainians.

“Emotionally, people will never forgive this. Never. They will not forgive … me, they will not forgive [the US],” Zelenskyy said, adding that Ukrainians “can’t understand why” they would be asked to give up additional land.

Russia currently controls about 19 percent of Ukraine, down from 26 percent in March 2022.

Last month, 54 percent of surveyed Ukrainians told the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology they categorically reject transferring the whole of the Donetsk region to Russian control, even in return for strong security guarantees, with only 39 percent accepting the proposal.

Two-thirds of respondents also said they did not believe the current US-sponsored peace negotiations would lead to lasting peace.

Instead of ceding land now, Zelenskyy favours freezing the current line of contact as a pretext for a ceasefire and territorial negotiations.

“I think that if we will put in the document … that we stay where we stay on the contact line, I think that people will support this [in a] referendum. That is my opinion,” he told Axios.

Blaming Ukraine

US President Donald Trump told Reuters last month that Ukraine, not Russia, was holding up a peace deal.

But Zelenskyy said it was “not fair” that Trump was putting public pressure on Ukraine to accept Russian terms, adding, “I hope it is just his tactics.”

US senators visiting Odesa last week agreed with him, saying they want their government to put more pressure on Russia.

“Nobody, literally nobody, believes that Russia is acting in good faith in the negotiations with our government and with the Ukrainians. And so pressure becomes the key,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

Russia unleashed a barrage of 396 attack drones and 29 missiles on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure on the day of the Geneva talks, its second large-scale blow in six days. On February 12, another attack had left 100,000 families without electricity, and 3,500 apartment buildings without heat in Kyiv alone.

“Russia greets with a strike even the very day new formats begin in Geneva – trilateral and bilateral with the United States,” said Zelenskyy in a video address. “This very clearly shows what Russia wants and what it is truly intent on.”

Zelenskyy has repeatedly asked Western allies to stop Russian energy sales that circumvent sanctions, and to stop exporting components to third countries, which re-export them to Russia’s armaments industry.

Russia is believed to be using a shadow fleet estimated at between 400 and 1,000 oil tankers to carry and sell its crude oil. France has seized two of those tankers, and the US seized a second tanker on Monday.

The US Senate has held off voting on a sanctions bill that has 85 percent support because of opposition from Trump. The bill would impose secondary sanctions on buyers of Russian oil – notably India and China.

Can Russia take Donetsk anyway?

Russia has fought since 2014 to seize the two eastern regions of Ukraine, which triggered its invasion – Luhansk and Donetsk – where it claimed a Russian-speaking population was being persecuted by the government in Kyiv.

Late last year, Russia managed to seize all of Luhansk, but analysts believe it is doubtful that it could take the remainder of Donetsk without serious losses, because Ukraine has heavily fortified a series of cities in the western part of the region.

That task has now become even harder, according to observers, since Russia this month lost access to Starlink terminals, which helped it communicate, fly its drones and coordinate accurate counter-battery fire.

As Russian ground assaults have faltered, Ukraine has seized the initiative to make gains in Dnipropetrovsk, said Ukrainian military observer Konstantyn Mashovets.

Ukrainian forces gained 201sq km of territory from Russian occupation forces between February 11 and 15, according to observers, reportedly their fastest advance since a 2023 counteroffensive.

Russia has been trying to replace Starlink using stratospheric balloons, reported Ukrainian Defence Ministry adviser Serhiy “Flash” Beskrestnov.

Russia would likely take six months to replace Starlink, said a Ukrainian unmanned systems commander, offering Ukrainian forces a window to roll back Russian advances.

It also suffered 31,680 casualties in January, estimated Ukraine’s General Staff – a sustainable number given Russian recruitment levels of about 40,000 a month. But those numbers would rise in the event of a major assault on the remainder of Donetsk, experts say.

“Our goal is to have at least 50,000 confirmed enemy losses every month,” said Ukrainian Minister of Defence Mykhailo Fedorov on February 12, echoing a goal set by Zelenskyy last month.

Fedorov has set out to increase the production of remote-control FPV drones used on the front lines, which Ukraine says are now responsible for 60 percent of all Russian casualties.

As part of that effort, joint drone production facilities are planned in several European countries. The first started operating on February 13 in Germany, Zelenskyy told the Munich Security Conference, and nine more are planned.

In addition, Ukraine’s European allies pledged 38 billion euros ($44.7bn) in military aid this year during a Ramstein format meeting – the alliance of more than 50 countries which plans military aid for Ukraine – including 2.5 billion euros ($2.9bn) for Ukrainian drones – “one of the most successful ‘Ramsteins’,” Fedorov said.

The European Union has additionally voted to borrow 90 billion euros ($106bn) to give to Ukraine in financial aid this year and next.

The US stopped being a donor of military and financial aid to Ukraine after Trump was sworn in as president in January 2025.

Against Trump’s wishes, the US Senate voted to spend $400m in each of the next two years as part of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which pays US companies for weapons for Ukraine’s military. Europeans have pledged to spend at least 5 billion euros ($5.8bn) on US weapons this year.

Europe would also be the main contributor to a “reassurance force” policing the line of contact after a ceasefire, and on Ukraine’s insistence, US representatives also met with British, French, German, Italian and Swiss representatives before the talks in Geneva.

Feb. 20 (UPI) — Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger has been tapped to give the Democratic response next week to President Donald Trump‘s State of the Union, the party’s leaders said.

Spanberger was announced as the Democratic speaker Thursday in a joint statement from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, both from New York.

“Gov. Spanberger has always put service over politics — defending our national security and delivering real results for working families,” Schumer said.

“She knows real results for working families. She knows Americans want lower costs, safer communities and a stronger democracy — not chaos and corruption.”

Spanberger is a rising star in the Democratic Party. A former CIA officer, Spanberger ousted a Republican incumbent to win a U.S. House seat for her state in 2018.

After three terms in the chamber, she was elected in November as the first female governor of Virginia. Democrats are hoping her win flipping the governor’s mansion blue will help cement Virginia’s status as a Democratic-led state come the midterm elections.

Jeffries on Thursday praised the 46-year-old for standing “in stark contract to Donald Trump, who will lie, deflect and blame everyone but himself for his failed presidency on Tuesday evening,” which is when the president is scheduled to speak to a joint session of Congress.

“As our nation marks its 250th anniversary this summer, Gov. Spanberger embodies the best of America as a mother, community leader and dedicated public servant.”

The Democratic leaders also announced Thursday that Sen. Alex Padilla of California would deliver the Democratic response in Spanish.

“Americans don’t need another speech from Donald Trump pretending everything is fine when their bills are too high, paychecks are too low and masked and militarized federal agents are roaming our communities violating constitutional rights on a daily basis,” Padilla said in a statement Thursday on his selection to give the Democratic rebuttal.

“We refuse to accept his failed economic agenda that makes billionaires richer while middle class Americans see their healthcare costs rise. We refuse to accept a federal government that weaponizes enforcement agencies against immigrants and U.S. citizens alike. And we refuse to accept attacks on the right to vote.”

Padilla said “there is a better path” and that’s what his Tuesday speech will be about.

Trump’s address is to be held Tuesday, but at least 12 Democratic members of Congress are planning to boycott the speech and attend a competing rally organized by progressive organizations MoveOn and MeidasTouch.

It is no longer possible to interpret the Yemeni landscape solely through the lens of politics. The developments witnessed in the southern Yemeni governorates under government control in recent months clearly indicate that security and military affairs have become the decisive factor in determining the course of power on the ground. Any governmental or political arrangements will be unsustainable unless the issue of security control and the unification of military command are resolved.

Nor can the escalating Saudi–Emirati rift between two allies who have militarily, politically and economically shaped southern Yemen in recent years be overlooked, given its direct impact on the balance of power and stability.

Over the past years, a complex security structure has taken shape across the southern governorates, comprising official units and others that emerged during the war. Some of these units are linked to state institutions, while others were established with Emirati support, such as the Southern Transitional Council’s forces, which number in the tens of thousands, or through local arrangements shaped by the circumstances of the conflict.

Although recent months have seen moves to restructure this landscape following the defeat of the Southern Transitional Council (STC), which declared its dissolution in Hadhramaut and al-Mahra on January 3, 2026, security control remains uneven from one governorate to another. Furthermore, the STC’s security and military formations have not disappeared entirely; some have been redeployed, while the fate of others remains unknown.

In Aden, the temporary capital, security agencies operate within a complex structure. Some units formerly affiliated with the STC have seen their personnel and weapons disappear, while others have been renamed or redeployed. However, longstanding networks of influence remain, and the transfer of leadership or redeployment of camps reflects attempts to rebalance power rather than a definitive resolution of the situation.

The same applies, to varying degrees, to Lahij, Abyan, Dhale, Shabwah and Hadhramaut, where the state’s ability to assert effective authority varies, as does the level of coordination between official security forces and the formations that emerged during the war.

The most sensitive issue at this stage is the integration of military and security formations into the Ministries of Defence and Interior. The state seeks to end parallel security authority, but the process faces complex challenges, including differing sources of funding for some units, varying political loyalties, fears among some commanders of losing local influence, and considerations related to the composition of these forces. As a result, integration appears gradual, relying more on redeployment and restructuring than on decisive measures that could risk triggering confrontation.

The government now based in Aden, southern Yemen, finds itself facing a delicate equation: it must impose its security authority without plunging the country into renewed internal conflict.

The transition from multiple armed groups to a state monopoly on the use of force requires political consensus, regional support and international backing. Any hasty move could reignite internal clashes, particularly given existing political and regional sensitivities, as well as fears that the Saudi–Emirati dispute could once again trigger confrontation on the ground.

For this reason, government efforts are focused first on establishing a stable security environment.

This trajectory cannot be understood without considering the regional dimension. Saudi Arabia views Yemen as a direct strategic depth for its national security and seeks the emergence of a stable state along its southern border.

The dispute between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, particularly after Yemen requested the withdrawal of Emirati forces from its territory, has become a significant factor shaping the course of the crisis, especially amid Saudi accusations that Abu Dhabi continues to support the STC and consolidate its influence on the ground.

Yemen today is part of a broader regional landscape, intertwined with Red Sea dynamics and maritime routes, competition for influence in the Horn of Africa, and tensions stretching from Sudan to Somalia to the Gulf. For this reason, international actors — particularly the United States — are keen to keep the situation in Yemen under control, fearing that a security collapse could trigger intra-Gulf conflict, threaten international shipping, create space for a new wave of armed groups, or allow the Houthis to exploit the situation.

In the next phase, the government is likely to continue efforts to consolidate security control in Aden and other southern governorates, including Hadhramaut, which borders Saudi Arabia, while gradually integrating military units and maintaining political balances to prevent renewed conflict.

The success of these efforts will determine whether the country is moving towards gradual stability or another round of reshaping power centres. Given this reality, the central question remains: who truly possesses the ability to impose security on the ground, particularly as some actors continue to push the Southern Transitional Council towards escalation that could reignite the conflict?

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

More than 600 people may be in custody for political reasons, one Venezuelan rights group estimates.

Venezuela’s acting president has signed into law an amnesty bill that could see hundreds of politicians, activists and lawyers released soon, while tacitly acknowledging what the country has denied for years – that it has political detainees in jail.

The law, signed on Thursday, in effect reverses decades of denials in the government’s latest about-face since the United States military’s January 3 attack in the country’s capital, Caracas, and the abduction of President Nicolas Maduro.

Opposition members, activists, human rights defenders, journalists and others who were targeted by the governing party over the past 27 years could benefit from the new law.

But families hoping for the release of relatives say acting President Delcy Rodriguez has failed to deliver on earlier promises to release prisoners. Some of them have been gathered outside detention centres for weeks.

Venezuela-based prisoners’ rights group Foro Penal has tallied 448 releases since January 8 and estimates that more than 600 people are still in custody for political reasons.

The new law provides amnesty for involvement in political protests and “violent actions” which took place during a brief coup in 2002 and during demonstrations or elections in certain months going back to 2004.

It does not detail the exact crimes which would be eligible for amnesty, though a previous draft laid out several, including instigation of illegal activity, resistance to authorities, rebellion and treason.

People convicted of “military rebellion” for involvement in events in 2019 are excluded. The law also does not return assets of those detained, revoke public office bans given for political reasons or cancel sanctions against media outlets.

Opposition divided

“It’s not perfect, but it is undoubtedly a great step forward for the reconciliation of Venezuela,” opposition politician Nora Bracho said during a debate on the bill in the legislature on Thursday.

But the law was criticised by other members of the opposition, including Pedro Urruchurtu, international relations director for opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Corina Machado.

“A true amnesty doesn’t require laws, but rather will, something that is lacking in this discussion,” he said on X on Thursday. “It is not only an invalid and illegitimate law, but also a trap to buy time and revictimize those persecuted.”

Since Madura’s abduction, US President Donald Trump has praised Rodriguez, Maduro’s former deputy, while downplaying the prospect of supporting the opposition.

For her part, Rodriguez has overseen several concessions to the US, including freezing oil shipments to Cuba and supporting a law to open the state-controlled oil industry to foreign companies.

The US has said it will control the proceeds ⁠from Venezuela’s oil sales until a “representative government” is established.

The United Nations announced that the United States has paid approximately $160m towards its nearly $4bn in outstanding dues.

The payment goes towards the UN’s regular operating budget, according to spokesman Stephane Dujarric.

But the shortfall comes as the administration of US President Donald Trump has openly questioned its commitment to the UN and has slashed money earmarked for the international body.

Still, on Thursday, Trump appeared to endorse funding the UN during the inaugural meeting of his Board of Peace in Washington, DC.

“We’re going to help them money-wise, and we’re going to make sure the United Nations is viable,” Trump said. “And I think it’s going to eventually live up to its potential. That will be a big day.”

The UN has indicated that the US owes about $2.196bn to its regular budget, including $767m for the current year. Another $1.8bn is owed for the UN’s peacekeeping operations.

A financial crisis

For years, the UN has faced a financial crisis, with a growing shortfall of contributions. Each of the organisation’s 193 member states is required to contribute, based on its economic ability.

Poorer countries could be asked to contribute as little as 0.001 percent of the UN’s regular budget. Wealthier countries could reach the maximum contribution amount of 22 percent.

But unpaid dues have already forced the UN to slash its spending and reduce its services.

In a stark warning last month, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres cautioned that the international body faces an “imminent financial collapse” unless its financial rules are overhauled or all 193 member nations pay their dues.

Guterres revealed that the UN’s regular operating budget could be depleted as early as July, a scenario that would severely jeopardise its global operations.

The US is the largest donor to the UN, as the world’s largest economy. But it currently owes billions in unpaid dues.

UN officials have stated that the US accounts for approximately 95 percent of the arrears to the organisation’s regular budget.

‘Empty words’

Since returning to the White House for a second term in January 2025, Trump has elevated concerns that US dues might go unpaid.

The Republican leader has repeatedly criticised the UN as ineffective, even articulating that sentiment at September’s UN General Assembly.

“What is the purpose of the United Nations?” Trump asked the assembly. “All they seem to do is write a really strongly worded letter and then never follow that letter up. It’s empty words.”

Throughout his second term so far, he has cut foreign aid spending and withdrawn from international commitments. In January, for instance, his government pulled out of 31 UN programmes, including its democracy fund and a body that works on maternal and child health.

But on Thursday, at his Board of Peace meeting, Trump appeared to take a warmer stance towards the UN, saying he planned to work “very closely” with the organisation.

“Someday, I won’t be here. The United Nations will be,” he said, seeming to endorse its longevity.

Trump also acknowledged the organisation’s financial distress: “They need help, and they need help money-wise.” He did not mention the US arrears.

While the Board of Peace establishment was meant to oversee the Gaza ceasefire, many see it as an attempt by Trump to rival the UN Security Council’s role in preventing and ending conflicts around the world.

Critics have described the board, which Trump chairs, as a “parallel system” that risks undermining the UN’s authority and operations.

Trump himself appeared to position his Board of Peace as an oversight body for the UN in Thursday’s remarks.

The Board of Peace, he said, “is going to almost be looking over the United Nations and making sure it runs properly”.

Kim focuses on improving economic activity in opening speech at Ninth Congress of the Workers’ Party of Korea.

North Korea has kicked off a rare party congress of the ruling Workers’ Party, held once every five years, that will see the leadership in Pyongyang set major policy goals in defence, diplomacy and the economy, state media reports.

The Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said on Friday that the Ninth Congress of the Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK) was under way, marking the start of the country’s most consequential political event since 2021.

“The Ninth Congress of the WPK opened with splendour in Pyongyang, the capital city of the revolution,” KCNA said, reporting that the high-level meeting started on Thursday and observers say it is expected to run for several days.

South Korea’s official Yonhap News Agency said the gathering will be closely followed for any signs regarding North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons or overtures towards the administrations in Seoul and the United States, which the North considers its chief foes.

Yonhap reports that North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, made no mention of relations with either South Korea or the US in his opening speech to the congress on Thursday and, instead, focused on boosting the country’s economy.

“Ahead of our party are heavy and urgent tasks of advancing economic development and improving people’s livelihoods, and transforming all aspects of social life in the country as quickly as possible,” Kim said, according to KCNA.

While the true state of North Korea’s often struggling economy is hard to gauge, The Associated Press news agency reports that outside experts suggest the country has seen a gradual recovery in economic activity, helped by a post-COVID boost in trade with China and the export of weapons to help Russia in its war against Ukraine.

Several thousand North Korean troops have fought on Moscow’s side against Ukraine, and Pyongyang is believed to have exported large amounts of ammunition to help the Russian invasion of its neighbour.

North Korea’s ‘biggest enemy’

South Korea’s spy agency said last week it was monitoring the congress for any sign that Kim will officially designate his teenage daughter, Kim Ju Ae, as his potential successor, formalising her position as heir apparent in a fourth-generation succession of the Kim family as North Korea’s leaders.

At the previous party congress five years ago, Kim declared that the US was his nation’s “biggest enemy”, the AFP news agency reports, and there is deep interest in whether the North Korean leader will soften his rhetoric – or double down – at this year’s congress, particularly amid the US presidency of Donald Trump.

Trump – who met Kim in 2019 when he briefly stepped foot into North Korea to shake Kim’s hand and pose for photos – said during a tour of Asia late last year that he was “100 percent” open to meeting Kim again.

So far, Kim has demurred on Trump’s overtures to meet again.

Observers of North Korean politics are reported to be scouring satellite imagery for any signs of the vast military parades that have accompanied previous congress meetings in Pyongyang.

Such parades will be closely watched for signs of a shift in North Korea’s weapons capabilities, as the country has used previous processions to show off its newest and most advanced weapons.

Kim held a ceremony on Thursday to unveil the deployment of 50 new launch vehicles for nuclear-capable short-range missiles as the congress kicked off.

According to Yonhap, the congress brings together some 5,000 party representatives from across the country, including 200 senior officials from the WPK’s headquarters. More than 4,700 officials from regional and industrial sectors are also in attendance.

Reporting from Washington — Sen. Elizabeth Warren took the first major step toward a White House run Monday, announcing a presidential exploratory committee as she attempts to redefine populism for the left in the age of Donald Trump.

“These aren’t cracks that families are falling into. They’re traps. America’s middle class is under attack,” the Massachusetts Democrat said in a 4½-minute video posted online. “Billionaires and big corporations decided they wanted more of the pie, and they enlisted politicians to cut ’em a fatter slice.”

Aside from a few images of Trump and polarizing figures in his administration, Warren’s largely biographical video steered clear of directly taking on the president. Instead, it echoed some of the complaints that brought him to power by asserting that “corruption is poisoning our democracy” and that government has “become a tool for the wealthy and well-connected.”

Warren is the biggest name to take a formal step into a race that is expected to feature a historically large primary field for a party that is eager to displace Trump in the White House.

A fundraising juggernaut who was among the first to tap into the anger of a resurgent left, Warren figures to be a major factor in the Democratic primary with a significant chance of winning the nomination.

Some detractors say Warren would have a hard time in a general election, however, both because some voters see her as too far to the left and because the former Harvard University law professor’s style can appear pedantic and lecturing to some ears. She has also been dogged by controversy over her thin claims of Native American ancestry.

But she has proved adept at capturing the frustrations and aspirations of many on the left. She’s skilled at putting core beliefs about the need for government regulation and income distribution into simple terms on videos that go viral. And she has successfully used her position on Senate committees to grill administration figures from both parties whom she has accused of going easy on big banks and other powerful players — attracting accusations of grandstanding from detractors.

“I’m in this fight all the way,” she said at a Monday afternoon news conference in Cambridge, Mass., using her favorite word, “fight,” multiple times.

The rhetoric puts her at the forefront of an intraparty debate over how best to take on the president. Warren believes in a combative approach based on a left-wing alternative to his right-wing populism.

She has long positioned herself as a fighter — years ago saying she had “thrown rocks” at those in the wrong. She relishes an image as a leader who will not back down, even in occasional battles against her own party.

“She was a pioneer of a lot of the populist themes that are coursing through the veins of Democratic primary voters, and she’s able to channel their frustration at the current administration,” said Colin Reed, a consultant who has run a campaign against Warren and later headed a Republican opposition research group.

Like Trump, Warren attempts to channel the anger in the middle class over the decline in employment in the nation’s industrial base and stagnant incomes for a large share of American workers.

Unlike Trump, she favors more government regulation and spending — including Medicare for all — to lift more people from poverty. She also opposes him on the long list of issues of cultural and ethnic diversity that have become litmus tests for both parties.

Warren, a policy wonk, is also far different from Trump in governing style and temperament.

Other potential candidates say a more uplifting message is needed to counter Trump’s grievance-filled politics. Warren, asked about her polarizing reputation on Monday, was unapologetic, saying those unhappy with her are the drug companies, big banks and others who benefit from the status quo.

In announcing on New Year’s Eve, Warren jumped ahead of several Senate colleagues who are expected to join the race soon, including Sens. Kamala Harris of California, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Cory Booker of New Jersey. Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas and former Vice President Joe Biden are also among the long list of Democrats considering the race.

Warren, who is completing her first term in the Senate, is 69, younger than Trump and other potential front-runners such as Biden and Sanders, but far from the generational change some in her party are urging.

Her early entry into the 2020 primary race, on the last day of 2018 calendar year, demonstrates the eagerness of potential candidates to stake a claim on party support, fundraising and public attention.

She is entering the primaries at a time when the Democratic Party is not only grappling with its economic message; it is also trying to come to grips with its increasing diversity. Hillary Clinton’s failure to energize enough voters of color was one of many reasons she could not defeat Trump, and many Democrats believe that they must make a stronger appeal to minority voters.

Warren, whose base of support in Massachusetts is largely white, signaled her intent to court minority voters in her launch video, which showed clips of her marching in an LGBTQ parade in a feather boa and attacking Trump’s divisiveness while pointing to the harsher effects that economic inequality has had on people of color.

Trump has gone after her repeatedly, mocking her claims to Native American heritage with the nickname “Pocahontas.”

In a Fox interview Monday, Trump continued to belittle her, saying he would “love to run against her” and attacking her mental fitness by saying “you’d have to ask her psychiatrist” whether she could win the election.

Warren’s attempts to put the Native American controversy to rest, including a DNA test this year that showed trace genetic links to Native American peoples, have largely fallen flat, drawing criticism not only from Republicans but prominent Native Americans as well.

Several reviews of her records, including an exhaustive investigation by the Boston Globe, have found that her ethnicity claims played no role in her hiring at a series of law school jobs, including at Harvard.

“Her message is a resonant one, but in terms of the messenger there are questions that weren’t there a few months ago,” said Tracy Sefl, a Democratic consultant who has been involved in many presidential races.

Sefl called the imperative to defeat Trump in 2020 “almost beyond description” and said “Democrats will be less inclined to choose a messenger who’s been called into question.”

Warren has tried to counter another potential liability — her image as part of the coastal elite — by telling her life story, which she also highlighted in Monday’s launch video.

She grew up in Oklahoma to middle-class parents. Her mother took a job at Sears when her father was unable to work following a heart attack.

A champion high school debater, she was able to make it to college and then law school while also starting a family.

Those early struggles fit within her economic argument that middle- and working-class families are often left without a safety net in the face of healthcare emergencies and other setbacks.

As a member of the Democratic minority in the Senate, Warren can’t claim many legislative accomplishments, but has succeeded in commanding attention.

She has kept financial regulation at the center of her message, the issue that brought her to prominence as an academic and allowed her to first make her mark on national politics while serving as a special advisor in the Obama administration. In that role, she advocated for and helped establish a consumer protection agency as part of the financial services and banking overhaul passed in the aftermath of the financial collapse.

Warren, a longtime critic of Wall Street, was passed over by President Obama to lead the agency on a permanent basis after Republicans made it clear they would fight her nomination. She ran for the Senate instead, winning her first term in 2012.

Despite hostility toward her policies from the financial industry, which contributes heavily to many candidates in both parties, Warren has been an especially strong fundraiser since entering politics. In her first Senate race, she raised what were then record levels of donations in both small online contributions and larger sums from the party’s big players.

She is a large draw on the campaign trail, where she gestures emphatically as she talks about what she characterizes as the “rigged” system that favors the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of middle-class people.

Warren stayed out of the 2016 race, believing Clinton was unbeatable in the primary. Since then, other contenders for the White House, including Sanders, have captured much of the attention and energy that had been directed toward her.

Questions intensified about whether her moment had passed after signs of somewhat tepid support cropped up in her home state this year.

She easily won reelection against an unknown candidate, drawing 60% of the vote, but her vote total was lower than that of Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, and polls showed the majority of Massachusetts voters did not want her to make a presidential run. Many Democrats preferred former Gov. Deval Patrick, who recently bowed out.

The Boston Globe editorial board, one of the most liberal in the country, urged her to reconsider a bid, saying she had become a “divisive figure” on the national stage.

“There’s no shame in testing the waters and deciding to stay on the beach,” the board wrote.

Follow the latest news of the Trump administration on Essential Washington »

noah.bierman@latimes.com

Twitter: @noahbierman

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, a panel made up of President Trump’s appointees, on Thursday approved his proposal to build a ballroom larger than the White House itself where the East Wing once stood.

The seven-member panel is one of two federal agencies that must approve Trump’s plans for the ballroom. The National Capital Planning Commission, which has jurisdiction over construction and major renovation to government buildings in the region, is also reviewing the project.

Members of the fine arts commission originally had been scheduled to discuss and vote on the design after a follow-up presentation by the architect, and had planned to vote on final approval at next month’s meeting. But after the 6-0 vote on the design, the panel’s chairman, Rodney Mims Cook Jr., unexpectedly made another motion to vote on final approval.

Six of the seven commissioners — all appointed by the Republican president in January — voted once more in favor. Commissioner James McCrery did not participate in the discussion or the votes because he was the initial architect on the project before Trump replaced him.

The ballroom will be built on the site of the former East Wing, which Trump had demolished in October with little public notice. That drew an outcry from lawmakers, historians and preservationists who argued that the president should not have taken that step until the two federal agencies and Congress had reviewed and approved the project, and the public had a chance to provide comment.

The 90,000-square-foot ballroom would be nearly twice the size of the White House, which is 55,000-square-feet, and would accommodate about 1,000 people, Trump has said. The East Room, currently the largest room in the White House, can fit just over 200 people at most.

Commissioners offered mostly complimentary comments before the votes.

Cook echoed one of Trump’s main arguments for adding a larger entertaining space to the White House: It would end the long-standing practice of erecting temporary structures on the South Lawn that Trump describes as tents to host visiting dignitaries for state dinners and other functions.

“Our sitting president has actually designed a very beautiful structure,” Cook said. “The United States just should not be entertaining the world in tents.”

The panel received mainly negative comments from the public

Members of the public were asked to submit written comment by a Wednesday afternoon deadline. Thomas Leubke, the panel’s secretary, said “over 99%” of the more than 2,000 messages it received in the past week from around the country were in opposition to the project.

Leubke tried to summarize the comments for the commissioners.

Some comments cited concerns about Trump’s decision to unilaterally tear down the East Wing, as well as the lack of transparency about who is paying for the ballroom or how contracts were awarded, Leubke said. Comments in support referenced concerns for the image of the United States on the world stage and the need for a larger entertaining space at the White House.

Trump has defended the ballroom in a recent series of social media posts that included drawings of the building. He said in one January post that most of the material needed to build it had been ordered “and there is no practical or reasonable way to go back. IT IS TOO LATE!”

The commission met Thursday over Zoom and heard from Shalom Baranes, the lead architect, and Rick Parisi, the landscape architect. Both described a series of images and sketches of the ballroom and the grounds as they would appear after the project is completed.

Trump has said the ballroom would cost about $400 million and be paid for with private donations. To date, the White House has only released an incomplete list of donors.

A lawsuit against the project is still pending

The National Trust for Historic Preservation has sued in federal court to halt construction. A ruling in the case is pending.

In comments it submitted to the commission, the privately funded group recommended that the size of the ballroom be reduced to “accommodate and respect the primary historic importance of the original Executive Residence.”

At the commission’s January meeting, some commissioners had questioned Baranes, Trump’s architect, about the “immense” design and scale of the project even as they broadly endorsed Trump’s vision. On Thursday, Baranes described changes he has since made to the design, and the commissioners said they welcomed the adjustments.

The ballroom project is scheduled for additional discussion at a March 5 meeting of the National Capital Planning Commission, which is led by a top White House aide. This panel heard an initial presentation about the project in January.

Superville writes for the Associated Press.

Qatar has pledged $1 billion to support the Board of Peace’s mission in Gaza, with Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani backing Donald Trump’s 20-point plan and reaffirming support for Palestinian statehood and Israeli security.

WASHINGTON — President Trump can’t seem to stop talking about Maryland Gov. Wes Moore.

He refused to invite him to a White House dinner later this week with state leaders from both parties, saying he was “not worthy” of the event. And he has castigated Moore for a sewage spill that has spoiled the Potomac River, even though the faulty pipe is part of a federally regulated utility.

There could soon be more reasons for Trump to complain about Moore, the nation’s only Black governor currently in office. Moore is trying to redraw Maryland’s congressional map to boost Democrats, part of a nationwide redistricting battle that Trump started to help Republicans in the midterm elections.

If Moore can overcome resistance from a key member of his own party in the state legislature, the tide could continue to shift in Democrats’ favor.

Moore, who is frequently floated as a potential Democratic presidential candidate, is the vice chair of the National Governors Assn., which is meeting in Washington this week for its annual conference. He sat down with the Associated Press on Wednesday at the start of his visit. Here is a transcript of the interview, edited for length and clarity.

Redistricting

Q: You met with Democratic House leader Hakeem Jeffries to talk about redistricting. Can you tell me what your understanding was leaving that meeting and whether there will be an up-and-down vote in the Maryland legislature?

A: All we’re asking for is a vote. And however the vote goes, however the vote goes. But that’s democracy.

Q: What do you see as your role in the party?

A: I don’t look at it as I’m doing it because I’m trying to help a party per se. I’m doing it because I think we have an unchecked executive and right now Congress does not seem interested in actually doing its job and establishing real checks and balances.

And I’m watching what Donald Trump is doing. This would not be an issue had it not been for Donald Trump saying, you know what, let me come up with every creative way I can think of to make this pain permanent. And one of the ways he did was he said, let’s just start calling states — the states I choose — to say let’s have a redistricting conversation mid-decade.

This would not even be an issue had Donald Trump not brought this up and introduced this into the ecosystem.

Trump relationship

Q: Speaking of the president, do you have thoughts on why he’s been stepping up his criticism of you on everything from not inviting you to the dinner to his criticism of the Potomac River sewage spill?

A: This one would actually be comical if it weren’t so serious. This is a Washington, D.C., pipe that exists on federal land. How this has anything to do with Maryland, I have no idea. I think he just woke up and just said, I hate Maryland so I’m just going to introduce them into a conversation. This literally has nothing to do with us, with the exception of the fact that when we first heard about what happened, that I ordered our team to assist Washington, D.C.

The short answer is I don’t know. I cannot get into the president’s psyche.

Q: Do you think it’s personal?

A: I know it’s not for me. I have no desire to have beef with the president of the United States. I didn’t run for governor like, man, I can’t wait so me and the president can go toe to toe. I have no desire on that. But the fact that he is waking up in the middle of the night and tweeting about me, I just, I pray for him and I just feel bad for him because that has just got to be a really, really hard existence.

Trump and Black History Month

Q: The White House is holding an event right now commemorating Black History Month. Could you share your thoughts on the president’s relationship with the Black community?

A: Listen, I think the president has long had a very complicated history with the Black community. We’re talking about a person who has been sued from his earliest days from his treatment of Black tenants. We’re talking about a person who is one of the originators of birtherism. We’re talking about a person who has now spent his time trying to ban books about Black history, a person who has spent his time now doing the greatest assault on unemployment of Black women in our nation’s history. You know, so, I’m not sure what anyone is going to gain from an event by Donald Trump about Black history.

2028

Q: Do you think the next presidential nominee on both sides might come from this group of governors?

A: I see the governors as in many ways the final line of defense because I think it’s never mattered more who your governor is.

Q: The country is so polarized. How do we break the fever?

A: You stay consistent with who you are. I think if you’re a polarizing person or polarizing personality, then that’s just who you are. That’s just never been me.

Cappelletti and Sloan write for the Associated Press.

ATLANTA — He is weighing military action against Iran, leading an aggressive immigration crackdown, and teasing a federal takeover of state elections.

But on Thursday, President Trump’s team insists he will focus on the economy when he visits battleground Georgia in a trip designed to help boost Republicans’ political standing heading into the high-stakes midterm elections.

“Georgia is obviously a very important state to the president and to the Republican Party,” said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on the eve of his visit. Trump’s remarks in Georgia, she said, will highlight “his efforts to make life affordable for working people.”

Trump’s destination in Georgia suggests he has something else on his mind too. He’s heading to a congressional district previously represented by Marjorie Taylor Greene, a former supporter who resigned in January after feuding with Trump. There’s a special election to replace her on March 10.

The White House has long said Trump would focus more on the economy, and he frequently complains that he doesn’t get enough credit for it. But recent months have been dominated by other issues, including deadly clashes during deportation efforts in Minneapolis.

As a reminder of his divided attention, Trump is scheduled to begin Thursday with one of his passion projects. He’s gathering representatives from some of the more than two dozen countries that have joined his Board of Peace, a diplomatic initiative to supplant the United Nations.

False claims of voter fraud

The Georgia visit comes less than a month after federal agents seized voting records and ballots from Fulton County, home to the state’s largest collection of Democrats.

Trump has long seen Georgia as central to his false claim that the 2020 election was stolen by Democrats and President Biden, a fabrication that he reiterated Wednesday during a White House reception on Black History Month.

“We won by millions of votes but they cheated,” Trump said.

Audits, state officials, courts and Trump’s own former attorney general have all rejected the idea of widespread problems that could have altered the election.

Some Republicans are now pushing for Georgia’s State Election Board, which has a Trump-aligned majority, to take control of elections in Fulton County, a step enabled by a controversial state law passed in 2021. But it’s unclear if or when the board will act.

Leavitt, in the White House, said Wednesday that Trump was “exploring his options” when it comes to a potential executive order he teased on social media over the weekend designed to address voter fraud.

Trump described Democrats as “horrible, disingenuous CHEATERS” in the post, which is pinned to the top of his social media account. He also said that Republicans should feature such claims “at the top of every speech.”

Leavitt, meanwhile, insisted Trump would be focusing on affordability and the economy.

Greene has not gone quiet

Trump may be distracted by fresh attacks from Greene, once among the president’s most vocal allies in Congress and now one of his loudest conservative critics.

In a social media post ahead of Trump’s visit, Greene noted that the White House and Republican leaders met earlier in the week to develop an effective midterm message. She suggested they were “on the struggle bus” and blamed them for health insurance costs that ballooned this year.

“Approximately 75,000 households in my former district had their health insurance double or more on January 1st of this year because the ACA tax credits expired and Republicans have absolutely failed to fix our health insurance system that was destroyed by Obamacare,” she said. “And you can call me all the petty names you want, I don’t worship a man. I’m not in a cult.”

Early voting has already begun in the special election to replace Greene, and the leading Republican candidates have fully embraced Trump.

Trump recently endorsed Clay Fuller, a district attorney who prosecutes crimes in four counties. Fuller described Trump’s endorsement as “rocket fuel” for his candidacy in a weekend interview and vowed to maintain an America First agenda even if he remains in Congress after Trump is no longer president.

Other candidates include Republican former state Sen. Colton Moore, who made a name for himself with a vociferous attack on Trump’s prosecution in Georgia. Moore, the favorite of many far-right activists, said he’s been in communication with Trump even after Trump endorsed Fuller, calling the choice “unfortunate.”

“I think he’s the greatest president of our lifetimes,” Moore said.

The top Democrat in the race is Shawn Harris, who unsuccessfully ran against Greene in 2024. Democrats voice hope for an upset, but the district is rated as the most Republican district in Georgia by the Cook Political Report.

Amy and Peoples write for the Associated Press.

An interesting debate about the past two months centers on the extent to which Delcy Rodríguez is finding her new seat comfortable. There are areas where she feels like a smooth operator (or a yes-woman for Rubio and Trump) and levers she can’t yet pull without finding resistance from her old comrades.

One can sense she isn’t too bothered driving Trump’s energy agenda. As Maduro’s economic vice president and oil minister, the last few years saw Delcy spend serious amounts of energy lobbying for sanctions relief, engaging with consecutive US governments, and maneuvering to bring in new players to the oil industry. Experts still cast doubt on her  ability to reinvigorate an economy and energy sector that still requires an institutional revamp much broader than a single piece of legislation. 

The issue is not the written rules themselves, but that the chefs in Washington DC are currently rebuilding the restaurant with the same cooks who, no matter how new the pots and pans, will sooner or later revert to the habits that made the kitchen a pigsty to begin with.

Sure, steps are being taken to move on the economic trajectory the US has imposed. In the first 50 days of the so-called “new political moment,” we have a new energy law, a US Treasury account holding Venezuela’s oil revenues, and dollar auctions for private banks at a free exchange rate. Last week, Trump’s Energy Secretary Chris Wright visited the country. In front of him, Chevron boasted of its crown jewels. The US followed up with further sanctions relief, albeit limited and subject to specific authorizations.

In the opposite end, the country still lacks clarity over political trajectory. The puzzle of democratization has hundreds of missing pieces. It’s not just a matter of whether elections will be held and results enforced, with the opposition choosing its candidate, with competitors sitting down to discuss the day after the vote, etc. Every question about freedoms and human rights has come attached to the ifs, buts and maybes of a regime that can’t even agree on the degree of control it gives up or whether politicians will be allowed to behave like politicians. The Guanipa incident suggests the answer is still no. So does the fact that Miguelangel Suárez, the Universidad Central student leader, was chased and spied on hours after last week’s Youth Day protest.

It’s still early, but in the sphere of political liberalization, the mantra from Jorge and Delcy Rodríguez seems to be: raise expectations and fall short.

Big headlines, slow progress

As noted by Camila González in our latest post, the Rodríguez siblings are trying to convey the idea that they’re true political reformers rather than the alleged traitors of the revolución that foreign newspapers obsessed with after January 3. Their messages are simple: we know how bad things are, though we can’t always admit it, we will empty the country’s prisons, we’d like to overhaul the courts.

Delcy’s speech at the Supreme Tribunal on January 30^th is a prime example. Not only did she order the creation of an amnesty statute covering chavismo’s lifespan and the shutdown of El Helicoide. She invoked a “great national consultation” for a new justice system (which likely points at behind-the-scenes discussion the ruling elite and the military are having) before naming some of the issues that make the system so dysfunctional: lacking access to justice, procedural delays, and corruption across the country’s tribunals and prosecutors’ offices. Jorge, more adept at improvising to manipulate different audiences, later said that guys like him need to both “forgive and ask for forgiveness” before describing political prisoners as necessary, “due to the realities, circumstances and the concrete situation of a society.” Three weeks after his remarks, 444 political prisoners have been released. Six hundred are still behind bars.

In theory, the amnesty law should also entail the release of the so-called historic, Chávez-era political prisoners.

These performances seem to align with the tendencies of the biggest external stakeholder in the process, Donald Trump, who has publicly praised Delcy Rodríguez and releases as a powerful humanitarian gesture. But in Venezuelan cliques, the implementation and discourses around these initiatives (brought about under a careful management to shield domestic stakeholders from further pressures) underscore the internal resistance and tensions playing inside chavismo.

The amnesty law, a key landmark of any political transition, would open the door to the return of political figures that includes many of chavismo’s longtime enemies, and perhaps more crucially, confrontation with the consequences of years of having imprisoned military officers subjected to the worst kind of punishments under the high command’s oversight. Foro Penal reports that 185 FANB personnel are still imprisoned. Venezuelan journalist Hernán Lugo Galicia affirms that most of them are National Guards and Army officers, and that only a handful have been released since the process began on January 8.

An amnesty in handcuffs

In theory, this policy should also entail the release of the so-called historic, Chávez-era political prisoners: public officials convicted in trials riddled with irregularities. This group includes Héctor Rovaín, Erasmo Bolívar, and Luis Molina—former officers of the now-defunct Caracas Metropolitan Police accused of shooting demonstrators and supplying weapons to coup participants during the massive anti-Chávez protest of April 11, 2002 (the narrative chavismo used to shield armed colectivos and party leaders from legal responsibility). It also includes Otoniel, Juan Bautista, and Rolando Guevara, three police agents convicted for the murder of Danilo Anderson, the prosecutor investigating the planning of the 2002 coup.

These cases are deeply symbolic for the regime: the conviction of the Metropolitan Police officers helped cast blame on a handful of supposedly putschist cops while insulating the Chávez government from responsibility for the violent deaths. The Guevara case, meanwhile, appears designed to silence the controversy and corruption that surfaced during investigations into the events of 2002.

Releasing the históricos (who go back to a time where Delcy and Jorge Rodríguez were not in politics) would be an admission that chavismo engaged in political persecution early on, tearing down the myth of one of its martyrs in Anderson and the Policías Metropolitanos as the sole rotten apples of 2002. Releasing FANB members, many in terrible shape because of mistreatment and prolonged isolation, would of course add another layer of pressure to a military high command embarrassed by the American incursion that killed dozens of subordinates and captured the commander-in-chief, not to mention the array of testimonies and revelations that a decision like that could start to induce. Interior Minister Cabello is well aware of that, and sounds resolute in his opposition to the release of those accused of plotting or rebelling in arms.

The amnesty bill is now stuck. Chavista lawmakers don’t yet agree on the contents of Article 7, which commands dissidents charged with relevant crimes, many of which went in hiding or fled the country, to turn themselves in in order to become amnesty beneficiaries.

Reality suggests that supposed moderates still fall short, unable to break from the dominant logic of  fear and control.

“They said they didn’t do anything. Not lobbying for sanctions, not cheering at the (US) intervention. The amnesty is about acknowledging mistakes,” Iris Varela recently said in a pro-chavista podcast. “If you want both an amnesty and to return to the country, then come over here, prove you were under persecution, and get the amnesty.”

Varela is one of the lawmakers in charge of the amnesty project, but she is known as a radical chavista for more than 20 years. After her intervention in the National Assembly last week, Jorge Rodriguez decided to adjourn the discussion arguing that the minority bloc led by Henrique Capriles had requested further amendments.

Therein lies another distinction in the official choreography surrounding the amnesty saga. Even if all chavista voices ultimately recycle the same talking points about sovereignty, malign NGOs, and chavismo as the guarantor of peace, their performances differ in tone and posture. While figures such as Diosdado Cabello and Iris Varela maintain an unyielding stance toward traditional opponents, more civilian-facing chavista actors are attempting to stage a process in which civil society groups ostensibly have a say in shaping the amnesty bill.

Representatives from leading human rights organizations such as Provea and Foro Penal attended a meeting with the parliamentary Domestic Policy Committee, shortly after Professors Guillermo Aveledo (Universidad Metropolitana) and Juan Carlos Apitz (Universidad Central de Venezuela) were allowed to criticize and question the extent to which reforms are actually in motion, while in the same room as Jorge Rodríguez and Nicolás Maduro Guerra.

These meetings may well be cosmetic, and are unlikely to determine the final legal outcome, but they appear designed to position certain chavista officials within a “moderate” camp: figures supposedly willing to build bridges with the opposition and entertain uncomfortable truths, even if their broader script remains unchanged.

Reality suggests that supposed moderates still fall short, unable to break from the dominant logic of  fear and control. After what appeared to be a staged embrace with relatives of political prisoners, the promise by Jorge Rodríguez to release all detainees held at the PNB jail in Boleíta, eastern Caracas, is yet to materialize. Meanwhile, Jorge Arreaza, who heads the Internal Policy Committee, recently offered little beyond justifying Guanipa’s re-arrest as relatives of victims and journalists pressed him for answers about the release process.

Scenes like these—Rodríguez, however calculated the gesture, appearing outside a political prison, and Arreaza being publicly challenged and scrutinized in the streets—would have been inconceivable just a year ago. They are a novelty in the politics of late-stage chavismo. But novelty is not reform. Such gestures are unlikely to persuade a skeptical public that a genuine shift is underway. Again, emphasis appears to rest more on optics than on tangible results.

Perfume and polish for the security sector

The Interior Ministry is still in Cabello’s hands, with top cops and allies running the main security agencies: Douglas Rico at CICPC, his cousin Alexis Rodriguez Cabello at SEBIN, and his old pal Gustavo González López now commanding both Delcy’s security ring and the fearsome DGCIM (his predecessor was fired after the US captured Maduro and Cilia Flores). Colonel Alexander Granko, who became the face of state violence in the 2020s, remains DGCIM’s special ops star, but has kept a low profile in recent weeks.

Having said that, recent moves suggest that Delcy Rodríguez retains an interest in the structure and functions of a security apparatus she does not fully control—and is willing to upgrade and trim it where possible. On February 9, the government officially dissolved the Strategic Center for Security and Protection of the Homeland (CESSPA), the intelligence body tasked with monitoring “foreign and domestic enemy activity” by centralizing data from all state security organs. Its shutdown came with the elimination of six social missions dating back to the Chávez and Maduro periods.

Senior politicians close to the opposition leader—Guanipa, Perkins Rocha, and Freddy Superlano—remain under house arrest. The amnesty law, scheduled for discussion tonight, would be entirely incompatible with that fact.

Earlier, flanked by senior chavista leaders and military generals, Rodríguez announced the creation of a new intelligence body: the National Office for Defense and Cybersecurity, conceived as a hub “where Venezuela’s scientists and technology experts should come together to defend our cyberspace.” She appointed Gabriela Jiménez to lead it, a biologist who previously served as Science and Technology Minister and was part of chavismo’s delegation during the Mexico negotiations. In August 2024, Jiménez had already alleged that the National Electoral Council (CNE) and dozens of Venezuelan institutions were the target of cyberattacks in the context of the July 28 presidential vote.

Delcy may have already taken a step toward the state goal of reforming the judicial system. This month, the National Assembly approved an amendment to the statute governing the CICPC, emphasizing clearer chains of command and defining officers’ roles in criminal investigations. In a country where the scientific police (whether the CICPC or its predecessor, the Policía Técnica Judicial) has long exercised outsized influence over the justice system, the reform does sound interesting. It doesn’t undo Chávez-era decrees that subordinate judges and prosecutors to intelligence bodies rather than positioning them as institutional checks. Whether this marks the beginning of deeper changes with chavismo in power also remains to be seen.

Information remains scarce and, now more than ever, the country’s future is being discussed behind closed doors, with few listening in—such as yesterday’s meeting between Southern Command chief Francis Donovan and Delcy Rodríguez, Cabello, and Vladimir Padrino López. Our latest Political Risk Report indicates that María Corina Machado’s return to Venezuela featured prominently in conversations between Secretary Wright and Delcy last week. That development would not only deepen tensions within chavismo, but also test the resilience of the supposed transition now being pursued.

Senior politicians close to the opposition leader—Guanipa, Perkins Rocha, and Freddy Superlano—remain under house arrest. The amnesty law, scheduled for discussion tonight, would be entirely incompatible with that fact. We will soon see how far the so-called moderate lawmakers are willing (or able) to push it.

A long-awaited set of reports on how to build a fire-resilient Pacific Palisades, commissioned by Los Angeles city officials for $5 million, found that much of the hilly enclave remains out of compliance with standards for evacuating during a disaster.

The reports, by the city and the global infrastructure firm AECOM, also recommended that the city complete significant brush clearance work, bolster its water system and move electrical wires underground.

All of the recommendations are frequent asks from Palisades residents. Many have already been discussed at length by independent experts. They will inform the city’s “Long-Term Recovery Plan” for rebuilding infrastructure and improving wildfire resilience after the Palisades fire killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes in January 2025.

The reports outlined nearly a billion dollars in infrastructure projects through 2033, including more than $650 million for electrical undergrounding and $150 million for water system repairs.

“Full recovery is a long-term, multi-year effort that requires sustained coordination — and it must continue to be community-led,” Mayor Karen Bass wrote in a Tuesday newsletter to Palisades residents that included links to the reports. “This past year has been unimaginable for the Palisades community, but I remain committed to supporting you through every step of the recovery.”

She noted that the Long-Term Recovery Plan would be finalized “in the months ahead.”

A month after the fire, Bass selected Illinois-based Hagerty Consulting to work on fire recovery under a yearlong contract for up to $10 million.

However, in June, Bass announced that AECOM would develop a recovery plan for the city. Hagerty, which had struggled to explain its role at community meetings, ultimately focused on debris removal logistics and finished its work in December, billing the city $3.5 million.

In December, the city authorized payments of $5 million for AECOM’s first set of reports — which were originally due in mid-November — and an additional $3 million to the company for long-term recovery planning.

Palisades residents say they are frustrated at the price tag and feel that the effort has been chaotic and lacked urgency. Some have questioned whether the reports would contain an honest assessment of the situation, given that AECOM is not working independently of the city.

The three AECOM reports consist of recommendations for improving the Palisades’ fire resiliency, a plan for rebuilding public infrastructure destroyed in the fire and how to coordinate traffic and other logistics as the area becomes a construction zone.

The resiliency report found that “almost all” local streets within the Palisades are narrower than permitted by the city fire code — particularly in the Alphabet Streets, Rustic Canyon and Castellammare areas. A “majority” of long dead-end streets did not fulfill the sections of the fire code ensuring that fire engines have enough space to turn around, the report said.

A lawsuit filed in December alleged that the city has routinely failed to comply with similar state regulations when it approved new construction in the city’s “very high fire hazard” areas.

These codes “directly impact the ability to fight fires and for civilians to safely evacuate,” said Jaime Hall, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, who are a group of resident associations in the Santa Monica Mountains and a fire safety advocacy organization. “They’re not just regulations on a piece of paper.”

The resiliency report also found that residents experienced “evacuation warning fatigue” from routine false alarms, making them hesitant to evacuate.

Additionally, many intersections in the Palisades could serve as bottlenecks during evacuations, leading to significant delays, the resiliency report said, basing the conclusion on a traffic pattern analysis. A Times investigation found that the city had not conducted a similar analysis to help comply with state law.

Requirements to clear vegetation around homes, including the state’s upcoming Zone Zero regulations, are not enough to meaningfully reduce wildfire risk in the Palisades, with its steep topography and dense vegetation, the resiliency report found. The city should work with land managers — including the state and county — on measures such as cutting gaps in vegetation for firefighter access, maintaining defensible space around community infrastructure and restoring native vegetation, the report said.

The public infrastructure report listed $150 million for “wet” infrastructure repairs, which included replacing aging and leaky water main pipelines.

The resiliency report outlined further potential improvements to provide more water for firefighting, such as building larger pipelines and additional tanks to move and store more drinking water; improving connections between local water systems; and tapping stormwater, treated wastewater or even seawater from the Pacific.

During the Palisades fire, hillside tanks ran out of water. Many fire hydrants, particularly in higher-elevation areas, lost pressure and ran dry. The resiliency report said that installing pressure monitoring systems could “ensure water availability and prevent dry hydrants by streaming live data to fire crews,” and that remote-controlled valves could also help maintain water pressure during a fire.

The city’s Department of Water and Power is already considering options for improving the Santa Ynez Reservoir, which was empty and awaiting repairs of its floating cover when the Palisades fire erupted.

The city has also committed to placing power lines underground in the Palisades where feasible.

The infrastructure report laid out six undergrounding projects that would cost the city $664 million, after nearly 57% of all electric service points — from power distribution poles to transmission lines — were completely destroyed in the fire.

Feb. 19 (UPI) — The Commission of Fine Arts has unanimously approved plans for President Donald Trump‘s almost 90,000-square-foot White House ballroom plans, the first hurdle in starting the building project.

The commission, whose members were all appointed by Trump, including his executive assistant, Chamberlain Harris, 26. The original architect of the ballroom recused himself from the vote. Trump fired all the previous members in October.

But now, the project must win approval from the National Capital Planning Commission, which could vote on March 5.

“This is a facility that is desperately needed for over 150 years, and it’s beautiful,” The Washington Post reported Commission Chair Rodney Mims Cook Jr. said.

But the CFA’s secretary said comments have been negative.

“In two decades of casework here, I’ve never seen as much public engagement on this. We’ve literally gotten, in the past week or so, more than 2,000 various messages,” said Thomas Luebke, CFA secretary, CBS News reported. “The vast, vast majority is negative, in general.”

Trump initially said the construction would cost $200 million and would be funded by private donations. He later said the project could cost twice that amount, but donors would pay for it. Officials from the National Trust for Historic Preservation challenged the construction in federal court and sought an injunction to stop the build. The judge refused the injunction but ordered the administration to undergo a review process.

The Capital Planning Commission is led by Will Scharf, a White House staff secretary appointed by Trump. Two other White House officials — James Blair and Stuart Levenbach — are also on the commission.

Luebke read a summary of the comments to commissioners, CBS reported. He cited demolition without permits or oversight, a scale that will “dwarf the White House,” lack of transparency in funding and contracts and a “fundamental miscarriage of democratic principles.”

“The ballroom seems to shout power,” one commenter wrote, Luebke said.

Harris responded, “This is sort of like the greatest country in the world. It’s the greatest house in the world and we want it to be the greatest ballroom in the world.”

The public comments, Luebke said, were “overwhelmingly in opposition — over 99%.”

WASHINGTON — In another era, the scene would have been unremarkable. But in President Trump’s Washington, it’s become increasingly rare.

Sitting side by side on stage were Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat. They traded jokes and compliments instead of insults and accusations, a brief interlude of cordiality in a cacophony of conflict.

Stitt and Moore are the leaders of the National Governors Association, one of a vanishing few bipartisan institutions left in American politics. But it may be hard for the organization, which is holding its annual conference this week, to maintain its reputation as a refuge from polarization.

Trump has broken with custom by declining to invite all governors to the traditional White House meeting and dinner. He has called Stitt, the NGA’s chair, a “RINO,” short for Republican in name only, and continued to feud with Moore, the group’s vice chair, by blaming him for a sewage spill involving a federally regulated pipeline.

The break with tradition reflects Trump’s broader approach to his second term. He has taken a confrontational stance toward some states, withholding federal funds or deploying troops over the objections of local officials.

With the Republican-controlled Congress unwilling to limit Trump’s ambitions, several governors have increasingly cast themselves as a counterweight to the White House.

“Presidents aren’t supposed to do this stuff,” Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said about the expansion of executive power in recent administrations. “Congress needs to get their act together. And stop performing for TikTok and actually start doing stuff. That’s the flaw we’re dealing with right now.”

Cox, a Republican, said “it is up to the states to hold the line.”

Moore echoed that sentiment in an interview with The Associated Press.

“People are paying attention to how governors are moving, because I think governors have a unique way to move in this moment that other people just don’t,” he said.

Still, governors struck an optimistic tone in panels and interviews Wednesday. Stitt said the conference is “bigger than one dinner at the White House.” Moore predicted “this is going to be a very productive three days for the governors.”

“Here’s a Republican and Democrat governor from different states that literally agree on probably 80% of the things. And the things we disagree on we can have honest conversations on,” Stitt said while sitting beside Moore.

Tensions over the guest list for White House events underscored the uncertainty surrounding the week. During the back-and-forth, Trump feuded with Stitt and said Moore and Colorado Gov. Jared Polis were not invited because they “are not worthy of being there.”

Whether the bipartisan tone struck Wednesday evening can endure through the week — and beyond — remains an open question.

“We can have disagreements. In business, I always want people around me arguing with me and pushing me because that’s where the best ideas come from,” said Stitt. “We need to all have these exchange of ideas.”

Cappelletti and Sloan write for the Associated Press.