politics

EMPORIA, Kan. — Adam Hamilton has spent decades trying to bring people to Jesus as founder of the nation’s largest United Methodist church. Now he wants to bring Kansas voters to the polls as the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate.

A first-time candidate, Hamilton faces an unusual balancing act between political ambition and spiritual obligation. His pastoral role has given him rare prominence for a Democrat in a state where Republicans have won every Senate race for nearly a century, and some in his party are hoping for an upset victory over incumbent Sen. Roger Marshall.

But conservatives are also trying to use Hamilton’s religious leadership against him. They suggest that his sermons prove he’s too liberal for Kansas or even that he’s a heretic for suggesting that non-Christians have a path to salvation after death.

Marshall said in an interview that Hamilton is “too woke for Kansas.”

Hamilton isn’t turning the other cheek. If Jesus were standing before them now, he said, “Roger Marshall would call him ‘woke.’”

Only a few ordained ministers have served as senators over the past 100 years and just one — current Democrat Raphael Warnock of Georgia — remained an active pastor. If elected, Hamilton plans to continue as senior pastor at his Church of the Resurrection in the Kansas City area, preaching 12 to 18 times a year.

As Hamilton tries to win over center-right churchgoers as well as secular liberals, he’s promising that he wouldn’t use his perch in Washington to evangelize. He’s on unpaid leave, going 11 weeks without giving a sermon this summer, although he peppers his remarks with biblical references, discusses Jesus’ teachings with voters and spends several hours weekly on pastoral duties such as hospital visits.

“I need that interaction with people and the caring for people,” he said after a meet-and-greet at a coffee shop in Emporia, a university town of 24,000 that’s smaller than his congregation 110 miles to the northwest.

Hamilton brings skills that built a huge church to a tough race

Hamilton, 61, built his church from a few members meeting in a funeral home chapel in 1990 into a 25,000-member congregation with nine locations across the Kansas City area. He’s demonstrated an ability to raise money and has gained national attention by writing more than 30 books, mostly on Christian theology.

Hamilton describes himself as a centrist, running partly on “bringing people together.” His congregation, he notes, is nearly evenly split between Democrats, Republicans and independents.

Republican-leaning Kansas has a sizable bloc of moderate voters, protects abortion rights and regularly elects Democratic governors. But Democrats haven’t come within 10 points of winning a Senate race in more than 50 years, and they haven’t won one since 1932.

Marshall, 66, is focused on rallying rural conservatives, a strategy that perennially works for Republicans. A fifth-generation farm kid who became an obstetrician, the senator is fluent in agriculture policy. He jibed that suburbanite Hamilton “doesn’t know a heifer from a steer.”

Marshall also warned that the Senate could fall under Democratic control if Hamilton wins the race.

“His party is too crazy for Kansas,” Marshall said.

The campaign has included an allegation of heresy

This year’s race is unusual because of attacks from the Christian right branding Hamilton a heretic.

At issue is a 2022 sermon, reposted on X after Hamilton won the Democratic primary in August. Hamilton cited New Testament passages to argue that non-Christians can receive “the saving grace of Jesus” after death, avoiding eternal torment in Hell.

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas declared that Hamilton had rejected “the central tenets of Christianity,” quoting a verse in the Gospel of John where Jesus declares, “No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Marshall thanked Cruz for raising the issue, suggesting the sermon was “one of hundreds” of examples of Hamilton being out of step with Kansans.

Hamilton acknowledged that some Christians agree with Cruz — but cited other prominent Christians who might share his own view, including Methodist founder John Wesley and “Chronicles of Narnia” author C.S. Lewis.

“If he’s going to call me a heretic, he’s not the first,” Hamilton said. “He won’t be the last.”

Hamilton seeks to reassure voters wary of church-state mix

Hamilton also has faced skepticism from Democrats wary of mixing government with religion.

Republican conservatives routinely highlight their faith, suggesting that God wanted them to seek office and profusely thank God after winning.

This year during Lent — the 40 days of self-reflection and repentance before Easter — Hamilton said he skipped a meal each day and prayed about entering the Senate race.

“I’m never 100% sure about the will of God, so I tell people I am 87.2% sure I am supposed to be doing this,” he said. “The Kansas voters will decide whether I’m supposed to win, but I feel like I was being called to step into the arena.”

In Emporia, Hamilton said that as a senator, he’d “fight for the rights of all people, whether they have any faith or not.”

“I’m not running for the Senate to make everybody in this country Christian or United Methodist,” he said.

Nolan Guyer, a 72-year-old Navy veteran and retired nuclear plant operator, said he initially worried about voting for a minister, but Hamilton won him over enough that he donated to the pastor’s campaign.

“I don’t think it’s the government’s business to teach morals, and that is a preacher’s job,” Guyer said.

Some familiar issues are prominent

Republican political action committees have attacked Hamilton as so radical on climate change that he urged his congregation to repent for eating beef. They base that allegation on a misleading stitching together of two parts of a 2020 sermon, with one clip showing Hamilton calling Christians “to repentance” for not protecting God’s creation and a second, earlier clip of him saying that “maybe changing your diet” is among personal actions that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Another ad claimed that Hamilton’s church helped pay for a drag queen story hour for children — a claim his campaign denies.

Marshall blamed Hamilton for a split in the United Methodist Church over allowing LGBTQ+ clergy, something it did in 2024. While Hamilton did support that change — at least since 2019 — he also had worked to prevent a split by backing a plan for a local option on whether to ordain or marry LGBTQ+ people.

Hamilton said his views on human sexuality and same-sex marriage evolved gradually, as he came to know gay and lesbian people in his congregation. His church now has a Queer Inclusive Collective ministry and participates in Pride events.

“One small part of my ministry has been trying to make sure that people who felt alienated from the church and pushed away knew that Christ welcomed them and they were loved by our congregation,” Hamilton said.

Hamilton’s watchwords include ‘decency’ and ‘affordability’

One of Hamilton’s assertions, that he is “running on decency,” resonated with Jann Briggs. She’s a retired teacher from Reading, a small town where the Methodist church is across the street from the Miracle Cafe.

Briggs and several friends came to Hamilton’s event in Emporia with a copy of his latest book, “Holy Spirit: God’s Presence and Power at Work in Us.” He signed it for them.

“Finally, somebody who’s speaking the right words,” Briggs said.

Hamilton is also focusing on affordability, a key issue for Democrats this year. He has criticized Republican cuts to federal programs for the poor, such as food assistance and Medicaid coverage.

“I just want to know, when did it become ‘woke’ to care for your neighbor?” he asked.

Hanna writes for the Associated Press.

Sept. 2 (UPI) — A group of medical organizations has released guidance on fall vaccinations against respiratory illnesses.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention usually launches a fall campaign to recommend seasonal vaccines for diseases like RSV, influenza and COVID-19. This year, however, the agency has not issued its updated recommendations for the respiratory virus season.

In March, the American Academy of Pediatrics won a lawsuit against the federal government that blocked Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from overhauling the childhood vaccine schedule.

Kennedy and President Donald Trump have said that children get too many vaccines and have reduced the number of vaccines routinely recommended. They have also linked vaccines to autism, which has been proven untrue by research.

In response, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Infectious Diseases Society of America each issued guidelines for fall immunizations. They based those guidelines on research from the American Medical Association and the University of Minnesota’s Vaccine Integrity Project

Last year, the CDC changed the COVID-19 recommendations to say that patients should talk to their own doctors.

On Tuesday, the agency said, “the CDC states the recommendations for seasonal influenza vaccination from the July 2025 immunization schedule remain in effect for the 2026-2027 influenza season.” It doesn’t mention the new mRNA flu vaccine, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration last month.

“For more than 60 years, the United States has benefited from an established federal process for evaluating vaccine evidence and translating that science into recommendations for the American public. At the center of that process were the Centers for Disease Control and its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the ACIP,” CNN reported Dr. Bruce Gellin, board chair of the Vaccine Integrity Project and professor of medicine at Georgetown University, said at a press briefing.

“Unfortunately today, the federal government is not fulfilling that responsibility in the way that it historically has. But the need for that work has not disappeared. Influenza, SARS-CoV-2 [COVID-19] and the RSV viruses will circulate again this fall and winter,” Gellin said.

“We cannot allow the breakdown of a federal process to create a vacuum in evidence-based vaccine guidance,” he added.

Dr. Sarah Nosal, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in the news briefing that insurance companies have indicated they will cover the vaccines.

“Vaccines are one of medicine’s greatest success stories. They prevent serious illness, reduce hospitalizations and long-term complications and save lives,” Nosal said in a press release. “As federal guidance evolves, the science behind vaccines remains strong. These recommendations are grounded in the latest evidence, informed by public health experts and shaped by what family physicians are seeing every day in their patients.”

Vice President JD Vance said in a podcast released Tuesday that if a 2024 assassination attempt had killed Donald Trump, he would have always wondered if it was part of a conspiracy and might not have accepted even another Republican as the next president.

Vance made the statement during a conversation with Christian podcaster Bryce Crawford. The vice president, who recently released a book detailing his own journey to Catholicism, also defended President Trump for posting an image of himself as Jesus and mused about whether artificial intelligence was a sign of the end times.

The conversation kicked off with a discussion of faith and the rush to scientifically explain away events that may be divinely touched. Vance cited the July 2024 assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, during which a bullet nicked Trump’s ear and a supporter was killed.

Trump has long talked about his survival as divinely guided, a theme Vance took up. The vice president said that if the bullet had killed Trump, “we would have had real civil strife in a way that I don’t know that the country could have ever come back from.”

Vance said many Trump supporters would have assumed a conspiracy had robbed them of their chosen president, and he said he would have also had those thoughts “in the back of my mind.”

“I would have assumed very dark forces had taken out Donald Trump, right as he was about to come back into the White House,” Vance said. “There would have just been an illegitimacy to our entire political system.”

Most of the hour-and-ten-minute conversation was an amiable chat about faith, Vance’s own spiritual journey, his Easter meeting with Pope Francis the day before the pontiff’s death last year, and human frailty and fallibility. But it occasionally touched on darker themes.

Crawford asked Vance whether, as vice president, he had ever been in a room that was “spiritually dark.”

“I’ve been in meetings with world leaders where various issues are being discussed, and somebody will say something or somebody will make an observation and I’ll feel some darkness about it, it sets off every spiritual alarm bell in my body,” Vance said. He added he also felt “a very dark spiritual energy” in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, probably because of the carnage at the Civil War battlefield.

Vance cites AI during a discussion about ‘end times’

Crawford also asked Vance about his interest in the “end times,” which the vice president laughingly said had been more of an obsession in youth during the late 1990s, when people were abuzz about the possibility with the coming millennium. A chortling Vance recounted a story of a friend who was obsessed that the world would end in late 2007 and ran up major credit card debt.

“There are, like, things about the world that make me feel, like, not shocked if the Antichrist was walking among us, but, again I try not to focus too much on it,” Vance said. He cited “IT companies” and the use of artificial intelligence as a substitute for human interaction.

“I think that’s kind of satanic,” Crawford said when Vance recounted the story of one acquaintance using AI as a marriage counselor.

“Yeah, when you completely divorce the human from the social element that God made us for, OK that’s very, that’s very bad,” Vance said.

Crawford asked Vance about Trump’s post on social media of an AI-generated image of himself as Jesus earlier this year, which Crawford said offended him. Trump initially contended he thought the image was of him as a doctor, then took down the post amid widespread criticism from even some of his own backers.

Vance defended the president. “He did not mean to, like, mock or mimic God, that’s just not who he is,” Vance said, adding that the president often tries to keep things light and constantly makes jokes. “He’s a bit of a ballbuster, for those of us who work with him, and he just likes to have a good time. And I think that if people appreciated that, they would recognize, he’s not trying to offend people, he’s trying to keep things light.”

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press.

California lawmakers have voted to shift a state forest system away from commercial logging and pave the way for tribal co-management, delivering a win to a movement rooted in the historic timber wars.

Managed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or Cal Fire, the state’s 14 demonstration forests are currently required to produce and sell timber to show — or “demonstrate” — sustainable practices, while considering factors like recreation and wildlife.

AB 2494 eliminates what’s often cast as a logging mandate, instead prioritizing values such as carbon storage, wildfire resilience and biodiversity conservation. There could still be logging, but it would need to support those principles.

It also directs state officials to seek agreements with Native American tribes to integrate their traditional knowledge into managing the land. The bill now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.

“We don’t need more demonstrations of what clear cutting does to a forest — we have plenty of those,” said Assemblymember Chris Rogers (D-Santa Rosa), who authored the bill. If the forests are being used to show how to boost commercial logging gains, “then that is not how we want to use our public assets.”

At the center of the discussion is Jackson Demonstration State Forest, spanning nearly 50,000 acres in Mendocino County. For decades, loggers and environmentalists have clashed over the fate of its stately redwoods.

About five years ago, tensions reignited when community members caught wind of plans to cut towering trees near the coastal town of Caspar.

Tribes whose historic homelands fall within the forest became leading voices in the effort to halt logging, with the Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians’ Priscilla Hunter emerging as a major force. She has since passed away but her legacy looms large in the movement.

While running for his assembly seat representing the North Coast, Rogers heard from constituents and local politicians who wanted to see the forest run differently. The bill grew in part out of those discussions.

Polly Girvin, Hunter’s former partner and a retired lawyer focused on Native American issues, called AB 2494’s passage by the Legislature “nearly miraculous.”

“We’re at a time right now where scientists are going to have to reach across the table to the Indian voice,” she said. “They feel they have a sacred obligation to manage their forest, not for commercial logging per se. So I think it’s really a meeting of science and the sacred.”

Some backers say the bill offers a new economic path forward for communities behind the so-called redwood curtain. With the decline of logging and cannabis as livelihoods, they see income from tourists attracted by ultramarathons, mushroom foraging and other outdoor activities as a financial savior.

But the push to reshape forest management is fiercely opposed by loggers and mill owners, who say their work is sustainable and provides blue-collar jobs in a region where they’ve dwindled. Already California imports most of its wood from Oregon, Washington and Canada.

The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors has supported the bill, but it’s opposed by the Rural County Representatives of California, an advocacy group representing 40 counties.

Staci Heaton, senior policy advocate for the organization, said they’re concerned that the new management goals are so vague they would expose forest projects — including wildfire research — to costly lawsuits.

“We’ve experienced the majority of the largest wildfires across the state over the last decade, and it is paramount that research and forest management knowledge be fostered in these demonstration state forests so that it can be used statewide,” Heaton said.

Currently, money from logging — roughly $8.5 million a year — pays for management of the demonstration forests. Under the latest iteration of AB 2494, it will remain one source of funding but not the only one, Rogers said.

Cal Fire’s Kevin Conway believes that if the bill becomes law, it will, in practice, limit funding. So they’d likely look to bring in money by charging day-use and other new recreation fees.

Conway, who is the agency’s chief for resource protection and improvement, added that some aspects of their mission wouldn’t change; the land would remain “actively managed.” For instance, he called wood products “a big part of our climate strategy in the built environment” and suggested it would still be prudent to understand how they’re produced in California.

“We don’t think that just locking up your forest and making a tree museum longterm will deliver biodiversity, carbon, recreation — all these things,” he said. Cal Fire has not taken a position on the legislation.

Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto the bill.

The $1 coin designed to celebrate America’s 250th birthday and seemingly President Trump, whose face gazes from one side of the gold finish, will go on sale Wednesday, according the U.S. Mint.

The coin’s design — Trump’s visage as “heads” and the Great Seal of the United States as “tails” — was given the stamp of approval this year by the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, whose members Trump appointed. In past comments, the president said that the idea to stamp his face on a coin was “very unusual” but that he was “honored by it.”

The president’s second term has come with several such brandings, or attempts at them that have become tangled up in lawsuits. That includes moves to put Trump’s name on the Kennedy Center, as well as the U.S. Institute for Peace, as Trump works to leave his stamp on history and Washington, D.C.

The coins, which can be used as legal tender, stirred some criticism particularly because of federal law that bars the depiction of a living president on U.S. currency. But in some circumstances, the treasury secretary does have authority to authorize the minting and issuance of special coins.

The coins were struck to “honor 250 years of great American heritage,” the U.S. Mint wrote on its website. In an arc above Trump’s face is written “LIBERTY,” and below is “1776 — 2026.” On the flip side is the Great Seal of the United States, with the bald eagle gripping arrows in one claw and an olive branch in the other. In a banner clutched in its beak is written “E PLURIBUS UNUM,” Latin for “out of many, one”

A roll of 25 coins will cost $61, and a bag of 100 will cost $154.50, and the U.S. Mint said they randomly hid some special-issue coins among the rolls and bags. Those will be marked “July 4th,” because they were stuck on that day, the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

Households are limited to only two orders, the U.S. Mint wrote, but that cap will lift at 2 p.m. Eastern time on Thursday.

Bedayn writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers is pressing the Army to explain why it told a unit based in Europe to stop specializing in drone warfare, an order that comes as the world’s battlefields rapidly evolve and military tactics increasingly rely on uncrewed systems to fight.

The 173rd Airborne Brigade was building its own drones and practicing the kind of warfare that Ukraine has pioneered against Russia and that Iran has fought against the U.S. — warfare that has killed and wounded American troops. The brigade of 600 soldiers was set up in November to be deployed anywhere that drones were needed.

“We have deep concerns that eliminating this specialized drone unit will limit our ability to learn from allies, particularly the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and hinder our efforts to modernize drone warfare at the speed necessary to compete on the modern battlefield,” the lawmakers said in a letter shared with The Associated Press.

It requests a briefing from the Army to explain its decision and was sent Tuesday to departing Army Secretary Dan Driscoll and Gen. Christopher LaNeve, the Army’s acting chief of staff. It was signed by Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, independent Sen. Angus King of Maine and Republican Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio.

“This specialized unit was a prudent response in a moment when the character of warfare is changing faster than a conventional formation’s ability to adapt,” the lawmakers say.

They said they were particularly keen to understand the data, analysis and process behind the change after less than a year of the drone unit being active. They also want to know if the decision was based on guidance from Pentagon leadership or made internally by the Army.

LaNeve, who is filling in as the Army’s top uniformed officer, recently ordered the battalion to refocus on its core mission of being an airborne infantry unit. The move followed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s sudden ousting of the Army’s prior chief of staff, Gen. Randy George.

Integrating drones into the Army’s tactics was a major focus for George. Last year, he and Driscoll had rolled out what they called the Army Transformation Initiative, which pushed to add “modernized (unmanned aircraft systems) into formations.”

George, who became Army chief of staff under President Joe Biden, regularly spoke about the need to accelerate development of new drone systems and get them in the hands of regular soldiers, not just specialized units. Driscoll supported such efforts and focused on cutting the red tape for military contractors to quickly develop more drones.

After George was ousted by Hegseth without explanation in April, he was replaced by LaNeve. This week, Driscoll submitted his own resignation and later said on social media that Wednesday would be his final full day on the job. A reason for his departure was not publicly revealed, but he was an ally of George, and his tensions with Hegseth have been widely reported.

“We are supportive of the transformative initiatives the Army has taken under Secretary Driscoll’s leadership in this area and would like to see that momentum maintained even as uniformed leadership changes,” the lawmakers wrote.

Toropin and Finley write for the Associated Press. Toropin reported from Nuremberg, Germany.

Late last night, on September 1st, on the day the commercial terminals of Maiquetía airport went back online, US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright landed in Caracas for the second time this year. Of course, Wright didn’t fly commercial, and he was swarmed by a flurry of journalists looking for headlines on the “massive” oil deal that has invaded the news both in the US and Venezuela. 

“I think very good times are coming,” Wright told reporters upon his arrival. “As large investments flow into this country, that creates more jobs, which pushes wage pressure up, creates opportunity and prosperity for Venezuelans, and it snowballs: when you get business confidence and investment, it creates all sorts of opportunities—not just jobs, but opportunities for entrepreneurs.”

Wright arrived to give this new partnership a bit more ceremony, but also, very likely to join in the festivities of what is to be an important week for the Trump administration’s push for energy supremacy in the region and for the Venezuelan oil industry. Besides the strange deal that we’re going to unpack in this piece, this week will feature Chevron, which according to Bloomberg is about to invest $7 billion looking to double its production in the country. Also, it is expected that deals with Eni, ONCC, and Colombia´s Geopark will be signed as well. And the icing on the cake, it’s been also reported that one of the agreements with GE Verona to tackle Venezuela’s decaying power grid is close to being executed.

The clumsy communications around the announcement of the deal have generated some negative backlash from the Venezuelan public and skepticism from the same oil majors the Trump administration is trying to woo. Just a couple of hours before Secretary Wright touched ground in Venezuela, Marco Rubio had to jump on a livestream with a Venezuelan journalist in a damage control mission.

The US-Nabep deal 

Those who brokered the US-Venezuela oil agreement are boasting about historical proportions, about leaving a mark for generations to come, but they took their time to explain why it is so important. Information has been coming out in a very fragmented way, heavily determined by propaganda needs from the Trump administration and the chavista regime. After vague rumors related to Mauricio Claver-Carone taking a step back as the Americans’ informal envoy, and the fall of Harry Sargeant III in Venezuela, we saw an old communication trick, which the Trump administration did not invent, setting the stage for the big news. Washington sent out a first version with catastrophic details, waiting for panic to spread, and published a second, corrected version that would make the news look better than initially perceived. Last week, the first Axios “scoop” talked about 90 billion barrels of Venezuelan oil reserves that the US would own. Now, the current version of the official announcement says it’s 65 billion barrels, so people can say “well, it’s just 65 billion barrels, it ain’t so bad.”

The White House finally published a fact sheet on Monday night disclosing more details about the involvement of the State and “War” Departments in buying the oil produced in 17 Venezuelan fields (supposedly containing about 65 billion barrels) by a private Venezuelan company. North American Blue Energy Partners, or Nabep, is the country’s second biggest crude producer led by notorious Venezuelan oligarch Alejandro Betancourt. To execute this deal, the Rodríguez government is granting a 100-year concession to a Nabep-Pentagon joint venture that looks, sounds and smells pretty unconstitutional from a Venezuelan point of view.

Francisco Monaldi: “Instead of generating more credibility and allowing investors to feel confident, the fact that this is allocated without any bidding and to an individual that has issues with justice, that could be a problem in the future.”

These are the known conditions of the deal:

• NABEP granted the Department of War’s Office of Strategic Capital a 35% equity stake in its corporate parent.
• The Department of State receives a guaranteed right to purchase 20% of NABEP’s current and future output at production costs, alongside a right of first refusal to buy the remaining 80%.
• The deal is strictly governed by US law and US court jurisdiction.
• Washington is granted veto power over board appointments. The majority of NABEP’s board of directors must be American citizens. 

The US government is trying to sell this to the American public as a way to restock US oil reserves and to cut domestic gas prices, which have a negative impact on Trump’s popularity and the prospects of Republican candidates in November’s congressional elections. In an interview in Spanish published Tuesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted that the deal was between the US and a private company, not the chavista regime, and offered this as a model the White House expects can be replicated.

The expert opinion

Francisco Monaldi, director of the Latin America Energy Program for the Baker Institute at Rice University, warned on X that Venezuela’s famous oil reserves are inflated by order of Hugo Chávez: in reality, they are about a third of the 300 billion barrels everyone quotes as the total proven reserves. So those 17 fields must have about 25 billion barrels, instead of 65 billion barrels, an unreliable figure no one should take for certain. Besides that, it would be very hard to actually extract those 25 billion barrels in 25 years, given that most fields are undeveloped. Monaldi added before PBS News that “the presence of the US government could make investors more willing to take the risk of going into Venezuela with all the issues, including the fact that this is an illegitimate government in Venezuela, and that the history of the country, of course, is not great in terms of respecting deals… The other issue is that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve typically uses light oil, and Venezuela mostly produces heavy and extra heavy oil.”

Monaldi thinks that “if it’s an opaque deal that doesn’t seem to benefit the country, then there will be a backlash eventually, and we will end up as in other parts of the world and in Venezuela itself with renegotiation at some point.” Even if the agreement with NABEP means that they can run faster than other private companies, Trump’s anxiety to get American investors to Venezuela won’t be helped by this, because “instead of generating more credibility and allowing investors to feel confident, the fact that this is allocated without any bidding and to an individual that has issues with justice, that could be a problem in the future.”

Amid the fall of Tareck El Aissami and the rise of súper ministra Delcy Rodríguez, Betancourt re-entered the Venezuelan oil scene alongside Trump-linked oil magnate Harry Sargeant.

Harvard scholar Ricardo Hausmann, a former planning minister who leads a research center on economic growth, avoided the oil economy dimension of the matter and just trashed Rubio for betraying the idea of democracy transition. On the other hand, some influential economists see opportunities. Asdrúbal Oliveros chose a middle ground between celebration and condemnation and pointed out that benefits will come as long as the country develops not only the oil fields but the institutions to create accountability. 

Betancourt: a meteoric rise and a shady trail

That Alejandro Betancourt, the CEO of NABEP, is at the center of this deal is bad news in the eyes of observers and Venezuelan journalists familiar with his trajectory.

Over the past two decades, this businessman became a symbol of the bolichico culture, a term apparently coined by investigative journalist Juan Carlos Zapata to define those scions of Venezuelan old-money families who became travel companies of Bolivarian-era corruption. Betancourt and his partners—namely his cousin Pedro Trebbau López and childhood friend Francisco Convit Guruceaga—became synonymous with the vanishing of hundreds of millions of dollars the Chávez government allocated to a newly-formed company, Derwick Associates, to fix the country’s power grid. Both Betancourt and Trebbau were in their late 20s when Derwick first emerged, and had no experience in the electricity sector.

Many things would happen between then and now. Betancourt became famous in Spain for investing in Hawkers, a Spanish sunglasses brand that got him cleaner headlines before local journalists discovered who he was. Prior to the Hawkers move, the three bolichicos created a Bahamas-based company to partner with a Gazprombank subsidiary. The resulting company, called Gazprombank Latin America Ventures, would operate a heavy-crude PDVSA project in the Lake Maracaibo region called Petrozamora. The joint venture did get to hold a steady production, but as with everything Russian, its operations were quite opaque. The Maduro regime eventually raided its offices and forced Betancourt to leave the country.

Betancourt faces probes in Spain and Switzerland. US prosecutors investigated him as an alleged co-conspirator in the $1.2 billion money-laundering scheme that targeted Convit and others, but didn’t charge the former.

Amid the fall of Tareck El Aissami and the rise of súper ministra Delcy Rodríguez, Betancourt re-entered the Venezuelan oil scene alongside Trump-linked oil magnate Harry Sargeant. Through Nabep,  Betancourt and Sargeant took control of a number of oil projects (including the Petrozamora fields) under the CPP scheme, in which private companies could hold a larger stake than the State (running counter to the country’s hydrocarbons legislation until it was changed this year). 

Betancourt seems to have a hand on both sides of Venezuela’s political conflict. That a close relative of Juan Guaidó was seen visiting Betancourt’s castle in Spain, in the company of Trump ally Rudy Giuliani, helped to cement the bad reputation of the interim government. In fact, Rubio now alleges that Betancourt was a friend of the opposition to deflect the suspicion that the tycoon is a man of the Rodríguez regime, and that the US chose Nabep because it is the biggest private company in the Venezuelan oil sector. Questioned by journalist Sergio Novelli about Betancourt’s past, the Secretary of State said that the businessman faced no charges “in our system.” 

Over the past several weeks, Betancourt reemerged as a key operative between the Trumpworld and the Rodríguez government. The Washington Post reported last week that the Trump administration lobbied Switzerland to “resolve” an ongoing money-laundering probe into Betancourt without him facing criminal charges. Despite such a level of external interference, Betancourt remains under investigation in both Spain and Switzerland. He hasn’t been charged in these countries. US prosecutors investigated Betancourt as an alleged co-conspirator in the $1.2 billion PDVSA money-laundering scheme that targeted Francisco Convit and many others, but did not charge the former. 

Distrust has grown in the Venezuelan public sphere. Before the oil agreement was announced, Cazadores de Fake News published an investigation about the network of social media accounts defending Betancourt. Hours after the White House published the fact sheet, an Axios piece tells the story of Betancourt as the global, influential businessman that promoted the Trump-backed Guaidó government and, during the events of January 3, persuaded Delcy Rodríguez to cooperate with Rubio. An Axios source even says that Maduro would still be in power had Betancourt not helped to remove him.

How Delcy is selling this

As another blackout hit Western Venezuela over the weekend, Delcy Rodríguez released a video statement saying this was about improving the future of the country. She was emphatic in thanking Trump and Rubio, and assured the nation would preserve sovereignty of the oil reserves while turning into a big energy powerhouse. Social media reacted by reproducing pre-2026 footage of her and Diosdado Cabello accusing the opposition of offering all our oil to the US. The most significant detail remains a mystery: what Delcy Rodríguez is demanding in exchange for signing and enforcing this deal.

How Venezuelan political figures are reacting

The most enigmatic reaction in the Venezuelan opposition came from María Corina Machado: she hasn’t said anything, really. A couple of days after Trump’s announcement, the opposition leader remotely attended an international conference held in Slovenia. She did not mention the reported contents of the deal or the role of Betancourt, but insisted on the potential of Venezuela as the energy hub of the Western Hemisphere in light of the Ukraine War and the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz. Machado added that a democratic government could serve as a bridge between the US, Europe and Latin America.

Leopoldo López and Julio Borges, two important opposition figures who held leadership roles in the past, also remain quiet. Their political parties are linked to a US-sponsored working group meant to reform the Venezuelan Supreme Court (TSJ) and electoral authority. López and Borges previously praised the US for its role and welcomed the progress made in August. In the deal’s factsheet, the White House says these talks resulted in significant reforms to the Venezuelan judiciary and the release of hundreds of political prisoners, which are grossly exaggerated claims. The reform to the Organic Law of the TSJ has not been approved yet, though the National Assembly sanctioned it on Tuesday night.

Edmundo González Urrutia said more, but not much against it. He stated that “Venezuela’s recovery cannot be measured only by the barrels it produces again, but by the lives that wealth allows us to rebuild.” He made no mention of Delcy, the deal’s legality, or its conditions, but wondered whether oil will improve the lives of all Venezuelans or only some this time around.  He asked what those millions of dollars could mean to a family that lost a home and is still waiting to rebuild it, to someone who arrives at a hospital to find no supplies, to a community that lives waiting to see when the water will come. González did not denounce the agreement, but reflected on the difference between financial resources reaching the country and reaching the families that need it most. 

Ruling chavismo has invoked its “loyalty to national sovereignty and the well-being of the people,” offering a list of crises the deal is supposed to solve: economic reactivation, the recovery of public services, care for those affected by the double earthquake, jobs, workers’ wages.

Juan Pablo Guanipa, a popular ally of Machado in Primero Justicia, sort of misread the animus. He called for a “calm reading” of the deal hours after it broke, arguing that Venezuela cannot develop its reserves without massive foreign capital. “If we see new jobs, more investment, more income, and a new economic upturn, this agreement will earn its backing. But if we don’t see it, little by little, popular rejection will follow.” His critique became sharper days later. From a rally in Falcón, Guanipa denounced that no government without an electoral mandate—like Delcy’s— has the standing to enter binding commitments like this. 

Henrique Capriles did better, insisting Venezuelans were entitled to defend their oil, their interest and their future: “What is the deal’s scope? Its legal basis? What do Venezuelans receive? What do they give up, and under what conditions? Questions, he noted, no one can begin to answer when the country doesn’t even have clarity on this year’s oil income.” He recognized that, although oil remains the only lever at hand to “push everything” and grow the economy, the triumvirate of the Rodríguez siblings and Diosdado Cabello are not qualified to lead that commitment, and will only coat the process with more opacity and corruption.

Diosdado Cabello is yet to say a peep, though we expect him to put some nice words together for his Con el Mazo Dando TV show tonight. PSUV, Venezuela’s ruling socialist party still under Cabello’s control, fully backed Delcy Rodríguez’s leadership in light of the oil deal. The party recalled its historical loyalty to national sovereignty and the well-being of the people, offering a list of crises the deal is supposed to solve: economic reactivation, the recovery of public services, care for those affected by the double earthquake, jobs, workers’ wages. According to them, Rodríguez was simply using “every tool possible within the constitutional framework to put our immense hydrocarbon reserves at the service of national development.” During last night’s session, the Rodríguez-controlled National Assembly passed a motion supporting the “US-Venezuela Binational Energy Agreement.”

Maduro’s son, “Nicolasito” Maduro Guerra, came out in support of the “historic” deal—as he called it, in English. He quoted an interview where his father said the State was fully open to the return of American capital to the Venezuelan oil industry. Which isn’t exactly false: before the US captured Maduro on January 3, The New York Times reported that the dictator had offered all existing oil and gold projects to US companies in exchange for being allowed to remain in power.

Rafael Ramírez, Venezuela’s oil tsar under Hugo Chávez who oversaw PDVSA’s total collapse and the embezzlement of billions of public funds, called the new deal illegitimate, unconstitutional, and a pillage (saqueo). He considered it a ploy by the Trump administration ahead of midterms, as the “Venezuelan case has become the only success to show their [voter] base,” further criticizing Delcy and US policy in an interview with El Nacional.  Among other original chavistas that broke with the Maduro regime, Chávez’s  former propagandist Andrés Izarra used a double-edged sword: “Delcy is carrying out Machado’s oil plan.” He also tweeted that the agreement was high treason for which its enforcers should be tried.

Juan Barreto, the former chavista mayor of Caracas who is trying to become a relevant opposition figure, quote-tweeted Alejandro Betancourt’s defense of the agreement (who had said that it would benefit Venezuelans and Americans alike) and took the class war route: “The true head of the transition speaks: from intervention to colony… from the stands, the traditional political class and the elites applaud, begging for a scrap… in the streets, neighborhoods, and factories, the people converse, organize, unite…Workers across the country, begin national dialogue and consultation.” Elías Jaua followed suit. The former chavista vice president and career chavista minister said Venezuela is now under the occupation of a foreign invader, calling for grassroots organizing and the recovery of national independence. In what seems to be an ongoing effort to distance himself from what remains of chavismo in power, Jaua clarified he had not spoken to any government official or PSUV leader.

The home front.

* Television adage: When it bleeds, it leads.

“The MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour” on Monday decided to do a round-table talk with big-city mayors to ask about the reaction in their locales after the Rodney King case verdict. Screening calls went out.

Mayor Maureen O’Connor told MacNeil-Lehrer reporter Shannon Bradley that San Diego had managed to avoid major problems through the efforts of local officials, cops and community leaders, as well as an overall improvement in police-community relations in recent years.

At first, Bradley, a former San Diegan, was enthusiastic. Later, she called back with the letdown.

Co-anchor Robert MacNeil thought it would be “unfair” to include O’Connor on the same panel with mayors whose cities suffered violence and looting after the verdict.

Hey, isn’t that what critics say about the media: that they only want to report bad news?

“There’s a certain amount of truth to that,” Bradley says. “Sad to say, but true.”

* T-shirt being sold at London Underground clothing store in Fashion Valley: “NOT GUILTY? B.S.”

Done up graffiti style. Black lettering on white.

Store owner Dean Mostofi says he sold 300 over the weekend, nearly all to affluent white kids.

* So far, the $5,000 reward has not brought a single tip about the identity of the sniper(s) who shot at (but missed) two San Diego cops on Thursday night.

* One of the calls to the San Diego hot line established to let people sound off about the verdict was collect from Los Angeles: A distraught woman asking why L.A. doesn’t have a similar hot line.

* Venting the venters.

San Diegans who manned the hot line will gather May 13 to compare notes on what they heard.

* San Diego hotels and motels report a slight uptick in occupancy from tourists and others fleeing Los Angeles.

The flip side: Some Angelenos with reservations canceled because they needed to protect their homes.

* T-shirt being hawked on street corners in Los Angeles: “My Parents Looted Ralphs and All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt.”

Robbed of a Protest

Other stuff.

* A thief has stolen the bedsheet cross that Hugh and Elaine Willner draped down the canyon hillside behind their Clairemont home.

The Willners’ cross, meant to show solidarity with the City Council’s fight to save the Mt. Soledad cross, was highly visible from Interstate 5.

The thief is thought to have scaled the steep hill from Morena Boulevard under cover of darkness.

* Yes, the Tinker Bell impersonator on page T10 of the Disneyland supplement included in The Times on Sunday did seem to have a mustache. Nice legs, though.

* Sticker on the toilet-paper dispenser in the men’s room at Bazaar del Mundo: “Recycle Congress.”

* A joint fund-raiser is planned for tonight at Rumors Cafe in Ocean Beach for former Gov. Jerry Brown and congressional hopeful Bill Winston.

Interesting since both of Winston’s major opponents in the Democratic primary, Byron Georgiou and Lynn Schenk, worked for the Brown Administration.

* A San Diego audience will help choose the $100,000 winner for television’s “America’s Funniest Home Videos” on May 17. Also audiences in L.A., Orlando, Fla., and Hartford-New Haven.

* Political activism by the ton.

A Save the Rhino Walk is set for 8 a.m. Saturday in Balboa Park.

* Newly formed in San Diego: A social group for former New Yorkers.

No, they do not sit around and compare mugging stories. I checked.

In the Eye of the Beholder

As you know, the hottest political issue in Carlsbad is the beachfront sculpture done by a New York artist.

Some see art. Others see a bunch of bars.

And now an untitled limerick by Charles Nordin in a mobile home park’s newsletter:

A Carlsbad artist, enraged

At an Easterner’s being engaged

To design a new park

Said, “She misses the mark

For she, not an ape, should be caged.”

Germany has formally accused Russia of attempting an attack last month at the Leipzig-Halle airport, a state-owned facility in the eastern part of the country.

On Tuesday, German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt said his country’s intelligence community had determined that a drone discovered at the airport was consistent with Russian technology. The drone had been bearing explosives, according to official reports.

The announcement triggered several retaliatory measures, including the announcement that Germany would shut down a Russian consulate.

The incident is seen as part of a growing trend in Europe, where officials fear Russia is mounting a campaign of intimidation against members of the NATO military alliance.

What was found at the Leipzig airport? How have officials responded? And what does it say about tensions between Europe and Russia as Moscow’s war in Ukraine drags on? Read on for a quick explainer on the basics.

What happened at Leipzig airport?

An explosive-laden drone was found near a cargo plane belonging to the Ukrainian firm Antonov Airlines on the evening of August 4.

An employee flagged the drone, which was located in a cargo area near a runway, resulting in a temporary shutdown at the Leipzig-Halle airport, a major cargo hub in the eastern German state of Saxony.

Specialists were called in to defuse the explosives with a robot. A second drone was reportedly destroyed after it collided with an aeroplane near the airport.

Why does Germany blame Russia?

Dobrindt, Germany’s interior minister, said investigators identified a configuration and components resembling those seen in Russia’s war against Ukraine.

“Taken together, the police investigations, the pattern and intelligence findings prove a Russian responsibility for the attempted attack at Leipzig airport,” Dobrindt said.

Germany’s government has not publicly shared specifics connecting the incident to Moscow or released all the evidence.

But Dobrindt said the device reflected “a high degree of technical expertise”. He added, however, that the task of carrying out the attack appears to have fallen to “low-level agents”, whom he described as people acting “on behalf of Russian state entities”. He did not specify which ones.

How has Germany responded?

Germany has taken a series of retaliatory actions since announcing the intelligence community’s findings.

Starting on September 18, a Russian consulate in Bonn, a major German city on the Rhine River, will be shuttered. The Russian House, a cultural gathering place in Berlin, will also be closed, though the date has yet to be determined.

German leaders said they would also recommend more Russians be added to the European Union’s sanctions list and consider heightening entry controls for Russian citizens.

The German Foreign Ministry has also summoned Russia’s ambassador to the country to discuss the incident.

How has Russia reacted to Germany’s claims?

Moscow has denied it had anything to do with the drone. The Russian Embassy in Berlin called the claims absurd and warned that the accusations would have consequences.

Separately, Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the government of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz of pointing the finger at Moscow to distract from domestic problems and falling approval ratings.

He also suggested that Germany had planted evidence to frame Russia for the drone incident.

How have NATO and European allies responded?

NATO allies like Poland, Italy, the United Kingdom, Sweden and the Czech Republic have all backed Berlin’s claims against Moscow.

“Whenever Russian hybrid activities target one of our allies, we are all exposed,” the Czech Foreign Ministry posted on social media.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said she would discuss the incident with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, and EU foreign ministers are expected to prepare a joint response.

How has Ukraine responded?

Since February 2022, Ukraine has been battling a war that began with Russia’s full-scale invasion of its neighbour.

There has been speculation that Moscow’s increasing military threats in Europe are designed to weaken NATO support for Kyiv.

Ukraine has welcomed Germany’s measures against Russia, with Ukrainian Ambassador Oleksii Makeiev praising Berlin’s response on Tuesday.

Germany has been a key strategic partner for Ukraine, and in April, the two countries unveiled a security cooperation agreement that would strengthen joint air defences.

As part of the deal, Berlin agreed to fund missile contracts for Kyiv, and the two would collaborate on drone co-production.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said that his country’s airspace is becoming increasingly unsafe for civilian aviation, with both sides in the war increasingly relying on drone warfare.

What other actions has Russia been accused of in Europe?

Critics have long warned that Russia is taking an increasingly aggressive stance towards Europe, which has opposed its invasion of Ukraine.

The Associated Press news agency has logged some 200 incidents of sabotage and malign activity in Europe since the 2022 invasion.

Those acts include cyberattacks, espionage, disinformation campaigns, arson and interference with infrastructure.

One case, in March 2024, involved a warehouse in east London being set on fire. The facility stored aid for Ukraine, and prosecutors blamed the attack on members of the Russian-backed Wagner Group, a paramilitary organisation.

Such low-level operations are often called “hybrid” attacks, as they remain below the threshold of open conflict but still succeed in sowing unease through violence.

Why are these tensions erupting now?

Germany says covert operations like the attempted drone attack at the Leipzig airport are meant to undermine the country’s political backing for Ukraine in its defence against Russia.

The war has stretched for more than four years, and Ukrainian officials have warned that the coming winter may prove the most challenging yet.

The attempted drone attack also comes at a pivotal time for German politics.

On September 6, the eastern province of Saxony-Anhalt is holding elections, and the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party is hoping to make gains, building in part on public weariness with the war.

The AfD has called for strengthening ties with Russia and has been critical of support for Ukraine. It is currently leading in public opinion polls ahead of the vote.

The California Legislature just passed two bills that advocates say will greatly improve access to small-scale solar for renters, people in condos and others who don’t have access to their roofs or can’t afford a full rooftop array.

On Sunday night, lawmakers approved Assembly Bill 1813, a third-time effort to force the California Public Utilities Commission to develop a more robust community solar program, in which residents sign up to participate in a small solar array near where they live and pay monthly at a discount on their electrical bills.

“California’s clean energy transition should benefit everyone, not just those who can afford rooftop solar,” said Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego), the bill’s author.

Last week, with Senate Bill 868, California’s Legislature also became the latest to legalize plug-in solar. Also known as “balcony solar,” these systems allow anyone — renter or owner — to set small panels on their patios or fences and plug them directly into wall outlets to lower bills without having to navigate utility permissions.

“It’s an idea whose time has come,” said bill author Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who noted the devices can bring down bills by hundreds of dollars a year. “It’ll be very beneficial for people who are looking to lower their cost of living.”

The votes come after some difficult years for rooftop solar in California thanks to strong pushback from utility companies. The state had been a leader nationally on solar energy in the 2000s. But installation rates plummeted in 2022 after Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Public Utilities Commission sharply cut back incentives for customers.

Utilities that lobbied for the change argued that compensating rooftop solar at a higher rate meant that people without solar panels were disproportionately paying the costs of maintaining the overhead lines that everyone uses.

This year, utilities made similar arguments against both the community solar and balcony solar bills.

Pacific Gas & Electric was successful in inserting an end date for Wiener’s SB 868 balcony solar bill, so, if it is signed into law, the Legislature will have to reauthorize it before 2030.

“While the bill establishes additional guardrails, it also creates a period through 2030 during which plug-in solar devices not meeting key safety and certification requirements could be purchased and used in California,” PG&E spokeswoman Lynsey Paulo said. “We believe customers and emergency personnel deserve the protections that come from clear safety standards and established interconnection processes from the outset.”

Both bills now go to the governor’s desk.

If signed, the balcony solar bill will go into effect once systems have been certified as safe for use in the U.S. by a nationally recognized testing laboratory like UL Solutions. Balcony panels are already certified in Germany, where plug-in solar is popular. Advocates say U.S. certifications will come through soon.

Community solar reform could have a harder time clearing Newsom’s desk, as the Public Utilities Commission, appointed by the governor, has previously opposed this type of program.

All the state’s big investor-owned utilities lobbied against the community solar bill, AB 1813, which would require them to compensate community solar developers and customers at higher rates than those established under the Public Utilities Commission’s current program.

That program, finalized this year, relies on canceled federal funding and incentives that developers say are too low for them to launch new projects.

“We remain opposed to AB 1813 because it would shift significant costs to customers who do not participate in the program,” PG&E’s Paulo said. “This legislation is about profits for solar companies, not customer affordability.”

The Public Advocates Office, the independent consumer advocate at the Public Utilities Commission, said recent amendments to the bill did not address its concerns about shifting costs from one group of ratepayers to another.

“We support expanding community solar so renters and other Californians who cannot install rooftop solar can benefit from clean energy. But the savings for participants should not be financed by raising bills for everyone else,” said Mary Flannelly, a spokesperson for the Public Advocates Office. “Our analysis of AB 1813 estimates that it could shift about $1.5 billion a year onto customers who cannot participate — roughly $12 more per month on average — a sizeable cost.”

Southern California Edison also has opposed the bill. SCE spokesperson David Eisenhauer said it would “expose customers to higher rates and unreasonable costs compared to more cost-effective clean energy sources.”

But Ward disputes that any costs will be shifted to people who don’t have solar. He cited two recent studies that indicate all consumers will benefit from reduced costs when community solar is more available. One found if the state added 5.4 gigawatts of community solar and energy storage, all ratepayers could save $6.5 billion by reducing costs for gas generation, electricity imports and transmission.

Ward and a coalition of environmental groups, solar developers and the Utility Reform Network, a ratepayer advocacy group, have tried for years to get the Public Utilities Commission to adopt their vision for a community solar program that would serve people who don’t own or don’t have access to their roofs. Several other states have them.

The bill would compensate community solar developers and customers at a rate that advocates say more accurately accounts for the savings solar brings to the grid, especially on hot days when the system is stressed.

Wiener said both bills are important for helping individuals and communities “to not be trapped in the monopoly utility model that is so expensive.”

“We should empower people to generate their own electricity and to lower their electric bills,” he said.

The Legislature also passed Senate Bill 913, which would allow batteries, electric vehicles, smart thermostats and other consumer-owned devices to be bundled together and counted as a reliable source of electricity for the state’s grid.

Brandon Garcia, California director for Advanced Energy United, an association representing clean energy businesses, said it would help reduce strain on the grid and keep electricity costs in check while “giving customer-owned resources a fair opportunity to compete and deliver reliable energy at an affordable price.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Monday urged Congress to approve federal tax incentives aimed at reviving American film and television productions, saying Hollywood has been hollowed out by productions moving to Canada and other countries.

In a social media post, Trump said he met with actor Jon Voight, whom he has designated as “Hollywood Ambassador,” and concluded there is “no incentive” to work in Hollywood anymore and that it is “hurting California very badly.”

“Jon, and many others in the Industry, are suggesting we do Federal Tax Incentives in order to Make our Movie and Television Production Business GREAT AGAIN, Perhaps GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE!,” Trump said wrote on Truth Social.

Trump said meetings are already being set up to talk to lawmakers from both parties, noting that he wants to the discussions to be bipartisan, “especially since so much money is being lost in California, and other largely Blue States.”

“I am going to suggest that Republicans and Democrats get together, and immediately craft Legislation to save the Movie, Television and Entertainment Business in America,” he said.

There are few details about what these incentives would look like at this time, but Trump said “the amount of money spent” on tax breaks will be made up “tenfold by the money pouring into the Treasury’s coffers.”

Charles Rivkin, chairman and chief executive of the Motion Picture Assn., applauded Trump’s announcement, and, in a statement, added that “for over a century, American studios, casts, and crews have produced the films and series that the world wants to see.”

“A federal incentive,” Rivkin added, “would be a landmark step toward bringing more production to local communities in all 50 states, strengthening our nation’s economy, and making our country a more competitive place to produce, create, and tell great stories.”

Trump’s push comes as production has continued to shift overseas. Last year, 45% of all U.S. films and scripted television shows were shot internationally, up from about 33% in 2022, an issue that has worried California lawmakers such as Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

California and other states have bolstered their production incentive programs, but Schiff has said in the past that it is not enough. He, too, has made the case for a federal tax credit.

“State programs cannot simply substitute for the kind of global, federal and competitive tax incentives that are needed to bring production back to American soil and stop its offshoring,” Schiff said at an event in March. “The urgency could not be greater.”

Trump has previously floated more aggressive measures, including a threat to impose tariffs on foreign-made films, but that idea did not gain traction.

SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers passed laws that would ensure insurance companies provide better coverage for smoke-damaged homes and financing for upgrades protecting residences from future fire damage.

The measures were among a slew of bills approved during the 2026 legislative session to deal with the continuing aftermath of the devastating 2025 Los Angeles area fires.

The Eaton and Palisades fires, which destroyed more than 16,000 structures and killed 31, were two of the deadliest and most destructive fires in state history. Like with catastrophic fires before them, tragedy spurred action.

Much of the focus on wildfire issues by Gov. Gavin Newsom and California lawmakers in the waning days of the legislative session focused on a proposal to shift liability away from utilities whose equipment ignites wildfires.

The complex, high-stakes policy debate attempted to address the needs and financial risks faced by the utilities, their customers and insurance companies following the catastrophic wildfires that have plagued California in recent years, but a proposed compromise recently pieced together by lawmakers and the governor fell through Tuesday.

However, lawmakers did pass several bills this year to help fire victims navigate burdensome insurance requirements in the aftermath of a disaster and increase prevention efforts. All head to Newsom for his consideration.

Two complementary bills approved Monday ensure homes that survive a wildfire but are contaminated by the onslaught of smoke are properly remediated before residents move back in.

The bills were prompted by the 2025 Eaton fire, which left thousands of homes contaminated with lead, some at levels hundreds of times what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers safe. Homeowners routinely reported that their insurance companies refused or delayed claims, advocated for cleaning methods that experts deemed insufficient and pushed residents to move back before testing showed their homes were safe.

The first bill, AB 1642, would direct the Department of Toxic Substances Control to create scientific standards for what constitutes a safe home and provide guidance on how to properly remediate homes. The second, AB 1795, would require insurers to abide by those standards in the claims process and do so in a timely manner.

The companion laws only take effect if Newsom signs both.

The two bills originally conflicted with one another. The scientific standards bill was supported by many Eaton fire survivors from the get-go. However, the insurance bill — born out of a Department of Insurance task force — was widely criticized by survivors for leaving insurance companies wiggle room to deny claims and placing a burden on homeowners to prove their home was in fact contaminated by a fire.

In an eleventh-hour sprint of “sleepless nights,” “five-hour Zooms” and intervention from the governor’s office, advocates won additional protections for fire survivors in the insurance bill and brought the two into harmony, said Dawn Fanning, managing director at the smoke-damaged home advocacy group Eaton Fire Residents United.

“It took a lot of work to get here, and we’re really happy where we landed,” Fanning said.

After the Eaton fire, “it was the Wild West, trying to scramble to find answers,” she said. “If these laws were in place, so many thousands of people would be back home by now.”

Separate legislation by Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica), who is in a hotly contested race for California Insurance Commissioner, seeks to give homeowners more notice and options before being dropped by their insurer, a problem homeowners increasingly face as wildfires have become more frequent and destructive.

Many nonrenewal notices sent by insurance companies include vague reasoning, Allen said during a May hearing on the bill, SB 1301. His legislation would require specific information so property owners can have a chance to mitigate problems and keep their insurance.

Another bill from Allen, who represents the Palisades area that burned in 2025, would create a new loan program to help property owners mitigate fire risks through home hardening, or installing fire-resistant materials on the outside of a structure.

“It can sometimes cost tens of thousands of dollars for homeowners and there’s simply not a lot of financing for this kind of work. There’s not a market for that,” Allen said during an April hearing.

The program is expected to help fund 1,000 projects in its first year and up to 2,400 within five years, according to a bill analysis.

A budget bill approved Tuesday morning also includes $25 million for home hardening grants, rebates or loans to be distributed through a separate program to be created by the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. It would cap assistance at $25,000 per homeowner or property.

But other proposals to provide financial incentives for home hardening did not pass, including bills by Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) to exclude home hardening upgrades from property tax reassessment and to require insurance companies to provide two quotes to inquiring homeowners: one for the property as is, and another for if it met full home-hardening certification by the state.

Another bill on Newsom’s desk seeks to get restitution for victims of utility-caused wildfires who in some cases have waited more than a decade, said Assemblymember Joe Patterson (R-Rocklin).

In 2019, the state established a wildfire fund paid by utility companies that reimburses claims stemming from wildfires caused by the companies’ equipment. But the fund was not retroactive, and some people who suffered losses before its creation are still waiting to be paid.

Patterson’s bill requires the California Public Utilities Commission to determine how much is still owed to those victims, including for losses from the deadly Camp fire that was sparked by a PG&E power line and destroyed the town of Paradise in 2018.

“For years, wildfire survivors have been forced to wait for answers while restitution shortfalls remain unresolved,” Patterson said in a statement after the bill passed. “AB 2700 is about doing what is right for wildfire survivors who have waited far too long to be made whole.”

SACRAMENTO — In a show of defiance to the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigrants, California lawmakers on Monday voted to ban federal immigration agents from being hired for many local and state government jobs and to outlaw electric-shock gloves similar to those that may be distributed to federal officers.

The two bills were among a slate of legislation approved by the Democratic-led state Legislature to thwart certain tactics and tools used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, such as arresting people who appear at courthouses for scheduled immigration hearings.

“We have the fourth largest economy in the world because of our immigrant and undocumented community, and they’re being penalized and targeted by the Trump administration,” said Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez (D-Los Angeles). “This package of immigrant bills that we’ve sent [to the governor] is trying to say that we are here to defend you.”

Gonzalez is the author of a bill to prohibit agents and contractors involved in immigration enforcement from being employed in the future by the state, cities, counties, school districts and other public entities. It was supported by Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) and called the “Get the Feds Out” Act, or “GTFO.”

It would allow an exception for officers who are accepted to a police agency and take the state’s basic police training course, but notes that “suitability shall be determined on a case-by-case basis.”

State Sen. Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach), chair of the Latino Legislative Caucus, said the state “expects its public employees to be moral” and to defend the state and U.S. constitutions.

“Anyone who is participating in the raids have shown that they do not live up to the bar that Californians deserve from their public servants. This bill says that individuals who participated in immigration enforcement activities will be disqualified from holding state, county or local public employment in California” except in certain circumstances, she said.

A separate bill by Assemblymember Isaac G. Bryan (D-Los Angeles) would block police and other law enforcement officers from taking second jobs or working as contractors on federal immigration enforcement.

“If you sign up to protect and serve our communities during the day with a local law enforcement agency, you cannot moonlight with ICE,” Bryan said.

During a June hearing, state Sen. Kelly Seyarto (R-Murrieta) said the bill was “based on anger at an issue” that “a lot of people disagree on,” which Republican lawmakers commonly cited when debating the immigration-related bills.

“It opens up this can of worms of interpretations that are sometimes not based on reality,” he said.

State and federal law enforcement officers will be banned from using electric-shock gloves until 2030, and the state Department of Justice will be required to study their safety, under a bill passed Monday night. The last-minute legislation was introduced last week after a report that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security planned to purchase the gloves for use in immigration enforcement.

The bill “draws a clear line,” said state Sen. Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley): “Public safety technology must be proven safe and accountable before it’s deployed, not after someone is killed or seriously injured.”

Republicans opposed the bill, arguing the gloves could be a safer way to subdue suspects than firearms.

“If electric shock is a better alternative than actually shooting someone, I don’t think we should take it off the table,” said state Sen. Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach). “Law enforcement deserves the tools they need to keep us safe.”

Lawmakers on Friday approved legislation to ban federal immigration agents and other law enforcement officers from wearing masks in the state. The measure, Senate Bill 1004, was introduced by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) to fix an earlier law that was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal judge.

Other bills would prohibit arrests of people traveling to or from court, as federal agents have arrested people who show up for immigration hearings; impose a 25% tax on income earned by companies operating immigration detention centers; and allow individuals to file lawsuits against federal agents over alleged civil rights violations such as excessive force, unlawful home searches and interfering with the right to protest.

Critics argued that some bills might not stand up to legal challenges.

“This seems to fit the general pattern that California will bend over backwards to protect people who are in the country illegally, even if it means putting the public at risk,” said Ira Mehlman with the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group that advocates for strict immigration limits.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto bills approved by the Legislature.

The IAEA said lack of information and access to facilities to verify Iran’s nuclear material is a proliferation concern.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has called for “utmost urgency” to address the lack of access to Iran’s nuclear sites.

In a quarterly report seen by news agencies on Tuesday, the United Nations nuclear watchdog labelled its “lack of information about this nuclear material and access to facilities to verify it is a matter of proliferation concern”.

The US has claimed preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon – an ambition that Tehran continues to deny – as the motivation for the war that it launched in March. However, Tehran has been successful in shifting the focus of the hostilities to control of the strategic Strait of Hormuz waterway.

In particular, the IAEA report raised concerns over the lack of access to the Isfahan plant, which was targeted several times by the US and Israel over the past year or so.

In the report, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi expressed his “conviction that the long-standing problems and recurrent crises surrounding these issues must be resolved through a long-lasting, verifiable diplomatic agreement”.

However, Iran has said that access to the sites that have been struck by military action must be arranged via special arrangement.

The head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, Mohammad Eslami, said on August 26 that the IAEA “cannot seek to inspect these centres until it develops specific criteria and protocols for inspecting sites targeted by military attacks”.

Tehran suspended cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog following US and Israeli attacks on Iran in June 2025 that included strikes on nuclear sites before saying in September 2025 it would allow the UN agency’s inspectors to return.

However, access to the nuclear sites that have been bombed has not yet been granted. Despite US President Donald Trump having claimed last year that the US had destroyed the facilities and crippled Tehran’s nuclear programme, Iran’s stores of enriched uranium remain unaccounted for.

Tehran has repeatedly denied any military ambition linked to its nuclear programme, insisting on its right to the technology for civilian purposes.

However, the IAEA, whose latest report will be discussed at its board of governors meeting from September 21-25, has reported in the past that the level of Iran’s enrichment of its uranium reserves is well above that needed for civilian purposes, although neither is it at the level of weapons grade.

Venezuela’s National Assembly voted to back the 65-billion-barrel oil deal, despite no details being publicly released.

United States Energy Secretary Chris Wright is set to travel to Venezuela, after the South American country has approved a deal that will see the US seize effective control of a large portion of its oil reserves.

An anonymous US official told reporters that Wright will travel to Venezuela on Tuesday, as the administration of President Donald Trump presses forward with the controversial energy deal.

“First and foremost, it furthers the national interest of the United States,” the official said, adding that it is “critically important” for the US to be able to “to buy oil at cost reliably”.

Details are still emerging about the arrangement, likened by critics to deals imposed by colonial powers.

Still, the interim government of Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez has defended the agreement as a boon to her country’s beleaguered economy. The National Assembly, led by her brother Jorge Rodriguez, voted to back the measure on Tuesday.

“Support for the binational energy treaty between the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the United States of America … is approved,” Jorge Rodriguez said.

But even within the National Assembly, there was pushback. Some opposition lawmakers abstained from the vote and denounced the fact that the terms of the agreement have yet to be published.

“We need and are obliged to know what is written in the fine print,” lawmaker Luis Emilio Rondon said, calling for “the full and complete text of what has been agreed”.

While details about the arrangement are still emerging, the deal is slated to give the US access to 65 billion barrels of proven oil reserves in Venezuela, about one-fifth of the country’s total.

As part of the deal, the US is expected to enter into a partnership with a private company to extract fuel from 17 large Venezuelan oil fields. The lease over the oil fields will run 100 years, according to reports.

The White House confirmed on Monday that it is partnering with North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP), helmed by Venezuelan businessman Alejandro Betancourt who is a former ally of the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

The agreement would create a new company, wherein the US Defence Department would take a 35 percent ownership stake and the State Department would have the right to buy 20 percent of the oil produced at cost.

Betancourt has faced criminal investigations for alleged money laundering in Spain and Switzerland.

But a US official who spoke anonymously defended the partnership, arguing that Betancourt is not facing any criminal charges in the US.

“I’m not nominating anyone for sainthood here,” the official said. Instead, the official framed the deal as “a geopolitical opportunity to secure fields that primarily had largely been under the influence of Chinese and Russian companies”.

Asked about the possibility of democratic elections in Venezuela, the official said they were not feasible in the immediate future.

Periods of transition, the official added, “almost invariably requires you to work with elements of the existing structure, even as you are creating a new one”.

Separately, oil giant Chevron is expected to sign an agreement to expand operations in Venezuela on Wednesday.

Venezuela’s energy sector has become dilapidated, with critics blaming heavy US sanctions and government mismanagement.

While the Trump administration has pushed for greater international participation in Venezuela’s oil sector, some companies have expressed scepticism about investing there.

The 65-billion-barrel oil deal was announced on August 27 in a post on Trump’s Truth Social platform.

His administration has exercised increasing influence over Venezuela’s government, since it launched a January 3 military operation to abduct and imprison Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

Trump and Maduro had frequently clashed. In the wake of Maduro’s abduction, Trump backed the socialist leader’s vice president, Rodriguez, to take over Venezuela’s government, holding her up as a model of cooperation.

Legislation that would have helped wildfire victims receive compensation more quickly, but that utilities said didn’t do enough to reduce their financial risks, died in Sacramento on Tuesday after the Assembly declined to vote on it.

The failure of Senate Bill 492 disappointed wildfire victims and lawmakers who had negotiated the language in a last-minute deal with Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“It is unfortunate that SB 492 was not given a vote,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limon (D-Santa Barbara). “Thousands of survivors made their voices clear — they needed reform to ensure the next wildfire does not continue to cause the mental and financial stress that recent disasters have placed on Californians.”

The bill’s failure was a win for the state’s three biggest for-profit utilities. Lawmakers say they will now continue working on reforms that Newsom had been pushing for, including limiting how much utilities have to pay for fires sparked by their equipment.

Share prices of Edison International and Pacific Gas & Electric had plummeted Monday after their investors learned that SB 492 did not include transferring more of the cost of utility-sparked fires to property insurers, a measure Newsom had proposed.

Insurers had warned the proposal could raise premiums by as much as 50%.

On Tuesday, with the failure of SB 492, the two companies’ stock recovered. Edison’s share price climbed nearly 9% to close at $58.80. PG&E’s shares rose 6% to $14.06.

The top executives of the two companies had written to legislative leaders Monday, calling on them to do more. The executives said their companies needed additional protection from wildfire costs because utility investors faced higher financial risks from such disasters in California than in other states.

“Faced with those risks, investors demand a higher return or invest elsewhere,” they wrote.

The companies had asked Newsom to strengthen a framework that he and lawmakers created in 2019 to protect utilities from bankruptcy after their equipment ignites a catastrophic fire.

With the help of those protections, even though investigators found Edison’s equipment sparked last year’s deadly Eaton fire, the company’s profit in 2025 soared by more than 200% — from $1.3 billion in 2024 to $4.5 billion

Some wildfire victims and consumer groups said Tuesday they were angry that lawmakers had backed away from the bill.

“If Wall Street does not trust Edison and PG&E to stop causing catastrophic fires, California should not solve that problem with another bailout,” said Joy Chen, executive director of Every Fire Survivor’s Network, and Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, in a statement. “Edison and PG&E should solve it by stopping the fires.”

The three utilities have caused at least seven of California’s 20 most destructive fires, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) told reporters Tuesday that the final proposal had “some half measures” and “Californians expect a lot more than half measures.”

He said that Newsom didn’t ask him to abandon the bill.

“We’re going to tackle this issue in the best interest of our state, of residents, but certainly wildfire victims that expect a lot more from us,” Rivas said.

Newsom’s office declined to say Tuesday whether the governor would call a special session this year to debate the issue.

“The reforms in this bill, while important, did not address the underlying structural problems driving this crisis, as the initial market reaction this week demonstrates,” Newsom said in a statement. “Simply put, this measure did not meet the gravity of this moment. The only solution is to return to fix the entire problem, not part of it.”

Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine) said that the Legislature plans to hold a series of hearings this fall on how to deal with wildfire costs.

She acknowledged the rushed process of the last-minute proposal.

“It should come as no surprise to anybody that sometimes when policies get written at 6 a.m. perhaps we can do better,” Petrie-Norris said.

Democratic state Sen. Ben Allen, who represents the Pacific Palisades fire zone, said that he would have voted for the bill if it had cleared the Assembly.

“This bill package had a lot of good in it,” Allen said, adding that he understands “why a lot of colleagues felt as though it didn’t go far enough.”

The three utilities had been lobbying Newsom and lawmakers to further shield them and their shareholders from wildfire liabilities ever since last year’s Eaton fire.

Government fire investigators said the fire, which killed 19 people and destroyed thousands of homes in Altadena, was caused by electrical arcing on Edison’s out-of-service transmission line in Eaton Canyon. Edison kept the line in place despite not using it since 1971.

More than 11,000 households have filed suit against the utility, claiming it acted negligently, which the company denies.

Dozens of Jewish artists are defending Mark Ruffalo after Paramount Skydance branded the actor’s criticisms about software company Oracle Corp. as “antisemitic tropes.”

Support for the actor comes as Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison has struggled to get its $111-billion Warner Bros. Discovery merger over the finish line amid considerable opposition.

Ruffalo has long been an irritant to Paramount as he is a leading figure in a high-profile Hollywood campaign to block the merger. In an Instagram post late last month, Ruffalo blasted Larry Ellison’s Texas-based software company Oracle for assisting with technology to help Israeli military efforts, including in Gaza — a conflict that Ruffalo and other progressive activists have opposed because of the killing of Palestinians.

In an open letter, signed by more than 150 filmmakers, academics, writers and even a few rabbis, the group denounced “the outrageous smear campaign against our respected colleague Mark Ruffalo.”

“Enough with the false and dangerous weaponization of charges of antisemitism against those who are brave enough to point out the obvious: that the assault on the Palestinian people and the assault on our liberties at home are deeply interconnected, and there is nothing antisemitic about recognizing that fact,” the group wrote.

Tuesday’s letter was signed by several high-profile filmmakers, including Joel Coen, Hannah Einbinder, Tony Kushner, Lisa Cholodenko, Ilana Glazer, Frances Fisher, Todd Haynes and Sarah Kunstler.

The group tied David Ellison’s merger ambitions to his billionaire father’s expansive network of businesses, which now include TikTok. Larry Ellison is personally guaranteeing the equity needed for Paramount to buy Warner Bros. Discovery, and the family will become controlling owners of the merged entity.

However, the Hollywood merger is stalled because of an antitrust lawsuit brought by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and 11 other Democratic state attorneys general, including from New York, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Oregon. Paramount agreed to pause the transaction until the court case can be decided.

A trial is set for March 2 in Oakland, but Paramount has been agitating for industry leaders and politicians to pressure Bonta to force a settlement that would allow the deal to go through.

“The proposed merger of Paramount and Warner Brothers Discovery is no mere combination of two huge multinational companies,” the group wrote in the letter. “Yes, it will destroy thousands upon thousands of livelihoods. Yes, it will further consolidate the oligarchic control of our media (witness the gutting of CBS News). Yes, it will strangle competition and creativity in film and television production and distribution.”

The group painted the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger as “part of a larger project of tech-driven domination, a project Larry Ellison and his partners have never been shy about trumpeting — and one they themselves have explicitly linked to their support for the ongoing depredations being visited on the people of Palestine and their silencing of critics of those horrors,” the group wrote.

Paramount declined to comment.

The merger fight has grown increasingly ugly in recent weeks after Paramount threatened to leave California if Bonta continued his court fight to unravel the deal. Paramount suggested it would pull up stakes from its Melrose Avenue film studio as soon as this fall.

Then, on Aug. 21, the company accused Ruffalo of injecting “antisemitic tropes” into the opposition campaign to thwart the industry-reshaping merger that would bring HBO, CBS News, CNN, TBS and the Warner Bros. and Paramount film and TV studios under the same roof.

Leaders of prominent Jewish organizations, including the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League, came to Paramount’s defense, blasting the Emmy-winning actor known for playing the Hulk and roles in productions for HBO.

Ruffalo defended himself, saying he was not being antisemitic. He said he was speaking out against Oracle’s use of technology to assist Israel’s military in the war in Gaza, “what we now have come to see as a genocide, which was built on an apartheid system of oppression powered by Oracle,” Ruffalo wrote in his post.

Paramount leaders have branded some of the opposition to the deal as “antisemitic.”

“Pointing out the crucial connections between what is happening in Gaza and what is happening in Hollywood is the exact opposite of antisemitism,” the group wrote in the open letter. “It is, for us, the very essence of Jewish ethical duty.”

The letter cited recent polls that reflect a majority of “American Jews now agree that Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza; and four in ten even agree that these crimes amount to genocide,” the group wrote. “Do those attacking Mark Ruffalo as an antisemite seriously believe that all these American Jews are antisemites too?”

Bonta abruptly canceled settlement talks last week, but extended an olive branch to Paramount by saying he would be willing to meet with the company to discuss ways to address his antitrust concerns.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has reprimanded the United States for what he describes as a flippant approach to the ongoing trade dispute between the two countries.

On Tuesday, Carney hit back against a series of insults and disparaging remarks from US President Donald Trump and his officials, saying that talks can proceed once Washington takes a more serious approach to the issues at hand.

“When the Americans stop doing memes, stop throwing shade and stop trying to be tough, and start being serious about having those discussions, we can have those discussions,” Carney told reporters in Ottawa. “It’s not constructive, but that’s their democracy.”

The Liberal Party leader’s remarks come as tensions flare once again between the US and Canada, which have historically had tight relations.

But Trump’s second terms have caused those ties to fray. Since returning to office in 2025, Trump has imposed a series of tariffs on Canadian products, prompting retaliatory actions.

The latest round of tariffs came on August 22, when negotiations between the two countries fell through.

As a result, 50 percent tariffs were imposed on roughly $20bn worth of Canadian goods. Canada has pledged to respond with tariffs on US goods, worth roughly the same dollar amount, starting on September 8.

In the aftermath of the failed negotiations, Carney blamed the impasse on last-minute US demands.

He accused the Trump administration of seeking to limit Canada’s ability to cement trade deals with other countries and of requesting changes to laws protecting Canada’s French language and culture.

Carney also said Trump’s team attempted to push an asymmetrical deal that would damage Canada’s industries.

“Canada’s a sovereign state. We will strike free trade deals with the countries we wish to strike free trade deals with,” Carney told reporters on Tuesday. He added, “Of course, we’re not going to accept those terms.”

The trade war between the two countries has prompted a surge of nationalism in Canada.

A June poll from the research firm Abacus Data found that national pride surged 12 points in two years, reaching 77 percent this year.

Carney has faced pressure not to yield to US demands. In addition to imposing steep tariffs, the Trump administration has also pushed Canada to cede its sovereignty and become a “51st state” within the US.

Trump has also taken symbolic actions designed to assert US dominance over the two countries’ shared border region. On August 27, the US president signed an executive order directing federal entities to refer to Lake Ontario as “Lake America”.

“They are one of the worst countries in the world to deal with,” Trump said of Canada in a recent radio interview.

Other cabinet-level officials in the Trump administration have echoed Trump’s remarks disparaging Canada.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told the news outlet CNBC that Canada’s economy is ill-equipped to handle a trade war with the US, and he blamed Carney for escalating the situation.

“Well, I don’t think you can be in a tit-for-tat with someone who’s 13 times larger than you are,” Bessent said on Monday.

Of Carney, he added, “He came to power on an anti-American, anti-Trump agenda. He was 20 points behind in the polls. And then he started this. And it’s unfortunate that he’s not doing what’s best for the Canadian people.”

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, meanwhile, posted an image of two female Canadian cadets on social media, in an apparent effort to mock the country’s armed forces.

“This is real,” he wrote beneath the image of the two women, alongside an emoji of the Canadian flag.

Hegseth, a former TV host, has frequently castigated efforts to include women, LGBTQ people and racial minorities in the military as “woke” distractions from the US military’s core mission.

When reporters asked Carney to respond to such messages, he replied that such comments were “beneath” the officials’ office.

“Our plan has always been standing up for Canada, first and foremost, here at home,” Carney said.

WASHINGTON — The House passed a short-term measure Tuesday to fund the federal government into early December, a move designed to avoid a chaotic shutdown as lawmakers campaign for reelection.

Lawmakers needed to act before the fiscal year concludes at the end of September to avoid a funding lapse. They were determined not to bump up against that deadline during the campaign season following this past year’s historic shutdowns.

The House passed the bill by a vote of 370-48. The Senate has already overwhelmingly approved the measure, so it now moves to President Donald Trump’s desk for his signature.

“It gives the nation and our constituents certainty, certainty that the government will remain open, certainty that our service members will be paid,” said Rep. Tom Cole, the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

A record 43-day shutdown occurred last fall when the two parties disagreed on renewing an expiring tax credit that lowers the cost of health coverage obtained through Affordable Care Act marketplaces. Then came the shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, which lasted 76 days before lawmakers agreed to fund much of the department but not its immigration enforcement operations.

Lawmakers were wary of a repeat before voters go to the polls. They also blamed the other party for the recent impasses.

“We’re going to avoid the threat of another Democratic shutdown,” House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters in advance of the vote.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the lead Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, encouraged her Democratic colleagues to vote for the measure during a closed-door meeting Tuesday morning.

She said the bill was much improved from the product that passed the House earlier this summer on a mostly party-line basis. For example, she said it prevents the Department of Homeland Security from transferring funds to the Border Patrol, and it delays a proposed rule that would give political appointees in the Trump administration more authority to stop federal grants from going out for programs they view as not in line with the president’s agenda. Those changes were made when the Senate approved its version of the bill.

Democrats fear the administration will use the proposed regulation on grants to steer money away from Democratic-led states. DeLauro called the delay an important first step, but said more must be done to block the policy from taking effect.

“Whether a community receives disaster relief should not depend on who they voted for in the last election,” DeLauro said.

The short-term measure funds federal agencies generally at current levels through Dec. 11. It will give lawmakers more time to find compromise on a full-year measure, though that will likely be quite difficult.

Republicans are seeking hundreds of billions of dollars in additional spending for the military while cutting most non-defense programs. Democrats say that’s a non-starter and insist on a bipartisan approach that treats domestic programs with parity.

Freking writes for the Associated Press.

Tina Peters, who served prison time for tampering with voting machines on behalf of the MAGA movement, has declined a job offer helping to oversee elections in a conservative Northern California county.

“She declined the offer because she’s running around the country right now trying to secure the elections,” Clint Curtis, the Shasta County registrar of voters, said in an interview Tuesday. “Shasta County lost out.”

Last month, Curtis set off alarm bells across California by telling reporters he planned to hire Peters, a former county clerk in Colorado who was released early from prison this summer amid a pressure campaign by President Trump.

Curtis, himself a longtime election denier, told The Times he had planned to hire Peters as a consultant “to assist with supervision of the November election.”

Peters’ attorney, Peter Ticktin, said in an interview Tuesday that she had given serious consideration to the job offer but that he had not discussed it with her in recent days. It would “not have been a full-time position,” because she is so busy, he said.

“There’s far more for her to do than get tied up in one county,” Ticktin said. “At this point, she is an American icon. I mean, think about it: How many people meet with the president of the United States in the Oval Office?”

In California, talk of hiring Peters drew swift condemnation from Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democratic lawmakers who vowed to fight her employment.

The public observation area installed at the Shasta County elections office in Redding by Clint Curtis, the registrar of voters.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

On Monday, Newsom wrote in a sarcastic post on X: “A convicted MAGA election tamperer working in an elections office. What could possibly go wrong?”

He added, in all caps: “TINA, NOT IN CALIFORNIA! ELECTION DENIER FELONS NOT WELCOME HERE!!!”

In a separate social media post, the governor’s press office called the job offer “a disgrace” and said Newsom had directed corrections officials to “make every effort” to reject transfer of her parole supervision into the state.

Peters is not supposed to leave Colorado without permission from her parole officer, although she did visit Trump at the White House.

Curtis called the governor “crazy” and said he was amused that Newsom — who has advocated for prison reform and rehabilitation for criminals — was focused on Peters’ felony conviction.

“California is kind of a second-chance state,” Curtis said. “Except for Tina Peters. No second chance for her in Shasta County.”

Peters, the former clerk in Mesa County, Colo., was convicted in 2024 and sentenced to nine years behind bars for breaching her county’s voting machines as part of a scheme to show that the 2020 election was rigged against Trump, a claim that has been repeatedly debunked in court.

She was found guilty of helping an associate of MAGA conspiracy theorist and MyPillow founder Mike Lindell gain unauthorized access to Mesa County’s Dominion election equipment in 2021 and make copies of its hard drive before and after a software upgrade.

After months of haranguing from Trump, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, commuted Peters’ sentence. She was released in June after serving less than a quarter of the nine years.

In interviews with right-wing media, Curtis said Peters essentially would do the job of assistant registrar but would be brought on as a consultant to get around the county’s slow hiring process.

Brent Turner, the Shasta County assistant registrar, said his job was not open because he had not quit. He told The Times on Tuesday that he was happy Peters had declined his boss’ offer.

Shasta County Registrar Clint Curtis stands in the election counting area on Feb. 25 in Redding.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

“I’m glad that Gavin is paying attention,” said Turner, a Democrat from San Francisco and a longtime election reform activist who has pushed for non-proprietary open-source voting systems with software code that can be examined by anyone.

Curtis handpicked Turner as his assistant last year.

Last month, Curtis told the hosts of “Jefferson State of Mine,” a radio show by leaders of the State of Jefferson secession movement, that Turner “got sick on me” and that he was hoping his assistant would “just, like, retire on June 2 and go away and let me fill [the position], but he didn’t.”

Turner, who is on medical leave, said he had not given Curtis permission to speak publicly about his health and that he had not spoken to his boss since Curtis began talking about hiring Peters.

“It’s been aggravating and unfortunate,” Turner said. “But we’re undaunted, as election officials and workers. And the fact is, there’s work to be done now, so the sooner we put this behind us, the better.”

Curtis was appointed by the Shasta County Board of Supervisors last year after two previous registrars resigned. He will be out of office in January after losing the June primary to Joanna Francescut, a longtime assistant registrar whom he had fired.

Curtis has sequestered primary ballots in a room in the elections office in Redding, sealing the doors with locks and duct tape and telling reporters that the ballots did not look, feel or smell right.

Both Curtis and county officials — who have condemned his actions — have asked the FBI and other authorities to investigate.

TORONTO — Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney told the Trump administration Tuesday to “stop doing memes, stop throwing shade and stop trying to be tough,” as he pushed back against a fresh wave of attacks from Washington.

Carney said U.S.-Canada trade talks could resume if Washington became serious about negotiations, but he also accused the United States of pursuing terms that he said could leave Canadian industries “gradually wound down in Canada and wiped out.”

“When the Americans stop doing memes, stop throwing shade and stop trying to be tough, and start being serious about having those discussions, we can have those discussions,” Carney said. “It’s not constructive, but that’s their democracy.”

His comments came after a new barrage from Washington since trade talks collapsed Aug. 21, including Trump’s move to rename Lake Ontario “Lake America” and social media posts taunting Canada. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also said Canada could not go “tit for tat” with a U.S. economy 13 times larger, while U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth mocked female Canadian cadets online.

Hegseth on Monday posted an image from a cadet training center in British Columbia showing two young women in uniform, adding “this is real” alongside a Canadian flag. Carney called the post “beneath their office.”

The Pentagon stood by it Tuesday, with deputy press secretary Jacob Bliss saying, “The X post speaks for itself.”

Carney said the U.S. approach in the talks would have left Canadian industries effectively as subsidiaries of American companies or imposed terms under which they would be “gradually wound down in Canada and wiped out.”

“We’re not going to — of course, we’re not going to accept those terms,” Carney said.

Carney said Washington sought an “uncompetitive” deal for key industries, including autos, while pushing changes affecting French-language and cultural protections. He said any of those issues was enough to block an agreement.

Carney said Washington also sought limits on Canada’s future trade deals. “Canada is a sovereign state. We will strike free trade deals with the countries we wish to strike free trade deals,” he said.

Carney was also buoyed by Monday’s Liberal sweep of three special elections, including a decisive win in Chicoutimi-Le Fjord, Quebec, where the Conservatives fell to third place.

The victories brought the Liberals to 173 seats in the 343-seat House of Commons and reinforced Carney’s position as he confronts Trump over trade and Canadian sovereignty.

Nelson Wiseman, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Toronto, said Trump’s annexation threats carry particular weight in Quebec. “Quebecers have the most to lose in an apocalyptic scenario where the U.S. absorbs Canada, and the status of the French language disappears,” he said.

U.S.-Canada trade talks collapsed after the two sides failed to reach a deal, and Trump imposed 50% tariffs on roughly $20 billion in Canadian goods. Canada responded with plans for tariffs on U.S. products.

Trump has repeatedly talked about making Canada the 51st state.

Gillies writes for the Associated Press.

Departed Labour Party leader now plans to focus on international affairs.

Former British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced he is to stand down as a member of parliament.

Starmer said on Tuesday that it was the “right time” to resign as the MP for the Holborn and St Pancras seat in London after 11 years, triggering a by-election. The announcement comes six weeks after his resignation as the United Kingdom’s premier, having lost the support of ruling Labour Party MPs.

“It is now time to step aside and focus on other issues: international affairs including defence, security, trade and technology in a fast-changing world,” Starmer wrote on social media.

As party leader, Starmer led Labour to a historic 2024 landslide after 14 years of Conservative rule. However, within two years, U-turns, cuts, a diplomatic scandal, pressure from the radical right-wing Reform UK, and the challenge of Andy Burnham – who became Britain’s seventh prime minister in a decade – eroded Starmer’s authority, and he was forced out.

Starmer had previously said he would remain ‌as a lawmaker until the next general election. But he told the Camden New Journal, a local newspaper in his North London constituency, that he had changed his mind and intended to leave UK Parliament after 11 years, six of those as leader of the party.

The newspaper did not give a timeframe for when an election would be held for ⁠Starmer’s seat in the constituency of Holborn and St ⁠Pancras.

Despite his dwindling popularity at home, foreign affairs were seen by some as Starmer’s strength, particularly for the strong relationships he formed with EU leaders in the wake of Brexit, especially French President Emmanuel ⁠Macron, with whom he established the so-called Coalition of the Willing in support of Ukraine.

Starmer comfortably kept his seat in the 2024 election with a majority of over 11,500 votes, though Andrew Feinstein, an independent candidate who campaigned primarily around his opposition to Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza and Labour’s support for it, took nearly 19 percent of ballots.

Burnham’s accession has led to ‌a ‌bounce in the polls for Labour, though he faces tougher challenges ahead, with Parliament resuming on Tuesday.