politics

May 22 (UPI) — Tulsi Gabbard resigned as director of national intelligence Friday to support her husband, who has been diagnosed with a rare form of bone cancer.

Gabbard said in a resignation letter, which she posted on X, that after her husband Abraham Williams’ recent diagnosis she will “step away from public service to be by his side and fully support him through this battle.”

The principal deputy director of national intelligence, Aaron Lukas, will take over as acting DNI after Gabbard departs June 30, President Donald Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

“I am deeply grateful for the trust you placed in me and for the opportunity to lead the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for the last year and a half,” Gabbard said in her letter.

Gabbard, who told Trump that she is resigning during a meeting in the Oval Office on Friday, was a controversial nominee for the position.

Nearly all Republicans voted to confirm her on a party-line vote, but former Senate Republican leader Sen. Mitch McConnell voted against her because she had “failed to demonstrate” that she was ready for the position.

Before she was named DNI, Gabbard served in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Hawaii House of Representatives dating to 2002.

The decision to resign, Gabbard said, is the balance of her husband’s dedication to her career, dating to her time in the military, and that she “cannot in good conscience ask him to face this fight alone while I continue in this demanding and time-consuming position.”

In his post, Trump said that Gabbard “has done an incredible job, and we will miss her.”

“She, rightfully, wants to be with [Abraham], bringing him back to good health as they currently fight a tough battle together,” Trump said. “I have no doubt he will soon be better than ever.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday oversaw the White House swearing-in of the new Federal Reserve chair and said he would like Kevin Warsh’s help in stimulating the economy even as he tried to emphasize that the nation’s central bank would remain independent.

Trump spent months criticizing Warsh’s predecessor, Jerome Powell, for being reluctant to cut interests rates, with the Republican president arguing that lower borrowing costs would provide an economic boost. By taking the unusual step of holding the ceremony in the East Room and not the Fed, Trump made clear his pleasure that Warsh is now in charge.

The war with Iran has caused gas prices to spike, unsettled financial markets and driven inflation concerns across the economy. Those developments have led to recent doubts about whether Warsh might heed Trump’s calls and push the Fed to lower rates.

Still, Trump said he had faith that Warsh would prioritize a strong economy.

“Thankfully, unlike some of his predecessors, Kevin understands that when the economy is booming, it is, that’s a good thing,” the president said. Trump said it was not necessary “to go crazy. Just let it go. We want it to boom.”

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas administered the oath of office. Also on hand were House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), Justice Brett Kavanaugh, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Cabinet members.

“I expect he will go down as one of the truly great chairmen of the Federal Reserve that we’ve ever had,” Trump said of Warsh.

Republican President Reagan swore in Alan Greenspan as Fed chair at the White House in 1987. Republican President George W. Bush attended the 2006 ceremony at central bank headquarters when Ben Bernanke became chair.

But having the event at the White House raises more questions about the Fed’s independence at a time when Trump has constantly sought to bend the independent central bank to his will.

Trump’s Department of Justice began an investigation into Powell and the Fed’s extensive building renovations. That drew backlash from lawmakers and the department scrapped the investigation. The Fed’s internal watchdog is now handling the matter. Powell’s term as chair ended last week, though he has opted to remain on the Fed board for now.

Trump made a point of saying during his remarks, “Honestly, I really mean this. This is not said in any other way: I want Kevin to be totally independent.”

“I want him to be independent and just do a great job,” Trump said. “Don’t look at me, don’t look at anybody. Just do your own thing.”

In the next breath, however, Trump said that “in the eyes of many, the Fed has lost its way in recent years” under his predecessor, Democratic President Biden. Trump also suggested that Warsh is looking to lead policies that promote “positive economic growth” and that doing so did not have to mean higher inflation.

Trump also noted that the stock market had risen Friday. “That means they like you,” he said of Warsh.

Warsh once harshly criticized Fed’s policies, including its low interest rate policies coming out of the pandemic, which he says contributed to the largest U.S. inflation spike in four decades in 2021-22. More recently, he has sometimes echoed Trump’s demands for lower rates.

Warsh says productivity gains from artificial intelligence will help the economy grow more quickly without spurring inflation, enabling the Fed to reduce borrowing costs. Many Fed officials, however, disagree that AI’s development will support rate cuts, especially because the technology has also been blamed for large-scale layoffs in the computer sector and other parts of the economy.

On Friday, Warsh promised “to lead a reform oriented Federal Reserve, learning from past successes and mistakes, both escaping static frameworks and models and upholding clear standards of integrity and performance.”

He told Trump that he believes “these years can bring unmatched prosperity that will raise living standards for Americans from all walks of life. And the Fed has something to do with it.”

Warsh further noted that the Fed’s mandate “is to promote price stability and maximum employment. When we pursue those aims with wisdom and clarity, independence and resolve, inflation can be lower; growth, stronger; real take home pay, higher and America … more prosperous.”

As he left the ceremony, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent reinforced Trump’s message, predicting to reporters that Warsh will “do the right thing for inflation and growth.”

Weissert and Price write for the Associated Press.

May 22 (UPI) — Former Bolivian President Evo Morales accused the United States of backing the government of President Rodrigo Paz and attempting to criminalize the protests shaking Bolivia.

“The United States does not defend democracy or respect international law. It finances right-wing coups. It invades countries and steals their natural resources,” Morales wrote in a message Thursday on X.

Officials from the Bolivian identified Morales as the main instigator behind the wave of protests and road blockades demanding the president’s resignation.

The historic leader of the Movement Toward Socialism party, who is entrenched in the coca-growing Chapare region, was declared in contempt by a Bolivian court this month after failing to appear at a hearing linked to a human trafficking case.

The former president was responding to a message published by Secretary of State Marco Rubio on X in which Rubiol said the United States would not allow “criminals and drug traffickers” to overthrow democratically elected governments in the hemisphere.

Morales called the remarks “a lie” and accused Washington of supporting the 2019 ouster to gain control of Bolivia’s lithium reserves.

“The United States supported the coup by the gringo against the Indigenous man in 2019 in order to seize our lithium,” he said.

In another message published on X, Morales also questioned Paz’s political legitimacy by claiming he was born in Spain, and he accused the president of “criminalizing” and “repressing” Indigenous people, farmers and students participating in the protests.

“Because he is a foreigner, he surely hates Bolivians. He criminalizes, persecutes and represses Indigenous people. He thinks and acts like an imperialist, neoliberal and neocolonial ruler,” Morales wrote.

In an interview this week with La Octava Radio Nacional, Morales called for early elections within 90 days to “pacify Bolivia,” arguing the country is facing a governance crisis.

Morales’ remarks came as Bolivia entered its third week of protests, road blockades and demonstrations led by unions, farming organizations and Indigenous groups rejecting the government’s economic reforms and denouncing fuel shortages, inflation and economic deterioration, according to reports by Bolivian media outlets La Razón and Los Tiempos.

The crisis has also begun to affect the healthcare system. Bolivia’s Health Ministry said at least four people died in recent days because they were unable to receive medical treatment or be transferred in time to healthcare centers due to road blockades and unrest in different parts of the country.

Among the victims was a 12-year-old boy, who died while being transported in an ambulance after the vehicle was unable to pass through blocked roads.

“We are calling for a humanitarian corridor,” the ministry said, according to reports by Infobae.

The Bolivian Highway Administration reported Friday that 51 road blockades were active across seven of the country’s nine departments, most of them concentrated in the highland region, including the departments of La Paz, Oruro and Cochabamba.

WASHINGTON — Tulsi Gabbard resigned as President Trump’s director of national intelligence on Friday, saying she needed to step away as her husband battles cancer. She is the fourth Cabinet official to depart during Trump’s second term.

“Unfortunately, I must submit my resignation, effective June 30, 2026,” Gabbard wrote in her resignation letter, which she posted on X. “My husband, Abraham, has recently been diagnosed with an extremely rare form of bone cancer.”

There had been rumblings that Gabbard would split with Trump after the president’s decision to strike Iran, which caused some division within his administration. Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, announced his resignation in March, saying he “cannot in good conscience” back the war.

Gabbard, a veteran and former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, built her political name on her opposition to foreign wars. This put her in an awkward position when the U.S. joined Israel in launching attacks on Iran on Feb. 28.

During a congressional hearing in March, her measured comments were notable for their careful non-endorsement of Trump’s decision to strike Iran. She repeatedly dodged questions about whether the White House had been warned of potential fallout from the conflict, including Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Gabbard said in written remarks to the Senate Intelligence Committee that there had been no effort by Iran to rebuild its nuclear capability after U.S. attacks last year “obliterated” its nuclear program. That statement contradicted Trump, who has repeatedly asserted that the war was necessary to head off an imminent threat from the Islamic Republic.

This created several awkward exchanges with lawmakers who asked Gabbard for her opinion on the threat posed by Iran as the nation’s top intelligence official. She repeatedly said it was Trump’s decision to strike, not hers.

“It is not the intelligence community’s responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat,” she said.

Gabbard’s departure follows Trump having ousted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in late March, in the midst of mounting criticism over her leadership of the department — including the handling of the administration’s immigration crackdown and disaster response.

The second Cabinet member to leave was Attorney General Pam Bondi, in response to growing frustration over the Justice Department’s handling of files related to Jeffrey Epstein. And Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer resigned in April, after being the target of various misconduct investigations.

A surprising choice for the job

A veteran but without any intelligence experience, Gabbard was a surprising choice to head the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the nation’s 18 intelligence agencies. She ran for president in 2020 on a progressive platform and her opposition to U.S. involvement in foreign military conflicts.

Citing her military experience, she argued that U.S. wars in the Middle East had destabilized the region, made the U.S. less safe and cost thousands of American lives. Gabbard later dropped out of the race and endorsed the ultimate winner, President Joe Biden.

Two years later she left the Democratic Party to become an independent, saying her old party was dominated by an “elitist cabal of warmongers” and “woke” ideologues. She subsequently campaigned for several high-profile Republicans and became a contributor to Fox News.

She later endorsed Trump, who also was a strong critic of past U.S. wars in the Middle East and campaigned on a pledge to avoid unnecessary wars and nation-building overseas.

Iran caused early tensions

But friction with the president started soon after he began his second term and tapped Gabbard to lead ODNI, which was set up after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to improve coordination between the nation’s intelligence agencies.

Shortly after taking on the job, Gabbard testified before lawmakers that there was no intelligence suggesting Iran was seeking to develop nuclear weapons. After Trump launched attacks on Iranian nuclear sites in June he said Gabbard was wrong and that he didn’t care what she said.

She appeared to be back in Trump’s good graces when she took a lead role in Trump’s effort to relitigate his 2020 election loss to Biden, whom Gabbard had endorsed. She appeared at an FBI search of election offices in Fulton County, Georgia, even though her office was created to focus on foreign espionage, not state elections.

Earlier this week, however, she testified to lawmakers during an annual threats hearing that last year’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites had “obliterated” their nuclear program and that there had been no subsequent effort to rebuild.

The statement seemed to complicate Trump’s repeated assertions that Iran posed an imminent threat and created several awkward exchanges with lawmakers who asked Gabbard for her opinion on Iran’s threat as the nation’s top intelligence official. She repeatedly said that it was Trump’s decision to strike, not hers.

“It is not the intelligence community’s responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat,” she said at one of this week’s hearings.

Gabbard wrought big changes in one year

Gabbard vowed to eliminate what she said was the politicization of intelligence by government insiders. But she quickly used her office to support some of Trump’s most partisan of arguments — that he won the 2020 election.

She also worked to undermine the results of earlier investigations into Trump’s ties to Russia.

In her year on the job, Gabbard oversaw a sharp reduction in the intelligence workforce, as well as the creation of a new task force that she charged with considering big changes to the intelligence service.

Earlier this year an intelligence sector whistleblower filed a complaint that Gabbard was withholding intelligence for political reasons, a complaint that prompted calls from Democrats for Gabbard’s resignation.

Gabbard, 44, was born in the U.S. territory of American Samoa, raised in Hawaii and spent a year of her childhood in the Philippines. She was first elected as a 21-year-old to Hawaii’s House of Representatives but had to leave after one term when her National Guard unit deployed to Iraq.

As the first Hindu member of the House, Gabbard was sworn into office with her hand on the Bhagavad Gita, the Hindu devotional work. She was also the first American Samoan elected to Congress.

During her four House terms she became known for speaking out against her party’s leadership. Her early support for Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ 2016 Democratic presidential primary run made her a popular figure in progressive politics nationally.

Kinnard, Weissert and Klepper write for the Associated Press.

Warsh will lead the central bank at a time when its independence has come under scrutiny amid political pressure.

Kevin Warsh has been sworn in as the new chair of the United States Federal Reserve Board of Governors, succeeding Jerome Powell, who has held the position since 2018.

Warsh took the oath of office on Friday, following a contentious nomination period, with the Senate voting along party lines on both his confirmation to the Board of Governors and as chairman. Only Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman broke with his Democratic colleagues to advance his nomination.

Warsh, 56, will lead the central bank at a time when its independence has come under scrutiny amid political pressure on the historically non-partisan institution.

US President Donald Trump, aware of that critique, in his opening remarks said, “I want Kevin to be totally independent and do a great job. Don’t look at me and don’t look at anybody. Just do your own job”.

During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking Committee, ahead of a vote by the full Senate, Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren accused Warsh of being a “sock puppet” for Trump. Warsh denied the allegations and said he would remain independent in his monetary policy decisions.

When Joe Biden was president, Warsh advocated against cutting interest rates, but changed his tune when Trump took office. In December 2025, Trump said that he would only appoint someone to lead the central bank who agreed with him on cutting rates.

Regardless, Warsh cannot unilaterally make policy decisions. He is one of 12 voting members.

The first policy meeting Warsh will lead will be on June 16-17.

Inflationary pressures

Pressure from the White House to cut rates comes amid rising inflation in the US economy.

Consumer prices increased 0.6 percent in April after a 0.9 percent rise in March, according to the most recent Consumer Price Index report released by the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics earlier this month.

On an annual basis, prices were also higher, rising 3.8 percent compared with the same month in 2025, marking the largest increase in three years. The largest surge has been in energy prices, which have risen 17.9 percent over the last year.

US consumers are feeling the strain at the pump. The average price for a gallon of petrol (3.78 litres) is $4.56, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), which tracks daily petrol prices. That is up from $2.98 per gallon on February 28, when the US and Israel first struck Iran.

After he was sworn in, Warsh said he was “not naive” about the challenges facing the US economy, and that inflation can be lower and growth strong.

Surging prices could put pressure on the central bank not to cut rates. Analysts from JPMorgan Chase forecasted last month that rates will likely remain unchanged until mid-2027 and anticipated then that rates could rise rather than be cut.

“With inflation having run significantly above 2 percent over the past five years, with further increases in inflation likely to occur as a result of the conflict in the Middle East, and with emergent price pressures in a few categories that appeared unrelated to tariffs or energy prices, the staff viewed the possibility that inflation would be more persistent than anticipated as a salient risk,” the central bank said in the newly released minutes of its April policy meeting.

CME Group’s FedWatch tool, which tracks the likelihood of monetary policy decisions, says there is a 97 percent chance that rates will remain unchanged at the next policy meeting.

SAVANNAH, Ga. — An advocacy group has filed suit against the Trump administration over its decision to reinstate a near-ban on abortions for veterans and their family members who depend on the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for healthcare.

The federal lawsuit filed Thursday says the rule finalized by the VA on Dec. 31 takes away limited abortion access that was “crucial for the health, autonomy, and equality of veterans and their family members.”

Attorneys for the group Minority Veterans of America want the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to throw out the rule. They say the VA adopted the change without citing medical evidence or other justifications, violating the Administrative Procedures Act that governs federal rulemaking.

The VA did not include abortion in its coverage until 2022. President Biden’s administration added it months after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and states’ abortion bans began taking effect.

Abortion access the VA provided under Biden was limited, applying only in cases when a pregnant woman’s life or health was at risk, or in cases of rape or incest.

The Biden change allowed the VA to provide abortion even in states where it was banned. And it brought the VA’s coverage into line with other federal healthcare plans — including Medicaid and TriCare coverage for active military members and their families — that allowed limited abortion access.

The VA announced its proposal to undo those changes last August, a few months after President Trump returned to the White House.

The VA had said it will still provide abortions in cases where a pregnant woman’s life is threatened. That’s something state laws allow, even in places where bans are in place.

However, the VA no longer allows exceptions for abortions in cases of rape, incest or to protect a pregnant woman’s health. Abortion counseling is also no longer allowed.

A VA spokesperson declined to comment, noting the agency typically doesn’t comment on pending litigation.

Minority Veterans of America says it represents more than 3,600 members across the U.S.

“Our community includes veterans with complex medical histories, those who have experienced pregnancy complications, and survivors of sexual violence and trauma, all of whom need access to abortion care and counseling to protect their health,” Lindsay Church, the group’s executive director, said in a statement.

In publishing its final rule in December, the VA said it was restoring the agency’s longstanding position that abortions were not “needed” under federal law and that “this determination did not prohibit providing life-saving care to pregnant veterans.”

The lawsuit says one of Minority Veteran of America’s members is a military veteran who just learned she was pregnant in early May. She suffers from chronic pain that has been exacerbated by the pregnancy, placing her health “at substantial risk,” says the lawsuit, which withheld the woman’s name to protect her privacy.

The lawsuit says the VA won’t allow the unnamed veteran to receive an abortion “even if her health is at risk, unless a provider determines an abortion is necessary to save her life.”

Bynum writes for the Associated Press.

US President Donald Trump has announced that the United States will send an additional 5,000 troops to Poland, a surprise move that has deepened uncertainty about Washington’s military posture in Europe.

In a post on his Truth Social platform on Thursday, Trump linked the decision directly to his relationship with Poland’s right-wing President Karol Nawrocki.

“Based on the successful Election of the now President ⁠of Poland, Karol Nawrocki, who I was proud to Endorse, and our relationship with him, I am pleased to announce that the United States will be sending an additional 5,000 Troops to Poland,” Trump wrote.

But the move comes just days after the Pentagon cancelled the deployment of about 4,000 troops to Poland as part of a wider reduction of US forces in Europe.

The abrupt reversal has fuelled questions about what exactly Trump has ordered – and whether the deployment is driven by military strategy with Europe, or by the US president’s increasingly transactional approach to alliances.

What has Trump ordered and which troops are involved?

While Trump described the move as a new deployment, reports from US media suggest the announcement may actually amount to a reversal of an earlier Pentagon decision.

Last week, the Pentagon abruptly halted the deployment of the 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team of the 1st Cavalry Division – a Texas-based unit of more than 4,000 troops that had been preparing to rotate into Poland and Eastern Europe.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Trump later questioned Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth about why the deployment had been cancelled, telling him the US should not “treat Poland poorly” given its close ties to Washington.

Several reports said some parts of the brigade – known as the “Black Jack Brigade” – had already begun moving equipment and personnel when the deployment was stopped.

The Pentagon has not confirmed whether Trump’s newly announced 5,000 troops are the same soldiers whose deployment was cancelled earlier this month, or whether they will be redeployed from elsewhere in Europe, such as from Germany.

The White House and Pentagon have so far released few other details about this latest deployment.

Poland currently hosts about 10,000 US troops, largely on a rotational basis, according to the Polish government. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the country has become one of Washington’s most important military partners on NATO’s eastern edge and a key hub for Western military aid to Kyiv.

In 2020, Poland and the US signed the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, expanding military cooperation and helping to formalise a longer-term American military presence in the country.

How has Poland responded?

Nawrocki welcomed Trump’s announcement, calling the Polish-American alliance “a vital pillar of security for every Polish home and for all of Europe”.

“Good alliances are those based on cooperation, mutual respect, and a commitment to our shared security,” he wrote on social media.

Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski also welcomed the news, saying the deployment would ensure that “the presence of American troops in Poland will be maintained more or less at previous levels”.

German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul also welcomed the move.

“It serves not only for Poland’s security, but for the security of the whole alliance and so also for us,” he told reporters. “So, this is absolutely in our interest.”

Why is Trump doing this?

The announcement appears to mark a sharp reversal from recent signals that the Trump administration was preparing to reduce the US military’s footprint in Europe.

Earlier this month, Washington announced plans to withdraw 5,000 troops from Germany after a public row between Trump and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz over the US-Israeli war on Iran. Trump later suggested the cuts could go even further.

At the same time, Trump has repeatedly accused European NATO allies of failing to spend enough on defence and of not doing enough to support US policy in the Middle East.

Analysts say the decision over Poland also reflects Trump’s increasingly transactional approach to alliances – punishing governments he sees as hostile or unhelpful while rewarding leaders and countries more closely aligned with his brand of right-wing politics.

Germany and Spain have both faced criticism from Trump administration officials in recent weeks over their positions on Iran and defence spending, while Poland’s nationalist government has cultivated close ties with Trump and the wider MAGA movement.

Before meeting NATO counterparts in Sweden, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said: “Like any alliance, it ⁠has to be good ⁠for everyone who’s involved. There has to be a clear ⁠understanding of what the expectations are.”

“The president’s views, frankly disappointment, at some of our NATO allies and their response to our operations in the Middle East – they’re well documented – that will have to be addressed,” Rubio added. “That won’t be solved or addressed today.”

Poland, by contrast, has emerged as one of NATO’s highest defence spenders, allocating about 4.5 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) to defence. It has also remained one of Ukraine’s strongest backers and has consistently pushed for a larger US military presence on its territory.

The deployment, therefore, appears both strategic and political – reinforcing NATO’s eastern flank while rewarding one of Trump’s closest allies in Europe at a time when he is openly questioning relationships with other partners on the continent.

But the confusion surrounding the announcement has also highlighted a broader uncertainty hanging over Washington’s Europe policy, with allies still trying to determine whether the administration is reducing its commitment to NATO overall, or simply reshaping it around governments Trump sees as more loyal.

May 22 (UPI) — A new American consulate opened in Nuuk, Greenland, Friday, and hundreds of Greenlanders showed up to protest it.

There has been a small consulate in the country since 2020, but the new one is 30,000 square feet and is on one of Nuuk’s busiest roads.

The consulate hosted an opening event with visitors and red, white and blue decorations inside. Ambassador to Denmark Kenneth Howery unveiled a new plaque and said he looked forward to a closer partnership with the semi-autonomous country, which is part of the Kingdom of Denmark.

“The Arctic is clearly a region of global importance,” the BBC reported Howery said. “We will always be neighbors and be with you into whatever future you choose as allies and partners.”

But outside, the locals made their voices heard, chanting, “We don’t want your money” and “Greenlanders know a MAGA Trojan horse when we see one,” The New York Times reported.

The locals have dubbed the new consulate, “Trump Towers.”

Protest organizer Aqqalukkuluk Fontain, 37, said, “The waves they are trying to create, and the propaganda they are pushing — people are not falling for it.”

“Our government already told Donald Trump and his administration that Greenland is not for sale,” the BBC reported he said. “Our message is for the American people and to the rest of the world — that in a democratic world, no means no.”

The United States had thousands of troops stationed in Greenland during World War II and the Cold War, but the bases have all closed except one. American officials have begun visiting the old bases as they consider reopening some, The Times reported.

Earlier this week, President Donald Trump’s special envoy to Greenland Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry visited Nuuk on a “goodwill mission” and found he wasn’t very welcome. He handed out chocolate chip cookies and MAGA hats to few takers.

Inge Bisgaard told the BBC that Landry’s visit was disrespectful. “It’s so important to show this is not OK.”

“We get this fear from the United States. People were just recovering from last time, when it all began again in January,” she said about Trump’s previous comments about buying or invading Greenland.

Protesters stood for two minutes of silence with their backs facing the consulate, then resumed chanting for Americans to go away.

“Look at how little signage there is showing that it’s a consulate,” The Times reported protester Nivi Christensen, a museum director in Nuuk, said. “The other consulates fly large flags outside and are proud of it. This feels different. It feels as though they are doing it in a sketchy way.”

On May 14, the high court in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh ruled that the centuries-old Kamal Maula mosque in the city of Dhar was actually a temple dedicated to a Hindu goddess. Two days later, saffron flags associated with Hindu far-right groups were all over the site, with supporters celebrating and filming rituals that were carried out.

The Kamal Maula mosque, also known as the Bhojshala complex, has been disputed for decades. And such claims are not unique to this mosque. Far-right Hindutva activists have made similar claims – that a given mosque was built atop a temple – across the country, emboldened by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s rise to power in 2014.

Modi is a leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party, which follows an ideology known as Hindutva.

But what is the Hindutva movement, and how did it emerge?

What does Hindutva mean?

Hindutva is a right-wing political and nationalist ideology that defines the cultural and national identity of India based on a particular interpretation of Hindu values. India is a constitutionally secular state, but advocates of Hindutva want the country to adopt Hinduism as its state religion.

The term Hindutva consists of two linguistic parts: The first is the word “Hindu”, whose origin likely traces back to the Sanskrit word “Sindhu”, the ancient name for the Indus River. With the evolution of linguistic usage, the ancient Persians and others replaced the letter “S” with “H”, and the term “Hindus” came to be used for the inhabitants living beyond the river.

The second part is the Sanskrit suffix “-tva”, which indicates essence or being, meaning that the term literally denotes “Hindu essence” or “Hindu identity or being”.

How did Hindutva originate?

Hindu nationalism emerged in protest against British colonial notions of the religion, but quickly grew into a majoritarian ideology that viewed the Indian identity through the lens of a specific interpretation of Hinduism.

Its early years coincided with sectarian Hindi-Muslim tensions in the early 20th century under British rule, culminating in the partition of the subcontinent at independence in 1947 and the formation of Pakistan on religious grounds.

Indian freedom fighter and ideologue Vinayak Savarkar coined the term “Hindutva” in his 1923 pamphlet Essentials of Hindutva, presenting a vision of Hindu identity based on the unity of territory, culture, and historical belonging, while considering India as the fatherland and the holy land of Hindus.

Based on this notion, some Hindutva theorists argued that Muslims and Christians do not fully belong to the Indian nation, as their holy places are located outside India – even though India is home to one of the world’s largest Muslim populations, and has more Christians than many European nations such as the United Kingdom.

Savarkar was, and remains, a controversial figure: He infamously wrote letters to the British pleading for his release from a notorious prison in the Andaman Islands.

From idea to movement

By 1925, the early Hindutva ideologue Keshav Baliram Hedgewar had founded the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) – which loosely translates to National Volunteer Organisation – the mothership of the Hindu majoritarian political movement.

The RSS focused on organising and strengthening the Hindu community through local social and cultural activities. Over time, it expanded to include a network of affiliated institutions and organisations spanning religious activities, education, health, publishing, student politics and even the trade union sector.

Some of its early leaders publicly, in their writings, admired the European fascists and the manner in which they dealt with religious and ethnic minorities.

After India’s independence, the movement faced significant pressure following the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi in 1948: Gandhi’s assassin was a former RSS member. Savarkar, the founder of the Hindutva ideology, was also arrested in connection with the assassination but was eventually acquitted because the prosecution could not present corroborating evidence against him.

Later, the movement shifted towards political action by establishing a party in 1951, which subsequently evolved into the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 1980.

The party witnessed a remarkable surge in its political influence during the 1980s and 1990s by championing the construction of the Ram Temple in the city of Ayodhya on the site of the Babri Mosque.

In 1992, the demolition of the mosque by activists associated with the RSS and the BJP prompted a widespread wave of sectarian violence. In the wake of that violence, the BJP first came to national power in 1996 as India’s single largest party, but its government collapsed in 13 days after allies it depended on withdrew support. In 1998, it returned to power, but this time lost after 13 months. New elections followed in 1999, and the BJP emerged as the single biggest party again. It led a coalition government for a full five years until 2004, when the Congress party – now India’s largest opposition force – defeated it.

The Congress ruled for a decade until 2014, when Modi stormed to power with the largest mandate any party had received since 1984.

Thought and Ideology

Hindutva ideology posits that Indian identity is fundamentally rooted in Hindu culture and civilisation.

The ideology relies on historical narratives portraying the periods of Islamic and Mughal rule as an era that weakened Hindu heritage, calling for the restoration of Hindu identity and the strengthening of its presence in the public sphere.

Its most prominent ideas include: Rereading history from a Hindu nationalist perspective, viewing India as a sacred civilisational entity, calling for the return of those believed to have Hindu origins to their ancestral religion, and granting national status to symbols such as cows and the Sanskrit language.

Critics differentiate between Hindutva as a nationalist political project and Hinduism as a religion and spiritual philosophy, arguing that the former politicises religion and can contradict values such as tolerance and nonviolence that have long been central tenets of Hinduism, the faith.

Hindutva in political practice

Hindutva has gradually transitioned into the political and legislative spheres with the rise of the BJP to power. Its principles have begun to reflect in laws, public policies, and the nature of social debate within the country. Supporters argue that these policies preserve national identity, while critics contend that they undermine religious and cultural pluralism.

The most notable of these measures was the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution in 2019, which had granted the Muslim-majority region of Jammu and Kashmir a special autonomous status.

Additionally, the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) was passed that year, granting expedited citizenship to certain immigrants from neighbouring countries, excluding Muslims. It officially went into effect in March 2024, accompanied by the National Register of Citizens (NRC), which threatens to strip millions of Muslims of their citizenship and label them as infiltrators.

The impact of this vision has extended to local legislation in certain states, such as tightening restrictions on cow slaughter and enacting laws to regulate religious conversion and interfaith marriages, alongside calls for the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code to replace certain personal status laws for minorities.

Hindutva has also been linked to the emergence of Hindu nationalist groups, such as the Bajrang Dal, which have been implicated in acts of violence and intimidation against Muslims, Christians and marginalised social groups, particularly over issues related to cows or religious conversion.

In January 1999, when the BJP was in power nationally, Bajrang Dal activists burned alive Graham Staines, an Australian Christian missionary, and his two sons, while they were sleeping in their car. And in 2002, while Modi was chief minister of the western state of Gujarat, independent India witnessed one of its worst massacres of Muslims, after a group of Hindu pilgrims on a train were burned alive under circumstances that are still contested.

Indian far-right groups ideologically aligned with the RSS have also been accused of lynching dozens of Muslims since 2014, often on accusations that they were carrying cows for slaughter. In almost all cases, none of the murderers have been punished, and in several instances, families of the victims have faced charges.

Read his lips: Sichuan Beef Proper, baked stuffed lobster, whiskey steak, chicken fajitas. There’s nothing like a good meal to chase those S&L; blues away.

George Bush, who never met a menu he didn’t like, eats out in restaurants about once a month–more than any President in recent history. Whenever he finds himself with a free evening and a craving for Chinese food, he slips out of the White House and into a corner table for a little Yan Chow fried rice. Just like your average all-American guy.

Well, not exactly. Where the President is concerned, there’s no such thing as a casual dinner on the town.

Your average guy doesn’t have someone who brings special bottled water for him to drink. Or salt, pepper and sugar for his table. Or an entourage of White House staff, Secret Service and reporters in tow.

Not to mention the food taster.

Yes, Virginia, the President does have a food taster. And no, the White House will not comment on food tasters–or anything else, for that matter–when it comes to protecting the Presidential palate.

But whenever the chief executive goes out to eat, there’s a man in the kitchen standing over the food. Sometimes he just watches; sometimes he digs right in.

The night the First Couple went to I Ricchi, an Italian restaurant in downtown Washington, the food taster washed their plates, glasses and utensils before the meal and kept them in sight at all times; tasted every dish to be served to the President; watched as the food was put on the plates and served; and uncorked and tasted the bottle of wine reserved exclusively for the President and Mrs. Bush.

In April, right after traces of benzene were found in Perrier water, Bush joked with an audience in Indianapolis: “I’m sorry I couldn’t get over here to have lunch with you today; I wasn’t allowed to. On the way over I was notified that the Secret Service had found my food taster face down in the salad. Somebody had washed my lettuce with Perrier.”

Traditionally, Presidents give up public dining when they move into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Nixon occasionally strolled across Lafayette Square, Secret Service alongside, for dinner at Trader Vic’s at the Capital Hilton. Ford and Carter rarely dined out. The Reagans, especially after the assassination attempt in 1981, kept close to the White House for meals. When Nancy Reagan did venture out, she favored the cloistered atmosphere of the Jockey Club.

But George Bush, determined to maintain as normal a lifestyle as possible, roars out of the Oval Office and into one of his favorite restaurants at the drop of a Daily Special.

The restaurants love it, of course. It inevitably boosts business. And it’s a big thrill for other customers.

But any spontaneous jaunt is a complicated logistical maneuver for the Secret Service. His security staff gets nervous when the President goes out in public and even more nervous when he does it unexpectedly. But these excursions are safer than his announced appearances in two respects: There’s the element of surprise–what the public doesn’t know can’t hurt him. And he goes out to restaurants so often, they’ve got the drill down pat.

When George and Robert Tsui get a call from the Secret Service reserving Table N-17, they know exactly what to expect.

By now, the two brothers who run the Peking Gourmet Inn in Falls Church are old hands at handling the hullabaloo that accompanies a visit from the First Customer–it’s the President’s favorite spot for a family dinner. Bush has been a VIP customer of the restaurant for the past five years and still stops by every couple of months: He came right before his inauguration, on the eve of the trips to Poland and Colombia, and to celebrate his son Marvin’s birthday, to name a few occasions.

“They treat this, just like any other American family, as their little favorite Chinese restaurant,” says Robert Tsui. “We try to be as low-key as we can.”

Low-key, all things considered. The President is brought in one of the restaurant’s seven doors; it varies each time and is always a last-minute decision by the security detail. There are Secret Service agents and police both inside and surrounding the restaurant. Customers are waved with a portable metal detector when they arrive for dinner. And then there’s the taster . . . er, make that “nutrition expert.”

“When President Bush was vice president, he didn’t have a nutrition expert in the kitchen,” says George Tsui. “After he became President, the nutrition expert stays in the kitchen to understand what he’s eating.”

The President sits at a big round table in a partitioned area that has a bulletproof window installed by the Tsuis. The Secret Service waits right on the other side of the partition, and only the Tsuis and waiter Tak Chung Pang–all wearing official pins–are allowed past. Bush reportedly wields a mean chopstick and is partial to the Sichuan Beef Proper, a spicy shredded-beef dish with roasted sesame seeds; Peking duck; and the giant spring onions the Tsuis grow on their Virginia farm.

After dinner the President comes into the dining room to greet customers. “There’s no better attraction than the No. 1 man–wherever you go,” says Robert Tsui. “Whether they are Democrat or Republican, whether they politically agree with the man or not, they always love the fact that they’re dining with him.”

An “above average” tipper (20%), Bush pays most of the time by check, which the Tsuis cash. “The thing is, it would be abusing the privilege not to cash the check, because the check may be more valuable uncashed,” Robert explained. “We cash them out of respect to the President.”

But elsewhere in the country, there’s at least one Bush check on display: “George Bush, Business Account, The White House”–now hanging on the wall of Patsy Clark’s restaurant in Spokane, Wash.

House Speaker Tom Foley invited Bush, who was visiting Washington state for its centennial celebration, to join him, his wife, Heather, and Environmental Protection Agency Director Bill Reilly for dinner there last fall. Foley had intended to pick up the tab, but the President pulled rank and paid the $121 bill with a check for $140.

The next morning, a newspaper article said owner Tony Anderson planned to keep and frame the check as a souvenir. “About 2 p.m. that day, a Secret Service guy showed up at the restaurant with an envelope,” says Anderson. “It was a thank-you note from Bush with $140 in cash enclosed. He wanted to pay for dinner. He was insistent on it.”

Anderson only had 20 minutes’ notice of the Presidential supper, which had been reserved under the name of an assistant to the President. There were Secret Service agents “everywhere–35 or 40 guys” including, says Anderson, the one who brought salt, pepper, sugar and bottled water for the table in a shopping bag. The food taster watched, but did not sample, the President’s medium-rare Jack Daniel’s whiskey steak. Anderson found out later that the Secret Service had been visiting his restaurant for two weeks, posing as regular customers, and had the place thoroughly staked out.

“He was a wonderful person to have as a customer,” says Anderson. But having both Bush and Foley under his roof was nonetheless nerve-racking. “I was thinking, ‘These guys are two of the most powerful people in the world. What if something happens?’ I was actually sort of relieved when they left.”

Until it happens, no restaurant can imagine what goes into a visit from the President.

The operative word is secret .

Palm owner Wally Ganzi, who is also a personal friend of the President, knew several weeks in advance that the Bushes would join him and his wife, Reva, along with actress Cheryl Ladd and her husband, Brian Russell, for sirloin steak, onion rings and cheesecake last November. But his staff was told only the day before, when the Secret Service arrived to inspect the premises.

“Someone should pay the Secret Service a compliment,” says Ganzi. “They really try their best in every possible way. They’re not rude, very courteous. They really try not to disturb your business. They don’t strong-arm you.” The one thing they really concentrate on is egress–the quickest way to get the President out if there’s a problem.

Christianne and Francesco Ricchi, on the other hand, got the shock of their lives when I Ricchi’s owners found out they’d be cooking for a very VIP guest–only one month after the restaurant opened last year.

“My husband approached me and said, ‘You will never guess who’s coming to dinner,’ ” says Christianne Ricchi. “The Secret Service flashed their badges and says, ‘Are you the owner?’ He thought it was immigration.”

The couple only had two hours’ notice to prepare for the presidential appearance at the dinner, hosted by former Bush speech writer Vic Gold. “Our concern was making sure that everything was absolutely perfect,” says Christianne Ricchi.

Meanwhile, the Secret Service searched the restaurant, brought in bomb-sniffing dogs, stationed men outside all the entrances and on the roof across the street, and brought in the food taster, who played an unusually active role–sampling all the food and wine.

Time and security were equally tight in May when the Bushes joined former Republican National Committee chairman Dean Burch and his wife, Pat, for dinner at La Chaumiere in Georgetown. Antoine de Ponfilly, who served the Presidential party, found out at 5 p.m. that “someone important” was coming that night, but the Secret Service would not say who it was.

The Secret Service chose the private room upstairs for the President and then positioned two men on the roof, two in the back, three on the stairs and “a lot” in front of the tiny French restaurant, de Ponfilly says.

When the Bushes went up to eat, customers were inspected with portable metal detectors but didn’t find out who was in the restaurant until Bush came downstairs after dinner.

It was more down-home last July at Rio Grande Cafe, the Tex-Mex restaurant in Bethesda, when Bush and fellow Texan Robert Mosbacher, the secretary of commerce, came in for quesadillas, cheese enchiladas, beef and chicken fajitas and the specialty of the house: mesquite-broiled quail.

Manager Jerry Green noticed two police cars in front of the restaurant when he arrived at 3 p.m. Three hours later, the Secret Service toured the restaurant and picked a table for Bush in a back corner.

The food taster asked Green to point out what food would be served to the Presidential party. Green pointed to the 40 pounds of beef already cooking on the grill.

“He got the same old stuff that everybody gets here,” says Green. “Honestly, I’m not going to change my food just for the President. But I did give him an extra quail. I figured I could do that much for him.”

The party lasted two hours and everyone else in the restaurant lingered to watch Bush tackle his fajitas; since he sat facing the front, the customers could get a good look.

“Nobody would leave,” says Green. “The Secret Service finally closed the door when we were filled to capacity with a two-hour wait.”

After Mosbacher paid the bill with his American Express card, Green grabbed the chair Bush had been sitting in “right after he finished with it.” Within two days it was back on the floor–painted red, white and blue.

When Mabel Hanson of Mabel’s Lobster Claw Restaurant in Kennebunkport, Me., curls her hair, you know something’s up.

“The President said, ‘Hiya, Mabel. How are you? What are you all dressed up for?’ ” says Hanson, who just happened to be spiffed up when Bush dropped by last year. “I cried when he came–just a few sniffles. I can’t help it. It’s the President coming through your door.”

Mabel’s has been a Bush family favorite for almost 20 years. There’s a whole wall devoted to the Bushes: lots of pictures of George and Barbara, a few of George and Mabel, a portrait of the President with “He’s Our George” above it and a banner from the President’s inauguration–Mabel’s first trip ever to Washington.

You can usually pick out the Secret Service: They’re the only guys in Kennebunkport wearing suits.

Bush sits at his favorite corner table, where he usually has lobster stuffed with sea scallops. He’s “not too much for desserts” but occasionally treats himself to butter-crunch ice cream or Mabel’s famous peanut butter ice cream pie.

“These people couldn’t change if they tried,” she says. “They’re as natural as grass growing.”

Earlier this month, the Bushes and daughter Dorothy Bush LeBlond went to the Breakwater Inn in Kennebunkport with Bush golfing buddy Spike Heminway, his wife, Betsy, and daughter Alex. Unlike most dinner visits, owner Carolyn Lambert got advance word when Heminway made the reservation the night before and said the Bushes would be joining them.

“It was very important to me that this didn’t get out of hand,” Lambert says. “I told my employees when they came in the next night, ‘If you told any of your friends to come down here and hang around, call them back and tell them not to come.’ ”

In the morning, the Secret Service and a White House staffer showed up and told Lambert, “There need to be people in the dining room. If Mr. Bush felt you were going to lose business because of him, he would be unhappy.”

The restaurant, not surprisingly, was full of the inn’s regular customers and a few enterprising reporters who had wheedled reservations that afternoon for the remaining tables. Except for the food taster in the kitchen, it was a typical Sunday-night dinner in Maine. The President had the pan-fried chicken breast special and mud pie.

When Bush goes to his other hometown, he usually makes a beeline for Otto’s Barbecue in Houston, where he chows down on pork ribs or link sausage with beans.

On his first visit there as President, the Secret Service checked out the bathrooms and sneaked Bush through the back door into the back dining room. “But the customers knew something was up,” says manager June Sofka. “Then the President came in the main dining room and shook hands with everybody. It was just exhilarating.”

“I was busy running around so I didn’t get my picture taken with the President. But I picked up his plate and the silverware and took it home. I still have it.”

Smart, cynical about politicians but not apathetic. That’s how MTV political reporter Tabitha Soren describes her audience . It’s also a good description of Soren herself.

A former reporter and anchor covering state politics for an ABC – TV station in Burlington , Vt . , the 25-year-old Soren has won praise from TV critics for her informed questioning of the presidential candidates about young people’s issues on MTV’ s “Choose or Lose” coverage of the 1992 campaign.

MTV’s coverage has been aimed at getting the MTV generation registered to vote and motivated to go to the polls. In the last presidential election, less than 34% of eligible 18-to-24-year-olds turned out to cast ballots.

Soren, who is under contract to MTV through November, 1993, traveled the country covering the campaigns and in the process became something of a celebrity. Last weekend she interviewed President Bush aboard his campaign train .

Question: Why do you think that President Bush decided to talk to you?

Answer: One reason may be that, independent of MTV, a young voter in Florida recently asked him, “Why won’t you go on MTV?” His answer was that he was not a “mod MTV kind of guy”–which is the last thing young people want to hear. Using a ‘60s word like mod –that’s sort of saying he’s out of touch with young people. Young people have voted Republican in the last three elections. They grew up during a Republican dynasty, and that is how they formed their values. With the presidential race getting so close and seeing the numbers of young people getting registered, maybe (Bush’s strategists) thought this could be an easy constituency to win over.

Q: Do you think President Bush is out of touch with young people?

A: He hasn’t talked about young people’s issues enough for young people to even be able to tell. His big things are the line-item veto, capital-gains taxes, public- or private-school vouchers–all of these are things within issues that young people care about, like the economy and education. But there aren’t a lot of 20-year-olds that have capital gains.

Q: What are the issues that your audience is interested in?

A: They’re interested in the economy, the economy and the economy. When I go to colleges to talk, to encourage them to register to vote and to vote, students will ask their “I’ll ask this in front of an audience” serious, political questions. Then, afterward, they all come up to me and want to know how I got my job. They’re getting ready to graduate, and they don’t have job prospects. It makes me feel a little guilty about having a job.

The economy is No. 1 on their minds. But they’re also concerned about the environment. They want the homeless problem solved, they want to find a cure for AIDS, they want the deficit eliminated. Young people are the ones who are going to be stuck with that deficit. . . . Ross Perot wants to eliminate the deficit, and he says he is running on behalf of young people. Before he withdrew from the race in July, it was hard to find young people who weren’t for him.

Q: How were you regarded when you first started out in the New Hampshire primary?

A: Nobody had ever heard of MTV News; they didn’t know we had a news department. We’d walk up to the candidates, camera rolling, and say, ‘We’re trying to get more young people to vote.’ When you say that, most candidates–hopefully, even without a camera rolling but certainly with one rolling–would look pretty bad if they didn’t talk to you. I think they found it novel.

Each one of the Democratic candidates had their little thing they did to make them look hip for MTV. Jerry Brown had on a suit when we asked to talk to him, but he changed into a turtleneck and flannel shirt for the interview. Gov. Bob Kerry walked up to me and said, ‘I want my MTV.’ ” And Pat Buchanan said, ‘I hope you aren’t going to ask me about any of that hard-rock music because I can tell you right now I don’t like it.’ Buchanan seemed surprised when I kept asking him questions about his ‘America First’ agenda–questions about music were not on my mind.

Q: Why do you think you and MTV News have received so much attention from other news organizations during the election?

A: I think we’ve energized a lot of young people with our coverage, and perhaps we’re forcing the politicians to talk about young issues in ways they weren’t before. Our coverage is fair and unbiased. But the whole point behind ‘Choose or Lose’ is advocacy journalism–getting young people to vote, regardless of which candidate they vote for. There are a lot of voter-registration groups–Rock the Vote, Project Vote and others–that are using celebrities and others to make voting trendy, make it cool. As silly as those words sound, getting young people excited about voting–something so basic to this country–is very important. If we don’t vote, how do we expect politicians to listen to our concerns?

Q: If young voters don’t turn out to vote in greater numbers, will you consider that a referendum on your coverage?

A: I don’t think it will be a referendum on our coverage, but I will be very disappointed. This is what my life has been consumed with for the past 10 months.

Q: How has it been for you to become a celebrity yourself, being interviewed by other TV reporters at the Democratic convention, appearing on “The Tonight Show’ and being parodied on “The Ben Stiller Show”?

A: We were helped a lot in gaining credibility because other news organizations did stories on us early on. But being interviewed at the Democratic convention–I took that as a sign of slow news at the convention! Being on “The Tonight Show”–that made me petrified. I was already sick with the flu and a 102-degree temperature, and I was so nervous before the show I got sick to my stomach. It’s not something you say, “Oh, no big deal.” But I’m not going to get used to it–because after the election, it’s going to be over.

As far as being parodied, I don’t mind that because the people doing it don’t seem to have seen our coverage, so how can I be offended?

Q: Why do you think alternative media–from MTV News to Larry King–have gained prominence during this campaign?

A: I think what we do is supplemental. I tell people all the time to read books and newspapers because you just can’t get all the information you need from television. But I do think that political information has expanded. Movies like “JFK” are forcing the government to reopen files on the Kennedy assassination; rap groups like Public Enemy are addressing the issue of race much more directly than the evening news.

Q: Are young voters today cynical?

A: They’re cynical, but they’re not apathetic. That’s the difference. They haven’t voted, perhaps, because they grew up in an era first of government deregulation and, later, an era when many people feel alienated from Washington. But college freshmen today demonstrate and protest at the grass-roots level about issues like civil rights and abortion. They’re worried about jobs, but they’re also the ones who want to cure homelessness and feed the people in Somalia. They just want to know that someone in Washington is listening to their concerns.

Americans always say they want politicians with backbone — men and women of principle who will stand up for what they believe in, even when it’s unpopular.

And every so often, the American people prove their commitment to this noble aspiration by firing anybody who actually tries it.

Take Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, who just lost a reelection bid by double digits after President Trump’s affiliated committees dumped enough money into Kentucky to purchase, well, Kentucky.

Massie committed the cardinal sin of modern Republican politics: He behaved as though Congress were a coequal branch of government instead of the warm-up act before a Trump rally.

He bucked Trump on spending, Iran and — in what apparently qualified as political suicide — whether or not to release the Epstein files. For this display of independent thought, Massie was summarily retired by what can only be described as the Trump cult (formerly known as the Republican primary electorate).

Before anybody accuses me of hyperbole, consider the remarkably revealing example presented recently on the New York Times podcast, “The Daily.”

At a town hall in Burlington, Ky., one voter explained to Massie that Trump is basically omniscient.

“As I see it,” the voter said, “the one person in the whole United States, maybe the world, that understands everything and has input to everything is Donald Trump.”

Not content with mere earthly wisdom, Trump also possesses universal awareness, superior intelligence and perhaps even low-level clairvoyance. The voter continued that Trump “gets more information, more meetings, more everything” than anybody else in government.

When Massie noted that Trump opposed releasing the Epstein files, the man calmly explained that if Trump changed positions, “there was a reason” — one too profound for ordinary mortals to comprehend.

Massie’s reply deserves to be bronzed and mounted over the entrance to the U.S. Capitol: “I don’t give anybody but God that kind of trust.”

Unfortunately, for a large portion of the Republican electorate (about 55%, based on the Kentucky primary results), those words constitute sacrilege against their earthly savior.

As South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham cheerfully boasted on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, “This is the party of Donald Trump.” Which is true in much the same way North Korea is the party of Kim Jong Un.

The one ironic twist in all of this is that Americans finally managed to punish somebody over the Epstein files — only it turned out to be the guy who wanted them released.

There’s American justice for you.

Massie isn’t the only Republican currently being fitted for concrete shoes. Trump also helped finish off Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, whose unforgivable crime was voting to convict Trump during the impeachment trial following Jan. 6. And Trump has endorsed controversial Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton over incumbent Sen. John Cornyn, which in today’s GOP primary environment is roughly the equivalent of finding a horse head in your bed.

Now, to be fair, Cassidy and Cornyn are no Massie, who openly opposed Trump and paid the price standing upright. Cassidy and Cornyn demonstrated brief moments of independence, only to spend years vainly performing political interpretive dance routines in hopes of regaining Trump’s favor.

Still, there may be a silver lining here for students of political irony.

Trump’s endorsement of Paxton will force Republicans to spend enormous sums defending a deep red state that would ordinarily require little more than a campaign sign and a pickup truck.

Meanwhile, Trump is creating resentful lame-duck Republicans in Congress who now possess the most dangerous attribute in politics: nothing left to lose.

But the broader message is unmistakable. Trump wants Republicans to understand that disagreement will not be tolerated. No criticism. No distancing. No independent branding.

The party line is whatever Trump said five minutes ago, amended by whatever he says five minutes from now. By now, everyone knows this to be true.

Which would be excellent news for Trump, if not for one small complication: The rest of the country appears to be tiring of his act. Recent polling shows Trump’s approval slipping to 37%, while Democrats gain major ground, surging to a +11 on the generic congressional ballot.

Trump, it seems, has created a situation in which Republicans can either oppose him and be destroyed in a primary, or they can embrace him and risk losing the House and the Senate in November’s general election. It’s the old “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” conundrum.

The point is this: With the midterms approaching, Trump is making sure Republicans are ensnared in the gravitational pull of his unpopularity.

That may satisfy the president’s desire for complete loyalty. It may also hand Democrats control of both chambers of Congress.

Trump is settling all family business this week, by purging those pesky disloyal Republicans. Only time will tell whether he’s also purging America’s non-Republican “swing” voters, as well.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

United States President Donald Trump has announced plans to deploy an additional 5,000 troops to Poland.

Trump announced the surprise deployment on social media late on Thursday, citing his friendship with right-wing Polish President Karol Nawrocki.

The move came days after a planned deployment to Poland was apparently scrapped and will deepen uncertainty surrounding the Trump administration’s approach to NATO allies and its long-term commitment to maintaining a military presence in Europe. It leaves European partners increasingly unclear about which areas they should prioritise as they formulate defence strategies.

“Based on the successful Election of the now President ⁠of Poland, Karol Nawrocki, who I was proud to Endorse, and our relationship with him, I am pleased to announce that the United States will be sending an additional 5,000 Troops to Poland,” Trump wrote.

Nawrocki welcomed the announcement on social media.

“Good alliances are those based on cooperation, mutual respect, and a commitment to our shared ‌security,” he wrote on Thursday evening.

Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski also welcomed the news on Friday, saying it ensures that “the presence of American troops in Poland will be maintained more or less at previous levels”.

About-face

The announced deployment is a sudden about-face from US declarations of plans to reduce military support to Europe under Trump’s “America First” doctrine.

The US president has for years been lambasting European NATO partners for failing to spend enough on defence. His opprobrium has risen in recent weeks as European states have criticised the US-Israeli war on Iran and refused to join the conflict.

The Pentagon abruptly announced a week ago that it was scrapping the planned deployment of 4,000 troops to Poland.

Earlier this month, Trump announced he was withdrawing 5,000 troops from Germany following a spat with Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who said Washington had been “humiliated” by Iranian negotiators.

The US president later said that he would be “cutting a lot further than 5,000”.

Polish officials have noted that Warsaw pays significant sums towards the cost of US troop deployments. The suggestion of a pullback has caused concern over security in Poland and elsewhere in Europe, as Russia’s war on neighbouring Ukraine continues, with the Trump administration largely ceasing efforts to mediate a ceasefire.

European states report that they are getting to grips with the need to replace US defence capabilities, albeit slowly. However, sources suggest that the erratic policies emerging from the White House are creating confusion over which elements should be prioritised.

“It is confusing indeed, and not always easy to navigate,” Swedish Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard told reporters ahead of hosting a meeting of NATO foreign ministers on Friday, which will be attended by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

US defence officials are also confused, according to the AP news agency.

“We just spent the better part of two weeks reacting to the first announcement. We don’t know what this means either,” said one official.

‘America First’

The US president has lashed out at fellow NATO members in recent months for failing to support the US-Israeli war on Iran, suggesting Washington could withdraw from the military alliance as a result.

State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott said Rubio would discuss the need for NATO allies to increase defence spending and shoulder greater responsibility at Friday’s meeting of NATO foreign ministers.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who has worked hard in recent months to attempt to soothe the US president’s displeasure with his alliance peers, welcomed Trump’s deployment to Poland and cautioned that Europe must become less reliant on the US.

Rubio said before meeting his NATO counterparts in Sweden: “Like any alliance, it ⁠has to be good ⁠for everyone who’s involved. There has to be a clear ⁠understanding of what the expectations are.” ⁠

He also suggested, however, that the meeting is likely to prove less than comfortable.

“The president’s views, frankly disappointment, at some of our NATO allies and their response to our operations in the Middle East – they’re well documented – that will have to be addressed,” he insisted, before adding “that won’t be solved or addressed today”.

While Rubio meets with NATO counterparts, senior Pentagon officials will brief partners at the alliance’s headquarters in Brussels about Washington’s commitment to European defence.

On Tuesday, the Pentagon announced it plans to reduce the number of combat brigades based in Europe from four to three.

Many of Washington’s allies in Europe remain frustrated with Trump’s handling of the war with Iran, which has damaged their economies and prompted some European leaders to question the reliability of the US.

European NATO countries also remain concerned about Trump’s threats to annex Greenland, which is an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO ally.

It remains unclear whether the deployment to Poland announced on Thursday includes the same soldiers as those the Pentagon said would no longer be deployed to the Central European country, or if they will include redeployments from Germany.

Travel plans could be set for major disruption

Around 500 flights could be thrown into disarray due to a general strike set to take place in Portugal.

Portuguese news sources are reporting that the industrial action is expected to trigger major disruption across the transport network. The CGTP (General Confederation of Portuguese Workers) has called the strike, with Sic Noticias suggesting that growing numbers of workers’ representatives are backing the campaign.

The National Union of Civil Aviation Flight Personnel (SNPVAC) has predicted that “around 500 flights” could be affected by the walkout on June 3, with the potential for travel chaos to also extend to the days surrounding that date. According to an internal document seen by Notícias ao Minuto and shared with union members, the SNPVAC has also warned that the general strike may impact “the days before and after”.

ECO has stated that the cabin crew strike will chiefly hit operations for TAP, Portugália and SATA. Idealista, along with several other Portuguese media outlets, indicates there may also be knock-on disruption to flights run by other airlines with Portuguese bases.

The outlet highlights this could potentially encompass easyJet and Ryanair, as the industrial action involves cabin crew operating from Portuguese bases.

This comes after comparable action last December which caused widespread chaos across the nation. Rail services ground to a halt across Portugal on December 11 last year. Hundreds of flights were cancelled simultaneously in protest against the very same proposed labour reforms that remain at the heart of this ongoing dispute.

Members of the National Union of Airline Workers voted in favour of the latest industrial action on Tuesday, in opposition to the planned labour reforms.

The CGTP filed a formal pre-strike notice for June 3 in protest against amendments to employment legislation, following fruitless talks with the Government.

The proposed changes to labour law were rubber-stamped by the Government in the Council of Ministers last week and are now due to go before Parliament for debate.

Minister of Labour, Solidarity and Social Security, Rosário Palma Ramalho, confirmed the development at a press conference, a week after Government negotiations on employment law changes ended without agreement in the Social Dialogue.

What could be affected by the strike in Portugal?

Portuguese media reports indicate that urban passenger transport across the country, as well as airports, are likely to face significant disruption. The CGTP has called on all workers to join the industrial action.

The Federation of Transport and Communications Unions has thrown its weight behind the strike. Transport operators expected to be caught up in the action include Lisbon Metro, Carris, Transtejo/Soflusa, Fertagus, Porto Metro, STCP and CP – Comboios de Portugal. The National Union of Civil Aviation Flight Personnel has also confirmed its involvement in the strike, alongside the Union of Aviation and Airport Workers, with the decisions expected to cause widespread disruption across several airlines.

The retail workers’ trade union and the two organisations representing doctors and teachers had previously confirmed they would be taking part in the industrial action, with the Nurses’ Union also verifying its participation.

Meanwhile, Portuguese media is reporting that extra police will be deployed to the country’s airports to manage lengthy queues caused by the new EES border policy. The system affects non-EU nationals travelling for short stays whenever they cross the external borders of most European countries, including Portugal, Spain, Italy and France.

According to Sic Noticias, significant queues have been building in recent days at Portugal’s Schengen Area entry and exit checkpoints. The system is intended to replace manual passport stamping for non-EU nationals, including British citizens, entering the Schengen Area for short-term visits. It captures biometric data – fingerprints and photographs – at border control points, and applies to 90-day, visa-free, or short-stay visa travel.

There have been reports of queues stretching to three and four hours for some British travellers abroad, with a number of passengers even missing their flights altogether due to the lengthy delays. Portugal’s Public Security Police (PSP) is set to strengthen the country’s airports with an additional 360 officers in July, in a bid to cut waiting times for passengers arriving from outside the Schengen Area, according to an official PSP source.

PSP spokesman Sérgio Soares confirmed that the 360 officers are among 560 new recruits who will finish their training on May 28 before immediately embarking on a four-week border guard course. The 360 newly qualified officers are due to begin their airport duties in early July, forming a central part of the PSP’s summer contingency plan.

Police sources have revealed to Lusa that of the 360 new personnel, 150 will be posted to Lisbon airport, 90 to Porto, 70 to Faro, 30 to the Azores, and 20 to Madeira.

Turkiye’s main opposition leader Ozgur Ozel has vowed not to leave party headquarters after a court ruling removed him from power. Speaking to supporters in Ankara, Ozel accused judges and prosecutors of carrying out a coup attempt against his party.

With less than two weeks before the primary election, Steve Hilton is leading in the polls for governor, and Los Angeles mayoral hopeful Spencer Pratt is making the city’s progressive class sweat.

If the former Fox News commentator and the reality television bad boy move on to November’s general election, they’ll be running as conservatives in a super-blue state and city where most voters loathe President Trump.

The president endorsed Hilton last month, posting on social media that he “is a truly fine man, one who has watched as this once great State has gone to Hell.” On Wednesday, Trump said he wants Pratt to “do well … I heard he’s a big MAGA person,” before claiming that California elections are rigged and that he would have won the state two years ago “if we had Jesus Christ come down and count the votes” because “I do great with Hispanics.”

Trump was right about one thing — the importance of Latino voters. If Hilton and Pratt are to pull off historic upsets, they’ll need this bloc, which has emerged as a mercurial swing vote in local, state and national elections — but only if stirred into action by anger. And if ever there was a year for Latino anger, 2026 is it.

In recent years, Latinos in California have drifted rightward as they tire of Democratic policies, from L.A. City Hall to Sacramento. Rick Caruso captured a majority of the Latino vote in his unsuccessful bid for L.A. mayor four years ago, and there are more Latino Republicans in the state legislature than ever. Some of the most Latino areas in Southern California saw the biggest shifts toward Trump from 2020 to 2024.

Hilton has held town halls in small, Latino-majority cities across a state that’s about 41% Latino. He frequently appears alongside lieutenant governor candidate Gloria Romero, a pioneer in challenging disaffected Latinos to not always vote Democrat.

Pratt has shared AI-generated salsa and merengue songs that hail him as a savior and uses Spanglish when referring to Mayor Karen Bass as “Basura” — trash. He’s starting to roll out endorsements from Latino business groups and held a block party in South L.A. this week for which a Instagram post tried to draw supporters with the promise of a taco truck.

So if the candidates know that Latinos are essential to their long-shot campaigns, why the hell aren’t they running as far and fast from Trump as possible?

Two years ago, Trump — the most anti-Latino president since James Polk — grabbed a larger share of the Latino electorate than any Republican presidential candidate ever had. GOP leaders predicted that Latinos were finally theirs. But Trump annihilated that advantage by launching his deportation deluge. Now, he has turned off even some die-hard supporters by starting a war in Iran, which has further strained an already shaky economy.

Trump annihilated the advantage the GOP had with Latinos by launching his deportation deluge.

(Manuel Balce Ceneta / Associated Press)

A New York Times/Siena poll released this month found that only 20% of Latinos support Trump — the lowest during his two terms. A Pew Research Center survey, meanwhile, found that only 66% of Latinos who voted for Trump now approve of him, compared to 81% of white Trump supporters.

Instead of running away, Hilton and Pratt seem fine with hitching their prospects to this political Titanic.

Hilton sought and received Trump’s endorsement, arguing that it’s better to have a friendly relationship with the White House than the antagonistic path California’s elected leaders have chosen.

But most voters want no part of Hilton’s kumbaya. Proposition 50, a direct rebuke of Trump’s gerrymandering efforts in other states, passed with more than two-thirds of the vote last fall. A CalMatters analysis found that Latino-majority precincts voted in bigger numbers for the ballot initiative than for Kamala Harris two years earlier.

Hilton can promise Latinos his “Califordable” agenda and eat all the tacos he wants. But our economic malaise was caused in large part by Trump, who recently said he thinks about Americans’ financial struggles “not even a little bit.”

For Hilton not to decry such cluelessness is almost as ridiculous as his recent boasts that he — the British son of Hungarian refugees who became a U.S. citizen just five years ago — is the candidate of “legal” immigrants. That’s a callback to the days of Proposition 187, when Republicans obsessed with the state’s changing demographics turned off my generation of Latinos by demonizing our undocumented friends and family. The GOP was finally starting to emerge from the political wilderness with Latinos, but Hilton cozying up to Trump will drag the party back into that weak salsa place.

Pratt has been coyer on his thoughts about Trump, but at least he seems to realize that the president might be a liability. The Republican said his party affiliation doesn’t since the mayor’s race is nonpartisan. He has portrayed himself as focused solely on improving Los Angeles, telling CBS News, “I don’t do national politics. I don’t do tribal politics.”

But for someone who says he wants to make L.A. a world-class city, Pratt seems unconcerned about Trump’s assault on us, including last summer’s unchecked immigration raids and temporary occupation by the Marines and the National Guard. Rather than denounce those moves, Pratt has instead denounced L.A.’s sanctuary city ordinance and vowed to work with ICE and other federal immigration agencies to target bad hombres if he becomes mayor, even though a majority of those rounded up in the raids had no criminal history.

It’s as if Pratt’s understanding of Latino L.A. ends with an Erewhon burrito. He continually platforms supporters who portray L.A. as a multicultural wasteland. And when another mayoral candidate, City Councilmember Nithya Raman, posted Trump’s praise of Pratt on social media, he responded with a snippet of himself making a dismissive face during a debate.

But this is nothing to dismiss. For Pratt and Hilton to win, they need Latinos to believe in them. And why would we believe anyone who hitches their wagon, even a little, to Trump?

May 21 (UPI) — House Republicans abruptly pulled legislation to curb President Donald Trump‘s ability to continue the war with Iran on Thursday amid Democratic accusations that GOP leaders shelved the measure over fears it would pass.

House Concurrent Resolution 86 was listed on House Majority Leader Steve Scalise‘s schedule for possible consideration on Thursday but no vote was held before the House left Washington.

The resolution was delayed until after the lower chamber returns from recess on June 2, leaving Democrats fuming.

“Are we not voting on it because the American people are sick and tired of this illegal war that is costing tens of billions of dollars, gas prices are through the roof, people can’t afford their groceries? Is that why you’re pulling it?” Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., asked on the House floor as cheers and boos erupted behind him.

“You guys don’t have the guts … to vote on this.”

The resolution, sponsored by Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., directs Trump to remove U.S. forces from hostilities with Iran unless authorized by Congress.

Democrats put the measure forward amid a larger congressional push aimed at reining in Trump’s ability to go to war in the Middle East. Democrats in the Senate on Tuesday advanced similar legislation in the eighth vote they have forced on the matter since the war began Feb. 28.

While Democrats have said the war is illegal without congressional authorization, Trump and his Republican Party argue the effort is moot, claiming the war ended with a fragile cease-fire announced last month.

The Senate measure advanced with support from a handful of Republicans who have split from their party on the issue as the war has continued. In the House, where the GOP also holds a narrow majority, defections were anticipated. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky has supported previous similar measures.

“Let’s be clear: Republicans pulled this vote because they knew they were going to lose it,” Meeks, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement after the House recessed.

“They know this war is a political and strategic disaster. They know that as Americans head into Memorial Day weekend paying over [$]4.50 a gallon at the pump, they cannot go home and explain they voted to keep this war going. So, instead of casting that vote, they ran from it.”

Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., accused House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and House Republicans of abdicating their responsibility by postponing the vote.

“This is a new low,” he said in a social media post.

“This is a disservice to the American people and the troops being put in harm’s way.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., lambasted Trump for starting the war without articulating its objectives and exit strategy and without garnering public support or congressional approval for it.

“Even as we prepare to recognize our nation’s fallen heroes on Memorial Day, House Republicans refuse to show up and be accountable to the brave service members that have been recklessly put in harm’s way,” he said in a statement.

“The American people will remember in November.”

MINNEAPOLIS — A judge on Thursday handed down an extraordinary prison sentence — nearly 42 years — to the former leader of a Minnesota nonprofit who was convicted in a staggering $250-million fraud case that helped ignite an immigration crackdown by the Trump administration.

Aimee Bock ran Feeding Our Future, which had claimed it helped provide millions of meals to children in need during the pandemic. The U.S. Justice Department, however, said she was atop the “single largest COVID-19 fraud scheme in the country.”

“I understand I failed. I failed the public, my family, everyone,” Bock said in federal court.

President Trump used the fraud cases against Bock and many others to initially justify a massive surge of federal officers to the Minneapolis-St. Paul area last winter, leading to a pushback by residents and the deaths of two people.

“Feeding Our Future operated like a cash pipeline, open to anyone willing to submit fraudulent claims and pay kickbacks,” prosecutors said in a court filing.

Bock had long proclaimed her innocence but was convicted last year of conspiracy, fraud and bribery.

“This case has changed our state forever,” Joe Thompson, formerly the lead prosecutor in the case, said outside the courtroom. “Aimee Bock did everything she could to earn this long sentence.”

The nonprofit sat atop a fraud network that included a web of partner organizations, phony distribution sites, kickbacks and fake lists of children supposedly being fed, prosecutors say. Dozens of people, many from the state’s large Somali community, have been convicted in a series of overlapping food fraud cases that have spent years in the courts.

Bock and co-conspirators enriched themselves with international travel, real estate purchases, luxury vehicles and other lavish spending, the government said.

Bock’s lawyer, Kenneth Udoibok, argued for no more than three years in prison, saying she had provided key information to investigators. He argued that Bock had been unfairly painted as the mastermind and insisted that two co-defendants were responsible for running the scams.

Meanwhile, authorities this week filed additional charges against others in a sprawling investigation into federal social service spending in Minnesota.

The targets include Fahima Mahamud, who was CEO of Future Leaders Early Learning Center, a childcare center in Minneapolis. Over three years, Mahamud’s organization was reimbursed approximately $4.6 million for services on behalf of people who didn’t make a required copayment, prosecutors allege.

A message seeking comment from her lawyer was not immediately returned Thursday. Mahamud was charged separately in February with fraud related to meals. She has pleaded not guilty.

Two other people were charged with conspiring to get $975,000 in Medicaid subsidies for housing services that were not provided. They’re expected to plead guilty in June, according to a court filing.

Two additional people were accused of receiving $21.1 million by billing Medicaid for autism therapy that was either unnecessary or not provided. Investigators said the two paid families as much as $1,500 per child per month to add their names to the program and get reimbursement.

Trump, who has long derided Somalis, last year blasted the state as “a hub of fraudulent money laundering activity.” He also criticized the leadership of Gov. Tim Walz, the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee in the 2024 election.

“Somali gangs are terrorizing the people of that great State, and BILLIONS of Dollars are missing. Send them back to where they came from,” Trump wrote on social media.

Bock is white and the U.S. Attorney’s Office says the overwhelming majority of defendants in the cases are of Somali descent. Most are U.S. citizens.

The immigration surge led to repeated protests and confrontations between residents and federal officers and resulted in the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

Sullivan writes for the Associated Press.

President Trump on Thursday announced that grocery stories and air conditioning companies will be allowed to keep using high-polluting refrigerants for longer than they would have under a law he signed during his first administration.

“This was a tremendous burden, a tremendous cost,” said Trump, surrounded in the Oval Office by executives from supermarket chains including Kroger, Fairway, Neimann Foods and Piggly Wiggly. “It was making the equipment unaffordable, and the actual benefit was nothing.”

The move loosens rules meant to restrict hydroflourocarbons, a class of climate-damaging chemicals used in cooling equipment. HFCs are known as “super pollutants” because their impact on climate change can be tens of thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide during their shorter lifespans.

In the move Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency extends the deadline for companies to comply with a 2023 rule transitioning refrigerators and air conditioners off HFCs and onto new cooling technologies. Reducing these chemicals and moving to cleaner refrigerants has long been a bipartisan issue.

Trump is also proposing exemptions from a rule requiring leak repairs on large-scale refrigeration systems.

The administration framed the changes as part of its effort to bring down high grocery costs. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said the actions will save $2.4 billion for Americans and safeguard 350,000 jobs.

“Americans who wanted to be able to fix their equipment were instead being required to buy far more costly new equipment and that just doesn’t make any sense,” said Zeldin.

David Doniger, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the move will not only harm the climate, but U.S. competitiveness in global refrigerant markets as well.

“The EPA is catering to a small group of straggling companies by derailing the shift away from these climate super-pollutants,” he said. “The industry at large supports the HFC phasedown and has already invested in making new refrigerants and equipment, currently installed in thousands of stores.”

Danielle Wright, executive director of the North American Sustainable Refrigeration Council, an environmental nonprofit, said any perceived near-term savings from the rollbacks will be outweighed by the future costs.

“Business owners are far more worried about the escalating cost of keeping aging, high‑global-warming-potential equipment running than they are about the cost of installing new, compliant systems,” she said.

Trump dismissed the climate concerns, saying his changes “are not going to have any impact on the environment.”

He said he wants to get rid of the technology transition rule entirely in the future.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s grip on his party slipped on Thursday as anger boiled over among Senate Republicans about a growing list of issues.

In a striking display of defiance, GOP senators abruptly derailed plans to vote on legislation to fund Trump’s immigration crackdown amid deep disagreements over security funding for a White House ballroom and a $1.8-billion fund to pay people who claim to have been politically persecuted.

The discontent had been building for weeks. Many senators had grown frustrated over Trump’s decision to endorse candidates running against longtime Republican incumbents.

Others, worried about rising costs as a result from the war in Iran, had aired concerns ahead of the midterm elections. But the breaking point came when the Justice Department, with little warning, pushed to create what it termed the “anti-weaponization fund.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) acknowledged the concerns over the fund Thursday after a reportedly contentious private meeting about it between Senate Republicans and acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche. He also conceded midterm politics had added to the tension.

“It’s hard to divorce anything that happens here from what’s happening in the political atmosphere around us,” Thune told reporters. “You can’t disconnect those things.”

A day earlier, Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican who lost his primary race on Saturday to a Trump-backed challenger, expressed strong disagreement with the creation of the fund, which would be controlled by appointees without congressional oversight.

“People are concerned about paying their mortgage or rent, affording groceries and paying for gas, not putting together a $1.8 billion fund for the president and his allies to pay whomever they wish with no legal precedent or accountability,” Cassidy wrote on X. “If there needs to be a settlement, the administration should bring it to Congress to decide.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also had harsh criticism for the fund.

“So the nation’s top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong — take your pick,” he said in a statement.

The discord was striking, partly because Republicans have largely steered clear of checking the president’s power, and Congress has been largely sidelined under the second Trump administration on the war in Iran and other issues.

“I don’t think the Republicans had any choice but to pull the plug until we come back in June, because they’re facing a bit of a mutiny within their conference,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told The Times, saying he had heard that the meeting between Blanche and Republicans “didn’t go well.”

As tension simmered on the background, Trump seemed unbothered by the group of Republicans’ public rebellion against his agenda. When asked whether he was losing control of the Senate, he said he didn’t know.

“I only do what is right,” he told reporters in the Oval Office.

However, he expressed annoyance at lawmakers who would not support $1 billion in federal funding for security costs related to the ballroom project. He said the structure is being privately funded by him and other “great patriots.”

“We are making a gift to the United States,” Trump said. “This is being made as a gift from me and other people that are great patriots and spent a lot of money. We are building what will be the finest ballroom anywhere in the world.”

The $1 billion for security funding would be “very much a good expenditure,” he said. If Congress does not sign off on the money, Trump said the “White House won’t be a very secure place.”

Trump did not immediately comment on Thursday about the Senate’s delaying of the funding bill. The White House declined to comment on the matter.

Trump’s second-term actions have frequently tested the loyalty of Republican lawmakers, who have largely stayed in line. The settlement fund, with its ethical questions, appears to have crossed a line for some senators in a party that has traditionally opposed wasting taxpayer funds.

The money comes from the judgment fund, which is a Congress-approved ongoing appropriation that allows the Justice Department to settle cases and make payments.

Stephen Miller, a top aide to Trump, told reporters at the White House that the $1.8-billion settlement was “just a small measure of the justice” that many people are owed after being targeted by the federal government. Miller declined to say whether the White House was reaching out to senators to ease concerns about the fund.

Republicans in Congress decried the use of similar third-party settlements during the Obama administration, with House lawmakers repeatedly passing a bill aimed at stopping settlement slush funds, noted Molly Nixon, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

Though the Trump administration’s plan is novel because the settlement money isn’t going to a third party, the general concept has been offensive to Republicans in the past; the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee termed it an abuse in 2017.

“If you’re taking a consistent view, you’d be at least equally as opposed to this settlement,” Nixon said of Republican lawmakers.

That could be driving some of the opposition now, along with concerns about who is going to get the money and whether it could be distributed to people who wouldn’t have been able to make a successful case before a court of law, Nixon said.

“The fund is going to plaintiffs who were victims of lawfare or weaponization. … Those are pretty ambiguous terms. They’re sort of in the eye of the beholder,” Nixon said. “It’s pretty easy to see how this could very easily become a quiet political claims process.”

Police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot have already filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block the creation of the fund, arguing in part that it would compensate extremist convicted of committing violent crimes.

“The fund’s mere existence sends a clear and chilling message: those who enact violence in President Trump’s name will not just avoid punishment, they will be rewarded with riches,” the lawsuit says.

When Trump returned to office in January 2025, one of his first acts was pardoning or commuting the prison sentences of the 1,500 people who were charged in connection with the attack. Vice President JD Vance on Wednesday did not rule out that settlement money could go to those rioters, saying the money would be given out on a “case-by-case basis.”

Thune told reporters on Thursday that the Justice Department would have to come up with some guardrails to ease concerns among senators.

“We need to get some clarity,” he said.

Though the number of Republicans angry with Trump is significant enough to make or break legislation, the caucus appeared far from falling apart.

Senate Republicans blocked an attempt by Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) on Thursday to pass a bill to prohibit federal funds from reaching Jan. 6 rioters, an attempt to prevent the fund from being used to compensate them.

“I’m encouraged hearing some of my Republican colleagues agreeing with me,” Padilla said on the Senate floor. “Let’s stand up for congressional oversight as a unified Senate.”

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) objected to Padilla’s bill, later writing on X: “PROUD to object today to Senator Padilla’s RIDICULOUS bill and stand up for ALL FREEDOM-LOVING AMERICANS.”

Schiff, who is working on an amendment that would target the fund, said other Republican colleagues he spoke to Wednesday evening were unhappy with the position Trump has put them in. He said Trump’s actions have helped underscore Democrats’ arguments against his party.

“All [it’s] doing is helping us make the case that the Republicans couldn’t care less about people’s cost of living … that there’s plenty of money for golden ballrooms for the president, there’s plenty of money for the president’s cronies, but there’s no money for the average family,” Schiff said.

A new opinion poll in the US suggests that 60 percent of Americans now oppose President Donald Trump’s war on Iran.

WASHINGTON — A political influencer has filed a complaint against Tom Steyer’s campaign for governor, saying the committee failed to notify her of disclosure requirements, as required by law, when she was paid to meet with Steyer in March and later produced social media content from the meeting.

What’s more, she said the Steyer campaign falsely accused her of posting paid content in support of Steyer’s chief Democratic rival, Xavier Becerra, and failing to disclose it in a complaint filed by the billionaire’s campaign this week.

Maggie Reed, who regularly posts satirical takes on politics to roughly half a million followers on Instagram and TiKTok under the username mermaidmamamaggie, said she was actually paid by Steyer’s campaign and signed an agreement that barred her from disclosing the payment.

She posted, and later deleted, a video from her meeting with Steyer in March.

“In plain terms: the Committee paid for political content, structured it to look like an ordinary creator’s organic opinion, and used a non-disclosure agreement to keep the public from learning the truth,” says the complaint, filed Thursday with California’s Fair Political Practices Commission.

Steyer’s campaign disclosed in a campaign filing that it had paid the agency that represents Reed $5,000 for digital advertising, but didn’t indicate that the payment was connected to Reed’s meeting with Steyer or her production of content.

The Steyer campaign said that while it did pay to meet with Reed, it left the decision of whether to create content entirely up to her.

Since then, Reed has produced several videos expressing support for Becerra, the former California congressman and U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, but she said that she was not paid to produce those videos and that they reflected her genuine support for Becerra’s campaign.

Becerra has been the top Democrat in recent polling in the race, maintaining a narrow edge over Steyer and a firm grip on one of the top two spots in the June 2 primary that would send him to the general election in November.

Reed’s complaint is the latest volley in a back and forth involving the use of paid influencers in the gubernatorial race.

Two influencers who support Becerra — but were not paid by his campaign — filed a complaint last week saying that a number of influencers had created paid content in support of Steyer, but failed to disclose so in their posts.

Steyer’s campaign then filed a complaint earlier this week in which it leveled accusations against Reed and another influencer named Jay Gonzalez, who is now a paid staffer on the Becerra campaign. The complaint alleges that Gonzalez made several pro-Becerra posts after joining the campaign and belatedly amended them to include disclosure that they were sponsored.

The Becerra campaign has maintained that it does not otherwise pay influencers to produce content on its behalf.

Steyer’s complaint included screenshots of an email sent to Reed’s talent agency by a gubernatorial campaign gauging her interest in producing paid content.

While the screenshots produced in Steyer’s complaint did not disclose who had sent the inquiry, Reed said in her complaint that the request had come from a staffer for the gubernatorial campaign of former Los Angeles Mayor and California State Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa.

Disclosure of paid political content by social media creators is required in California thanks to a law passed in 2023.

Influencers themselves are required to disclose that a post they created was sponsored, but campaigns are required to notify them of the requirement.

Violation of the law doesn’t trigger civil, criminal or administrative penalties, but the FPPC has the right to take violators to court and request that a judge force compliance with the law.

The agreement Reed signed with Steyer’s campaign, which was attached to her complaint, indicated that she needed to follow all applicable state, federal and local laws, but made no specific mention of her requirement to disclose that content she produced was sponsored.

The agreement did specify that Steyer’s campaign might need to disclose the payment.