politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans appeared increasingly unlikely to meet their self-imposed deadline for passing a roughly $70-billion immigration enforcement bill this week as disputes over security funding for the White House and the Trump administration’s $1.8-trillion settlement fund effectively derailed progress.

Republicans were already expected to abandon $1 billion in security money for the White House complex and President Trump’s ballroom amid backlash from members of their own party. But then questions about the settlement fund added to some of the senator’s concerns. They are questioning who would get the money.

Republican senators met with acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche on Thursday as they worked to finalize the bill’s text and whether to put parameters on the settlement, which was designed to compensate Trump’s allies who believe they have been politically persecuted. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters that senators had questions and wanted to know “how we might make sure that it’s fenced in appropriately.”

But senators who emerged from the meeting were tight-lipped and indicated that lawmakers would not hold a vote on the package before leaving Washington for a Memorial Day break, risking failure to meet Trump’s June 1 deadline.

Asked about a vote this week, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) responded, “I don’t even know.” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) was more blunt: “We’re going home,” he said.

The last-minute scramble comes as Democrats have criticized Republicans for trying to fund Trump’s ballroom when voters are concerned about basic affordability issues — and as some GOP lawmakers have grown increasingly frustrated with Trump. Several GOP senators have spoken out against the settlement, which was announced this week, and many were upset by the president’s endorsement Tuesday of Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton in the party primary runoff next week against Sen. John Cornyn.

Asked Thursday at the White House if he was losing control of the Senate, Trump replied: “I don’t know, I really don’t know. I can tell you — I only do what’s right.”

Possible parameters on Trump’s settlement fund

The “anti-weaponization” fund, part of a settlement that resolves Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns, unexpectedly became one of the main complications in the bill. Democrats said they would force votes to block it or place restrictions on it.

Democrats have an opening because Republicans are trying to pass the immigration enforcement bill through a complicated budget process that requires a long series of amendment votes. Democrats are considering multiple amendments, potentially to block that new fund outright or to ban any payments to Trump supporters who harmed law enforcement officers in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Presenting a united front, Democrats from both the House and Senate rallied on the Capitol steps Thursday to show their opposition. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said the amendment process “will give Republicans countless chances to do the right thing.”

He added that if they declined to make changes, it would show voters that “Ballroom Republicans are not working for you, they are busy fighting for Trump.”

Those amendments, along with others, could pass as a growing number of Republicans have voiced reservations about the fund. So Republicans are now discussing their own last-minute additions to head that off, potentially placing some parameters on the settlement and who could receive compensation, according to two people with knowledge of the private discussions who requested anonymity to discuss them.

It was unclear how any Senate changes would be received in the House. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said Wednesday that the House will pass the bill “whatever form it takes.”

Tensions rise between Senate and White House

As Republicans challenged the settlement and parts of his agenda, Trump unloaded on the Senate in a social media post on Wednesday.

He urged Republicans to fire the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, who said over the weekend that parts of the $1-billion security proposal cannot remain in the ICE and Border Patrol bill. Trump also renewed his long-standing calls for the Senate to pass the SAVE Act, a Republican bill that would require all voters to prove U.S. citizenship, and to end the Senate filibuster.

Republicans need to “get smart and tough,” Trump said, or “you’ll all be looking for a job much sooner than you thought possible!”

While they have been loyal to Trump on most issues, Senate Republicans have resisted his repeated calls — even in his first term — to kill the filibuster, which triggers a 60-vote threshold in the Senate.

Hanging over the growing GOP rift is Trump’s surprise endorsement of Paxton. That intervention has Republican senators privately fuming that it could cost them their majority in November as they view the incumbent, Cornyn, as the better candidate in the November general election.

Secret Service request falters

Under the Secret Service’s request, about $220 million would fund security improvements related to the ballroom. The rest would go for a new screening center for visitors, training and other security measures.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said the effort to add the security package to the bill was a “bad idea.” The bill should not have included the other security improvements, he said, “because it’s just giving everybody the ‘billion-dollar ballroom.’”

Several other Republicans in the House and Senate have questioned the request, and senators left a briefing with the director of the Secret Service last week saying they needed a lot more information.

People “can’t afford groceries and gasoline and healthcare, and we’re going to do a billion dollars for a ballroom?” asked Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, who lost reelection in his GOP primary on Saturday after Trump endorsed one of his opponents.

Left in the bill is the money for ICE and Border Patrol, which Democrats have blocked for months in protest of the administration’s immigration enforcement crackdown.

Democrats demanded changes for the agencies, but negotiations with the White House yielded little progress. So Republicans are using the complicated budget maneuver called reconciliation — the same process that allowed them to pass Trump’s tax and spending cuts bill last year — to fund the agencies through the end of Trump’s term with a simple majority and no Democratic votes.

Still, passage requires sign-off from the parliamentarian and unity from Republicans.

Jalonick, Freking and Groves write for the Associated Press. AP writers Collin Binkley, Lisa Mascaro and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Thursday broadly upheld lawsuits by U.S. companies whose property was seized in Cuba prior to 1960, including claims against cruise ship lines that docked there in the past decade.

These suits do not seek compensation from Cubans but from those who “traffic in property which was confiscated by the Cuban government.”

In a 8-1 decision, the justices revived a $400-million judgment against four cruise lines whose ships stopped in Havana between 2016 and 2019.

All of them used docks that were built early in the 20th century by the Havana Docks Corporation, an American company.

Justice Clarence Thomas pointed to a rarely enforced 1996 law that authorized suits against those who “use property tainted by a past confiscation.”

Past presidents had suspended enforcement of the law, but President Trump allowed such claims to go forward.

That change in policy exposed “traffickers in confiscated property of United States nationals” to brings claims in federal courts, Thomas said.

The four cruise line companies — Caribbean Cruises, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Carnival Corporation, and MSC Cruises — transported nearly a million paid passengers to Cuba, he wrote.

They paid the Cuban government tens of millions of dollars to do business in Cuba. They collectively earned hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from voyages that included a stop in Havana, he said.

A federal judge in Florida ordered each of the cruise lines to pay $100 million in damages, but the U.S. appeals court in Atlanta blocked the decision by a 2-1 vote. It said Havana Docks Corporation had a contract to run the docks had expired in 2004.

Justice Elena Kagan made the same argument in dissent.

She said “the docks belonged to the Cuban Government — not Havana Docks — all along. What Havana Docks owned was only a property interest allowing it to use those docks for a specified time. And that time-limited interest expired in 2004 — more than a decade before the cruise lines ever used the docks.”

Still pending before the court is a similar claim from Exxon Mobil Corp., which was argued on the day in late February.

NEW YORK — Kamala Harris “wrote off rural America” during the 2024 presidential campaign and failed to attack Donald Trump with sufficient “negative firepower,” according to a long-awaited post-election autopsy released on Thursday by the Democratic National Committee.

The committee’s chair, Ken Martin, shared the 192-page report only after facing intense internal pressure from frustrated Democratic operatives concerned with his leadership. Martin had originally promised to release the autopsy, only to keep it under wraps for months because he was concerned it would be a distraction ahead of the midterms as Democrats mobilize to take back control of Congress.

On Tuesday, Martin apologized for his handling of the situation and conceded that the report was withheld because it “was not ready for primetime.”

Although the autopsy criticizes Democrats’ focus on “identity politics,” it sidesteps some of the most controversial elements of the 2024 campaign. The report does not address former President Joe Biden’s decision to seek reelection, the rushed selection of Harris to replace him on the ticket or the party’s acrimonious divide over the war in Gaza.

“I am not proud of this product; it does not meet my standards, and it won’t meet your standards,” Martin wrote in an essay on Substack on Thursday. “I don’t endorse what’s in this report, or what’s left out of it. I could not in good faith put the DNC’s stamp of approval on it. But transparency is paramount.”

A spokesperson for Harris did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The initial reaction from Democratic operatives was a mix of bafflement and anger over Martin’s handling of the situation.

“Why not say this in 2024, or bring in more people to finish it, instead of turning this into the dumbest media cycle for 7-8 months?” Democratic strategist Steve Schale wrote on social media.

Report says Democrats don’t ‘listen to all voters’

The postelection report, which was authored by Democratic consultant Paul Rivera, calls for “a renewed focus on the voters of Middle America and the South, who have come to believe they are not included in the Democratic vision of a stronger and more dynamic America for everyone.”

“Millions of Americans are suffering from poor access to healthcare, manufacturing and job losses, and a failing infrastructure, yet continue to be persuaded to vote against their best interests because they do not see themselves reflected in the America of the Democratic Party,” the report says.

The autopsy points to a reduction in support and training for Democratic state parties, voter registration shifts and “a persistent inability or unwillingness to listen to all voters.”

Thursday’s release comes as Martin confronts a crisis of confidence among party officials who are increasingly concerned about the health of their political machine barely a year into his term. Some Democratic operatives have had informal discussions about recruiting a new chair, even though most believe that Martin’s job wasn’t in serious jeopardy ahead of the midterm elections.

Were Democrats too nice?

The report found that Harris and her allies failed to focus enough on Trump’s negatives, especially his felony convictions. This was part of a broader criticism that Democrats’ messaging is too focused on reason and winning arguments, “even in cycles when the electorate is defined by rage.”

“There was a decision in the 2024 Democratic leadership not to engage in negative advertising at the scale required,” the report states. “The Trump campaign and supportive Super PACs went full throttle against Vice President Harris, but there was not sufficient or similar negative firepower directed at Trump by Democrats.”

The report continues: “It was essential to prosecute a more effective case as to why Trump should have been disqualified from ever again taking office. The grounds were there, but the messaging did not make the case.”

Trump’s attack on Harris’ transgender policies were cited as a key contrast.

Specifically, the report suggested the Democratic nominee was “boxed” in by the Trump campaign’s “very effective” ad that highlighted Harris’ previous statement of support for taxpayer-funded gender-affirming surgeries for prison inmates.

Democratic pollsters believed that “if the Vice President would not change her position – and she did not – then there was nothing which would have worked as a response,” the report said.

‘The math doesn’t work’

The report criticized Harris’ outreach to key segments of America while condemning the party’s focus on “identity politics.”

“Harris wrote off rural America, assuming urban/suburban margins would compensate. The math doesn’t work,” the report says. “You can’t lose rural areas by overwhelming margins and make it up elsewhere when rural voters are a significant share of the electorate. If Democrats are to reclaim leadership in the Heartland or the South, candidates must perform well in rural turf. Show up, listen, and then do it again.”

The report also references Democrats’ underperformance with male voters of color.

“Male voters require direct engagement. The gender gap can be narrowed. Deploy male messengers, address economic concerns, and don’t assume identity politics will hold male voters of color,” it says.

Peoples writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts on Thursday approved the design for the triumphal arch that President Trump wants built at an entrance to the nation’s capital.

Commissioners, all of whom were appointed by Trump, approved the design despite overwhelming opposition from the public. Approval is a key step in the project’s process.

The proposed arch is one of several projects the Republican president is pursuing alongside a White House ballroom to leave his imprint on Washington.

He has said some of his other projects, such as adding a blue coating to the interior of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, will beautify the city in time for July 4 celebrations of America’s 250th birthday.

The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts approved the concept for the arch at its monthly meeting in April.

As presented to the federal agency, the arch itself would stand 250 feet tall from its base to a torch held aloft by a Lady Liberty-like figure on top of the structure. The statue would be flanked on top by two eagles and guarded at the base by four lions — all gilded. The phrases “One Nation Under God” and “Liberty and Justice for All” would be inscribed in gold lettering atop either side of the monument.

A public observation deck on top would provide 360-degree views of the surroundings.

The commission’s vice chairman, architect James McCrery II, said in April that he preferred the arch without the figures on top. Removing them would significantly reduce the arch’s height by about 80 feet. Critics of the project, including an overwhelming number of people who submitted public comment in April, said the arch would be taller than any other monument in the capital city and dominate the skyline.

At a height of 250 feet, the arch would dwarf the Lincoln Memorial, which is 99 feet tall, and be close to half the height of the Washington Monument, an obelisk that is about 555 feet tall.

McCrery also recommended that the lions on the base be removed because that animal is “not a beast natural to the North American continent.” And he objected to plans for an underground tunnel for pedestrians to get to the arch, which would be built on a traffic circle between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia.

Preliminary surveys and testing of the site began last week.

A group of veterans and a historian have sued the Trump administration in federal court to block construction on grounds that the arch would disrupt the sightline between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House at Arlington National Cemetery, among other reasons.

Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum have argued that Washington is the only major Western world capital without such an arch. Burgum’s department includes the National Park Service, which manages the plot where Trump wants to put the arch.

Trump’s rehab of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool is also the subject of a court challenge brought by the Cultural Landscape Foundation, which said the administration’s moves to repaint the bottom of the Reflecting Pool blue without first undergoing relevant reviews ran afoul of federal preservation laws governing historic sites.

The nonprofit group argued in a lawsuit filed last week that the changes at the Reflecting Pool are part of Trump’s broader effort to push through dramatic renovations in Washington without proper reviews and undermine the tone of the area.

A hearing in the case was scheduled for Thursday afternoon in federal court in Washington.

Superville writes for the Associated Press.

Tuesday night, America voted in primary elections and the big winner was President Trump.

One after another, his enemies — and by that I mean anyone who has ever done anything other than grovel — were defeated in elections across the country.

Rep. Thomas Massie, the Kentucky Republican, was perhaps the most high-profile to go down in flames. Massie, you may recall, joined with his California Democratic colleague Ro Khanna to campaign for the release of the Epstein files, which made Trump big-mad since his name is in them a lot.

The Trump-endorsed candidate Ed Gallrein won instead.

“You are ruled by the Epstein class that cares nothing about you,” former Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, also a victim of Trump’s ire, posted on social media after Massie’s loss. “Tonight the future of the Republican Party was destroyed.”

But was it? Or is it simply now crystal clear that it is a party that will follow its leader, no matter the consequence — even personal ruin? And if Trump still wields this much power over his base, what does it mean for the November general election?

“Republicans are united behind President Trump,” RNC spokesperson Kiersten Pels told Politico. “While the media tries to manufacture division, Republicans remain focused on delivering results for the American people and building momentum heading into 2026.”

As much as I’d like to believe Greene has a point (I can’t believe I’m saying that), all signs instead indicate Pels is, at least mostly, right — the Republican party is alive and well, by Trump’s standards, anyway, and may be gaining momentum for a November none of us will ever forget.

Tuesday’s proof

Gallrein wasn’t the only Trump-backed Republican to win voter approval. Trump also saw his candidates win in places including Idaho, Pennsylvania, Alabama and Georgia.

And in Texas, Trump threw down another retribution bomb by endorsing state Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton over incumbent Sen. John Cornyn. That race will go to a runoff next week, with Paxton’s chances significantly boosted.

And in case there’s any doubt on why Trump is choosing his favorites, just check out his reasoning in his own social media post for that endorsement. Spoiler: It has nothing to do with the good of the country or even the Grand Old Party.

Paxton, Trump wrote, is “someone who has always been extremely loyal to me,” even trying to help Trump overturn the 2020 election results. Meanwhile, Cornyn “was not supportive of me when times were tough.”

So personal loyalty is the name of the game, and Republicans seem more than willing to play it.

Still, there has been some chatter that ousted lawmakers including Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, who just lost his primary to a Trump candidate, could gum up the works for Trump in their remaining months. Cassidy voted with Democrats this week on a war powers resolution to at least slow down Trump’s Iran offensive.

Personally, I wouldn’t bet on it. Recent polls have shown Trump’s approval ratings to be down in the dumps, but not with Republicans. They still love this guy.

A poll by Echelon Insights this week found that 74% of GOP voters view Trump favorably. That’s about the same percentage of people who love Costco and NASA, and who doesn’t love Costco and NASA?

Add to that a Wednesday poll from Quinnipiac University that found that while 64% of voters disapprove of the way Trump is handling the economy, 73% of Republicans actually approve — for real. They are OK with $6 gas and beef priced like gold.

Granted, that’s down from 88% of Republicans loving this economy a month ago, but still, three-quarters of Trump’s base backs this dumpster fire of financial mismanagement and looting.

In the same poll, 80% of respondents said congressional Republicans should be doing more to work with Trump, while 13% said they should be standing up to him.

Folks, Republicans are not turning away from this president — they are embracing not a party, but his one-man rule, and doing it with a big, warm bear hug.

Get to November

What does all that mean for the November election? Not a whole lot of good for Democrats, but I’ll start with one possible bright spot: Texas.

Yes, Texas — where, if Paxton does beat Cornyn, Democrats will do a happy dance. That’s because Paxton is seen as the more extreme candidate, plagued by scandal, and would be running against the increasingly popular everyman-preacher man James Talarico. If Talarico prevails, he would be the first Democratic to win a statewide office in the Lone Star state since the 1990s.

But on the national front, there is very little reason to believe any Republicans will break with Trump, as voters or candidates. That means it will come down to gerrymandering and independents, neither of which is especially hopeful for Democrats.

In the Echelon poll, 68% of independent voters said they believed the country was on the “wrong track,” with more than one-third citing the economy as their most important issue. The Quinnipiac poll found that only 26% of independent voters who responded approve of how Trump is handling the job of president.

But.

Both polls found independent voters also did not approve of the job Democrats are doing in Congress — almost three-quarters had a bad impression. Despite all of the middle-ground voter animus toward Trump and those he backs, Democrats apparently have done almost nothing to capitalize on it.

The takeaway is that the voters who will decide November — at least in the remaining places where maps are not rigged — really don’t like any of their choices, and may just hold their noses and vote for whoever seems least-worst.

If he finds a way to bring prices down, that could be Trump‘s GOP.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Trump’s Spring Revenge Tour Routed G.O.P. Foes. But Fall Headwinds Loom.
The deep dive: A gray wolf has entered Sequoia National Park for the first time in a century
The L.A. Times Special: San Diego attackers’ hate manifesto targeted many groups, sought ‘destruction of political system,’ sources say

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

As plenty of Californians remain undecided about the gubernatorial primary’s unsettled Democratic field, some are waiting to cast their ballots, creating the potential for a slower vote count or a longer wait to find out the winners.

Though the landscape could change quickly if Democrats coalesce around a single candidate within the next several days — signs of which were emerging this week — for now, many Democratic-leaning voters appear to be waiting for new developments before making their final decisions, political analysts say.

“This has been a roller coaster of a race, and I think voters are waiting to see when the ride is going to end and cast a vote at that time,” said Steve Maviglio, a Democratic strategist.

A larger-than-usual number of people casting mail ballots on or close to election day could extend the ballot-counting process, said Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation. County election officials said they were prepared for that possibility. Early returns so far haven’t made it clear whether most voters will wait longer than usual to cast ballots.

Mike Sanchez, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles County registrar, said the county was “fully prepared” for the possibility of receiving “a significant number” of ballots returned close to or on election day, June 2.

“It is not uncommon in primary elections, particularly those with a large number of contests and candidates, for some voters to take additional time to review their ballots and hold onto them longer before returning them,” he said.

Californians who want to vote on or close to election day can vote in person or use a mail-ballot return option that doesn’t rely on the U.S. Postal Service to help speed the process and avoid the risk of a mail ballot arriving late, election officials said.

Hesitation by Democratic-leaning voters reflects the toll of a historically uncertain primary race for governor. The contest has been marked by the unusual lack of a clear Democratic front-runner and the party’s failure to line up behind a single candidate after former U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out in April.

Early concerns within the party that a split Democratic electorate could put two Republicans on the November ballot under the state’s top-two primary system also heightened the sense of stakes among left-leaning voters.

Those factors, combined with a large slate of candidates, voter confusion about how candidates’ platforms differ and a desire to choose the person “most likely to win” have made Democratic-leaning voters uncertain, said Christian Grose, director of the USC Democracy and Fair Elections Lab.

“There’s a little bit of, whoever’s in the lead some Democrats are choosing to vote for … but people don’t know who that person is,” Grose said, noting that “some of that [could start] to go away” as the race tightens.

An indication that Democrats are starting to consolidate around Xavier Becerra, the former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary, came Tuesday in a new survey released by the California Democratic Party. It showed Becerra with support from 21% of respondents, followed by billionaire Tom Steyer with 15%.

Republican-leaning voters appear to favor Steve Hilton, who had support from 22% of survey respondents. Republican Chad Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff, had 10%. Under California’s primary system, the top two vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of party.

Tallies from a handful of counties showed varying early turnout so far.

In San Francisco, a relatively small number of ballots have been returned, indicating that voters may be waiting, Michelle Parker, president of the city’s elections commission, said Tuesday. If people vote by mail close to election day — rather than voting in person or using a drop box — it could affect the speed of vote-counting, a possibility the city’s election staff is prepared for, she said.

“We’ll see how quickly they come in, but knowing what the news has been like and watching what the dynamic has been like across the state, I’m not surprised people are waiting,” Parker said, referring to the governor’s race.

In San Bernardino County, 5.6% of mail ballots had been returned as of Tuesday, a rate comparable with previous elections, Registrar of Voters Joani Finwall said. Election officials “strongly encourage” voters to cast ballots early using drop boxes or early voting locations, Finwall said.

In Orange County, by contrast, data so far indicate that voters are not waiting, the Registrar of Voters office said. More than 129,000 vote-by-mail ballots had been returned by the end of the day Monday, more than had been returned by the same time in the 2024 and 2022 primaries. Of those, a slightly higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats had voted.

If a large number of voters were to wait until June 2 to cast a mail ballot, the county would be able to efficiently process them, said Registrar of Voters Bob Page, noting that 90% of the county’s early vote-by-mail ballots were included in election night results in the 2024 presidential primary.

Voters should be prepared for the possibility that the gubernatorial results aren’t determined on election night, Grose said. One candidate could appear to be in the lead on election night and another could overtake them once all ballots are counted.

State election officials warned this month that some social media posts urging Democrats to vote “late” could be misinformation. Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office said it would look into such posts, one of which falsely attributed the message to historian Heather Cox Richardson.

Mail ballots must be postmarked on or before election day and arrive within seven days after the election; otherwise, they are considered late and not counted.

Rusty Hicks, chair of the California Democratic Party, acknowledged chatter around people holding onto their ballots but said the survey released Tuesday indicated voters are “beginning to move towards specific candidates.”

Even as Becerra and, to a lesser extent, Steyer rose in popularity, other Democrats saw support in the single digits in the poll, including former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, San José Mayor Matt Mahan and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

“This race isn’t over; we’ve certainly seen a lot of twists and turns to this point, but you do see some clear consolidation taking place for both Democrats and Republicans,” Hicks said on a call with reporters. “I’m not concerned about California Democrats having their voices heard.”

Still, the race’s surprises have taken a toll on voters, Grose said: Swalwell’s exit under a cloud of sexual assault allegations, along with a guilty plea to federal corruption charges by Becerra’s former longtime advisor, two videos that raised questions about the temperament of Porter and a lack of disclosure by influencers being paid to promote Steyer.

“There is some uncertainty among Democrats about, ‘Is there one more shoe to drop for someone?” Grose said. “That’s one reason people are holding onto their ballots.”

Voters who want to cast ballots later than May 26 should return their mail ballots at a voting site, county election office or drop box, rather than via the Postal Service, by 8 p.m. on June 2 or should vote in person, recommended Alexander, of the California Voter Foundation.

Because mail ballots require election officials to conduct signature verification, they take longer to count than in-person ballots. In addition, recent changes at the U.S. Postal Service have slowed mail service, creating a higher potential for mailed ballots to arrive late.

Alexander also urged voters to take advantage of Saturday in-person voting, available at county election offices statewide the weekend before election day, and other early voting options.

“I am very sympathetic with voters who want to take their time to make their decision in this very fluid election,” she said. “The important thing is to have a plan.”

California is facing a major vote in the days ahead — and no, it’s not who will be the next governor.

Regulators at the California Air Resources Board are set to decide on May 28 whether to approve the latest blueprint for limits on greenhouse gas emissions from major polluters through 2045, a program known as cap-and-invest. The update to the state’s signature climate program has Sacramento in a tizzy and seemingly no one is pleased with the proposal on the table.

California is one of a handful of states, and the first, to have an an enforceable annual limit on the emissions that change the climate.

After a January draft was criticized by both industry and lawmakers over concerns that capping emissions too much and too quickly would drive up already soaring energy costs, CARB went back to the drawing board and came up with the latest iteration, unveiled in April. But opponents now say the plan kowtows to oil and gas interests who are lobbying hard for concessions, citing an already unstable state and international energy market.

The program works by setting a limit on the greenhouse gases that industries can emit in California. Companies must obtain credits, or allowances, for every ton they release, with the total number of allowances declining over time, consistent with what scientists say actually addresses climate change. The auctions for unused allowances generate billions of dollars in revenue for the state each year that fund clean energy, clean water and other key climate programs.

This year’s original draft sought to remove 118 million allowances from the market by 2030, which it identified as the minimum that must be retired to meet the state’s ambitious climate goals. But the April revision upends that, instead creating a new pool of 118 million “compliance instruments” — defined as allowances or offset credits — above the cap that companies can earn if they invest in decarbonization projects.

Critics argue this first-of-its-kind mechanism, called the Manufacturing Decarbonization Incentive, effectively dismantles the program.

“The whole goal of the cap is to lower emissions over time,” said Mary Creasman, chief executive of the nonprofit California Environmental Voters. “To then allow pollution above the cap is kind of blowing up the program.”

CARB maintains that this change still cuts the emissions coming from California, because the new instruments enter the market only “if they’re applied for, are approved, and deliver verified greenhouse gas emissions reductions.” And the proposal still results in an 11% cap decline year over year through 2030, and 7% from 2031 to 2045, said spokeswoman Lindsay Buckley.

The move would also significantly reduce cap-and-invest’s revenue, according to an analysis from the Legislative Analyst’s Office. It found that the new plan would result in a loss of $2 billion, or roughly 50% less money per year for the state’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, than it has received through the program in recent years.

Many of the lawmakers who voted to reauthorize the program last year are also concerned. Nearly 30 Democrats signed a recent letter urging the air board to “push back on pressure from an oil industry that is making hundreds of billions in wartime profits.”

The fossil fuel industry has indeed lobbied heavily against requirements that it pollute less, spending a record $10.3 million in the first quarter of this year to influence state policy around cap-and-invest and other climate and energy issues, state records show. Among them are the Western States Petroleum Assn., Chevron and Phillips 66, which have argued that lowering the pollution cap will drive up gasoline prices and push more refineries out of the state.

But even they are not thrilled with the latest iteration of the cap-and-invest plan.

“We need to continue to be competitive with other refineries throughout the world, and while there are some very short-term changes within the [revised package], it still doesn’t have the long-term certainty that will drive investment,” said Jodie Muller, WSPA’s chief executive. Muller said she’d like to see the new decarbonization incentive program extended beyond 2030 and eligibility expanded to include additional activities, such as refinery maintenance programs.

“It’s important that we get this right,” she said.

More California climate news

Gov. Gavin Newsom recently unveiled his revised $350-billion budget proposal, which came with an unexpected $16.8-billion increase in tax revenue largely attributed to the success of artificial intelligence companies. Among the plan’s big wins and losses are boosted funding for public schools and higher health premiums for undocumented immigrants.

On the environment, the plan broadly maintains funding and policy support for climate commitments, such as a $200-million incentive program for passenger electric vehicles designed to make up for federal tax credits canceled by the Trump administration. It also includes a new $100-million disaster rebuilding fund to help wildfire survivors rebuild their homes.

But the plan does not include major new spending on the environment, in part due to the ongoing restructuring of cap-and-invest, the state’s main climate funding source. Some environmental groups said the revised budget doesn’t do enough to support California’s clean energy transition or hold oil and gas companies accountable for their role in the climate crisis.

Katelyn Roedner Sutter of the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund urged lawmakers to prioritize proven climate investments in the final budget agreement, such as virtual power plants and incentives for zero-emission delivery trucks. “The actions we take over the next decade are vital to preventing the worst possible scenarios for our kids’ future,” she said.

A few more things

Speaking of the governor’s race, California Resources Corp., one of the state’s top oil producers, just made a hefty $500,000 contribution to an independent campaign committee supporting leading Democratic candidate Xavier Becerra, Politico reported. Becerra has already been criticized for accepting a $39,200 donation from Chevron, while opponents Tom Steyer and Katie Porter have both pledged not to accept contributions from fossil fuel companies.

Fervo Energy, a Houston-based geothermal developer with a major Google project in Utah, raised $1.89 billion in an initial public offering this month. The company’s $7.7-billion valuation signals growing investor appetite for energy companies amid soaring demand for electricity fueled by the growth of AI, the Wall Street Journal said. Geothermal technology taps into pockets of steam and hot water rising from the center of the earth, which is then used to spin turbines to generate power.

Los Angeles is gearing up for its role as a host city of the 2026 World Cup, which will be held in 16 stadiums across Canada, the U.S. and Mexico beginning in mid-June. But experts told my colleague Blanca Begert that the tournament’s expansion will make it “the most emissions-intensive World Cup that we’ve ever seen,” in part because fans and players will have to traverse the three countries to watch the games. Jet exhaust is a major contributor to climate change, representing 3% to 4% of all warming. It is the second of our stories examining the environmental implications of the coming World Cup.

A year ago, David Ellison was viewed as a white knight poised to save Paramount.

Hollywood embraced billionaire Larry Ellison’s son, figuring he had the means and the mettle to revive the faded studio after decades of neglect.

But now, as the 43-year-old tech scion works to close his $111-billion deal to buy Warner Bros. Discovery — which would mark his second major studio acquisition in less than a year — a large swath of Hollywood has soured on the budding mogul and his audacious bid to build a new media colossus.

More than 5,000 artists and industry workers — including J.J. Abrams, Javier Bardem, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Kevin Bacon and Tiffany Haddish — have signed an open letter opposing the union of two century-old studios.

“Our industry is already under severe strain,” the group wrote.

Many anticipate the U.S. Justice Department will rubber-stamp the deal because President Trump is friendly with Larry Ellison, co-founder of software giant Oracle. Trump and his team want David Ellison to make sweeping changes at CNN, one of Warner Bros. Discovery’s premier properties.

David Ellison has spent the last year courting the president and his allies, including hosting a black-tie gala to honor Trump and attending state dinners and the president’s State of the Union address.

Ellison’s perceived coziness with the administration, along with controversial changes at CBS, has sullied his reputation in a town where image is everything.

Should the merger clear its regulatory hurdles, the Ellison family would control CNN and CBS News in addition to holding a significant stake in TikTok, the hugely influential social media app.

“When power is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the stories that get told and the livelihoods of the people who tell them become hostage to whoever that power serves,” Jane Fonda, the Oscar-winning actor who is helping lead the opposition, told The Times. “We are not going quietly.”

Paramount declined to comment. Ellison previously has pushed back on fears that Paramount’s takeover of Warner Bros. would be bad for Hollywood. Instead, Ellison envisions building a stronger company to boost the industry, including movie theaters.

If the Warner Bros. Discovery deal is finalized, Ellison would control two legendary news organizations and two iconic studios. His determined White House outreach to speed approval of the Warner Bros. deal has aroused deep suspicion among many in Hollywood, which has long been considered a liberal bastion.

“They got too close to Trump,” said Norm Eisen, executive chairman of Democracy Defenders Fund, one of the groups coordinating the opposition campaign. “People in Hollywood are concerned that the Ellisons are going to do to CNN what they did to CBS.”

One of Ellison’s first moves after taking over Paramount was to hire journalist Bari Weiss, who had no TV news experience, as CBS News editor-in-chief. Weiss, who built her reputation being a contrarian voice, along with her recently installed evening news anchor Tony Dokoupil got off to a rocky start.

During his inaugural week, Dokoupil awkwardly saluted Secretary of State Marco Rubio (a fellow Floridian). “CBS Evening News” viewership fell 9% this season. The program, which attracts 4.1 million viewers, musters less than half the audience for ABC’s “World News Tonight with David Muir.”

Ellison is aiming to get his deal done by September.

“The projected merger timeline would have Ellison in control of CNN before November,” Fonda said, noting the high stakes this fall because the midterm elections will decide control of Congress.

“If this merger goes ahead, the administration will have yet another lever to cast doubt on results it does not like,” Fonda said. “This is about corruption, not optics.”

Her group has urged California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to file a lawsuit to try to block the merger. Bonta has said his team is reviewing potential antitrust concerns with the deal, which he said has “red flags everywhere.”

Some in Hollywood favor Ellison’s takeover, saying it would lift two middling players to create more robust competition to Netflix, Disney and Amazon.

“This deal will set up an environment where we will have four competitive streaming services, and that’s a good thing for the creative community,” said Ari Emanuel, executive chairman of WME Group and Ellison’s agent.

Ellison is pressing ahead, working to secure government approvals in Britain, Europe and the U.S. Prominent Democrats in Congress have decried the deal and Ellison’s proposed ownership structure, which would include the royal families of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi as significant, but passive, investors.

Paramount leaders have tried to keep their heads down by focusing on their businesses. This year, the company has signed deals with Kim Kardashian, Neil Patrick Harris, Tituss Burgess and Kinetic Content, the reality TV firm behind Netflix’s “Love Is Blind.”

Hollywood opposition

But the “block the merger” campaign has picked up prominent Paramount and Warner Bros. talent, including Oscar-winning filmmaker Adam McKay (“The Big Short”); “South Park” co-creator Trey Parker; and Emmy Award-winning actors Noah Wyle (“The Pitt”) and Mark Ruffalo, a stalwart of critically acclaimed HBO productions, including “Task.”

Some filmmakers have privately discussed whether to steer clear of Paramount, according to people knowledgeable of the discussions who were not authorized to comment. Taylor Sheridan, the prolific producer behind “Yellowstone” and “Landman,” last fall opted to switch teams. He eventually will make new shows for NBCUniversal instead of Paramount.

CBS late-night host Stephen Colbert’s sign-off Thursday night has added to the hand-wringing.

Colbert learned he was getting the boot in July, two days after he called Paramount’s $16-million settlement with Trump “a big fat bribe” during a show monologue. Paramount had agreed to pay the money to end Trump’s lawsuit over edits to a “60 Minutes” interview, a payout blasted by 1st Amendment advocates who viewed the Trump suit as frivolous.

Paramount settled because it needed Federal Communications Commission approval as part of its sale to the Ellison-owned Skydance Media. Paramount’s CBS has blamed declining revenues for its decision to oust Colbert, which came just before Ellison officially took the keys to Paramount.

This week, for the first time in 18 years, CBS will fall short of claiming the largest live audience in broadcast TV. NBC snagged the ratings crown, thanks to its sports-heavy lineup, prompting NBC late-night comedian Seth Meyers to crow about his network’s victory.

“We have taken down CBS,” Meyers told advertising buyers last week in New York. “Well, the Ellisons did, but I like to think we helped.”

Ellison’s supporters view the anti-merger campaign as politically motivated.

“So much of the criticism and negative sentiment originates from [Ellison’s] apparent relationship with Trump,” said one observer who was not authorized to speak publicly about the topic.

But interviews with numerous industry insiders reveal that concerns over Paramount’s proposed purchase of Warner go well beyond anti-Trump sentiment — or worries about CNN’s future.

The merger comes during an existential crisis for the industry, and for Los Angeles, as the shift to streaming has upended established business models.

“Whether it’s Ellison, Amazon, Apple or Netflix, these are essentially tech companies that are gaining increasing control over what has been a cultural and entertainment sector,” said Dominic Asmall Willsdon, executive director of the International Documentary Assn.

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Apple’s outgoing Chief Executive Tim Cook also have openly embraced Trump, which some see as a pragmatic move to curry favor in Washington to advance their sprawling businesses, which include film and TV operations in Culver City.

Much of the angst over the Ellison deal is driven by economic uncertainty. L.A.’s film industry has been decimated by a flight of production to other locations.

“L.A. has already had a taste of things to come,” Eisen said. “There’s less competition so the artists get hurt, and so do the working people who have long been an integral part of Hollywood.”

A combined Warner-Paramount would instantly become the largest employer for union writers, said Michele Mulroney, president of the Writers Guild of America West. It would control HBO, CBS, CNN, Comedy Central, HGTV, Animal Planet and two of the largest film and television studios.

“This media behemoth would have enormous leverage to reduce content, raise prices, increase control of production, suppress our members’ compensation and silence the voices of our members,” Mulroney said.

Jessica J. González, the L.A.-based co-chief executive of the 1st Amendment group Free Press, said: “This isn’t just about David Ellison. It’s about what David Ellison did with his last merger and how he uses his power.”

Ellison’s wealth and privilege have also fueled resentment among the rank and file who are struggling amid America’s growing economic disparity. Said one veteran executive: “We’re living in a new gilded age.”

For many, the prospect of more job losses is most unsettling.

Ellison and his team have vowed to make $6 billion in cuts following the merger. Those cuts are expected to include sizable layoffs on top of nearly 2,000 in job cuts at Paramount since last fall.

Hollywood has a troubled track record with mergers, including two failed takeovers of Warner Bros.

AT&T misfired with its 2018 acquisition of Time Warner, and within four years, the phone company had unloaded the firm to David Zaslav’s smaller Discovery. That transaction saddled Warner with more than $50 billion in debt, and Zaslav and his team laid off thousands of workers and cut dozens of projects to dramatically reduce the company’s debt and keep the company solvent.

Walt Disney Co.’s $72-billion acquisition of much of Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox in 2019 led to thousands of layoffs as one of the industry’s original studios all but disappeared.

“We have seen from that merger the earnings and employment numbers for screenwriters significantly reduced,” Mulroney said.

Emanuel, the power agent, pointed to Ellison’s commitment to keep the Warner and Paramount studios largely intact, with each entity releasing about 15 films into theaters each year.

“He’s going to be making a minimum of 30 movies a year for theatrical release plus content for both their own and other platforms because that’s the only way to generate revenue,” Emanuel said.

Still, critics question whether Ellison will be able to keep his commitment due to the $79-billion debt load he will take on.

“I’m sure [Ellison’s] intentions are genuine,” Mulroney said. “But a promise like that’s not enforceable, and there are no consequences if you don’t meet the quota that you’ve set for yourself.”

On Wednesday, S&P Global Ratings agency said Paramount Skydance will remain on a negative credit watch due to balance sheet concerns.

S&P also cited worries about Ellison’s prospects “given the immensely complicated endeavor of combining two of the largest global media companies and the limited track record of PSKY’s management team in integrating and transforming such companies.”

Emanuel and others say Ellison’s image won’t suffer long-term damage.

The two sides, he predicts, will eventually work together.

“Here’s a guy who’s willing to put a lot of money on the line and take huge risks to make our environment more competitive,” Emanuel said. “The one thing about David is that he’s not a vindictive person. He always does what’s best for the project.”

President Trump, it’s well known, is into gold. Every day brings new evidence that he’s thoroughly enjoying the “golden age” he pronounced in his inaugural address — as few other Americans are — with stock trades, crypto profiteering and much more, even a new taxpayer-financed slush fund to reward his allies.

As for me, I’ve gone into silver. That is, I constantly look for the silver linings in Trump’s heinous acts.

One silver lining, of course, is his cratering job-approval numbers in the polls, especially among the young and Latino voters who made his reelection possible. But here’s another: By his humiliating failure to bring Iran to heel, nearly three months after starting a war that he said would last weeks at most, Trump has brought new, more positive attention to what he again this week derided as “Barack Hussein Obama’s Iran nuclear deal.” (The emphasis on “Hussein” is Trump’s, always.)

The president, along with his Republican cheerleaders, counts his first-term abrogation of the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as a signature achievement. This week, yet again, he falsely claimed that had he not done so, Iran would have a nuclear weapon. In fact, his action in 2018 taking the United States out of the multinational deal subsequently led to Iran’s rebuilding of its nuclear program, the emboldening of the Iranian hard-liners now in power and the Middle East morass in which the United States is now mired.

That quagmire has left Trump seeming desperate for a deal — almost certainly a worse deal than the one Obama struck. Call it JCPOA Lite.

If he were able to get Iran’s sign-off on the sort of detailed, restrictive agreement that Obama and other world leaders won 11 years ago, he’d be trumpeting himself as the world’s greatest dealmaker. (He does that anyway, but his record proves otherwise.) Instead, by his own failure to date, Trump has invited reconsideration of the very agreement he decried as the “worst deal ever” on his march to election and reelection.

No sooner was the 2015 deal signed than Trump and Republicans succeeded in defining it as a giveaway to Iran that assured, not hindered, its development of a nuclear weapon to threaten Israel and the world. Opponents condemned the agreement for not addressing Iran’s other threats, notably its support for militant proxies throughout the Mideast. Some Democrats, notably Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, were among the foes. Other Democrats, cowed by opposition to the agreement by Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli government and pro-Israel lobbyists, were all but mute in the pact’s defense.

Now some Democrats are belatedly finding their voice (and, post-Gaza, some willingness to defy Israel). Along with nonpartisan experts, those Democrats are drawing comparisons between the 2015 agreement, flawed yet successful, and Trump’s promised yet ever-elusive alternative. What’s ironic for Israel and Netanyahu, still implacably against negotiating with Tehran, is that they could end up, under Trump, with a nuclear deal that gives Iran more leeway than the hated JCPOA did.

As Americans are being reminded, the 2015 deal wasn’t just between Iran and Obama, as Trump has long suggested; other signatories were China, Russia, Britain, France, Germany and the 27-nation European Union. Reconstituting that group would be all but impossible today.

The pact’s 159 highly technical pages and five appendices — a far cry from the short-lived one-pager that Trump officials teased earlier this month — required Iran for 15 years to limit its nuclear program to civilian purposes, forfeit more than 97% of its enriched uranium and submit to intrusive monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure compliance. In return, Iran gradually got relief from some, but not all, international economic sanctions and access to Iranian funds that were frozen after the 1979 Islamic revolution. Presumably, after 15 years, the agreement would have been extended somehow.

By all accounts, including those of Trump’s first-term intelligence and national security officials, Iran was complying when he abandoned the deal. Its “breakout time” for building a nuclear weapon was about a year — time enough for the world to intervene — instead of two to three months. Now, though the president boasts he barred Iran from having that weapon by breaking the Iran nuclear deal, he incessantly tells Americans that he went to war against Iran on Feb. 28 because it was on the brink of a bomb — never mind that he also said he had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program last summer, a program that was in a well-monitored box until he first took office.

If you’re confused, you’re paying attention.

A month ago, Trump posted online that he was close to a deal “FAR BETTER” than the 2015 accord. “I am under no pressure whatsoever, ⁠although, it will all happen, relatively quickly!” To several reporters, he suggested he in fact had a deal and that Iran had agreed both to suspend its nuclear activities and to forfeit all of its enriched, near-weapons-grade uranium.

Preposterous claims, given Iran’s current government, and Tehran promptly denied them. It was a sign of Trump’s squandered credibility that few, if anyone, believed him in the first place. Nor have folks believed his more recent talk of imminent success; oil markets, too, have learned not to trust the president, as prices at the pumps attest.

On Tuesday at the White House, amid a noisy tour of the billion-dollar-ballroom construction site, Trump told reporters he’d been “an hour away” from striking Iran again that very day but Mideast leaders asked for more time for negotiations.

Don’t hold your breath.

But for the tragic consequences, Obama might be enjoying some justifiable schadenfreude about Trump’s travails.

“We pulled it off without firing a missile. We got 97% of the enriched uranium out,” he told Stephen Colbert in an interview last week. Both U.S. and Israeli intelligence agreed that Iran was abiding by the nuclear limits, Obama added, “and we didn’t have to kill a whole bunch of people or shut down the Strait of Hormuz.”

That sure doesn’t sound like the “worst deal ever.” It wasn’t.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

BEIRUT, Lebanon, May 21 (UPI) — Lebanon took a gamble by engaging in direct negotiations with Israel that opened the door to security and political talks. Yet, that failed to stop the fighting despite a 45-day extension of a cease-fire.

The U.S.-brokered talks emerged as Lebanon’s last resort to end the raging war between Israel and Hezbollah that broke out when the Iran-backed militant group opened a support front for Gaza on Oct. 8, 2023.

A first cease-fire was achieved Nov. 27, 2024, but it failed to restrain Israel, prompting Hezbollah to resume fighting March 2 after 15 months of inactivity as it regrouped from heavy losses.

A second cease-fire, reached April 16, was extended for 45 days Friday during the third round of Lebanon-Israel negotiations in Washington.

The new truce did not take effect on the ground, as Israel and Hezbollah continued to clash, while talks in Washington were set to proceed under fire.

Israel continued to focus largely on southern Lebanon, carrying out airstrikes and expanding its ground operations, while Hezbollah maintained its fighting with new tactics that involved fiber-optic drones and small first-person-view systems.

Riad Kahwaji, a Middle East security analyst, said the extended cease-fire does not cover areas in which Hezbollah is active, especially southern Lebanon, but applies to Beirut and other parts of Lebanon.

“It is obvious that this is being done under the pretext of allowing Israel to retain its right to act against threats from Hezbollah,” Kahwaji said.

The latest casualty count released by the Lebanese Health Ministry on Wednesday showed that 3,073 people have been killed and 9,362 wounded since March 2.

Despite Hezbollah’s rejection of direct negotiations and its insistence on maintaining its anti-Israel resistance, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun remained committed to continuing the Washington talks.

“We are proceeding with this process because there is no other option. We are betting on the U.S. to help more,” a Lebanese official source told UPI.

The source said that the U.S. officials have been showing “understanding” of Lebanon’s position, but it is yet to be seen if “they would force Israel to abide by the cease-fire and withdraw” from southern Lebanon.

Lebanon — while not ready to conclude a peace agreement or normalize ties with Israel — engaged in the negotiations with five demands: consolidate the cease-fire, secure Israel’s withdrawal from occupied Lebanese territories, obtain release of Lebanese prisoners captured during the war, enable return of displaced people to their homes and villages, and initiate reconstruction.

Lebanese and Israeli military delegations are to meet on May 29 at the Pentagon in Washington in a “security track” aimed at, as the U.S. State Department put it, “meaningfully improving communication and coordination” between the two countries under U.S. facilitation.

While Lebanon prepares its military delegation, that meeting is expected to focus on enforcing and maintaining the cease-fire through structured military coordination.

According to Lebanese retired Maj. Gen. Abdul Rahman Chehaitli, the 45-day extension of the truce was a “window of time” for Israel to end or stop its military operations and for Lebanon to build confidence in its capacity to carry out its mission in southern Lebanon.

Supporting and equipping the Lebanese Army will be part of the discussions, aimed at enabling its forces to deploy and take control of southern Lebanon following any eventual Israeli withdrawal.

“All military operations should then stop completely for the Lebanese Army to begin deploying,” Chehaitli told UPI.

In addition to creating conditions for an Israeli withdrawal, the issue of Hezbollah’s disarmament would be on the table.

Kahwaji noted that Israel and Lebanon are heading into the Pentagon meeting with their own expectations and objectives.

“Lebanon wants the army to be strengthened, but there is so far no intention to forcibly disarm Hezbollah,” he said, adding that the United States and Israel expect the Lebanese Army to handle disarmament and security in southern Lebanon once properly equipped.

If an agreement is reached, the disarmament process would not succeed without Hezbollah’s consent and cooperation.

“Hezbollah would have to inform the army of all the locations where its weapons and missiles are hidden. That would require a decision by Hezbollah’s leadership, as these are secret locations not known to many.” Chehaitli said. “If this happens, we could then say that the war in Lebanon is over.”

However, the final word remains with Iran, which has heavily financed and armed Hezbollah since its establishment in the early 1980s.

“The key is in Iran’s hands. Ending the war and Iran’s military investment in Lebanon is the necessary entry point for the negotiations,” Chehaitli said.

While Lebanon seeks to break free from Iran and has opted for U.S.-brokered direct negotiations with Israel, it is working to revive the 1949 Armistice Treaty as a basis for ending hostilities in the upcoming political track expected in early June.

According to the official source, the plan is an “Armistice Treaty Plus” with some modifications — a feasible objective that would end the state of war between the two countries and resolve their border disputes.

“The Armistice Treaty is fully valid but requires some geographical and military amendments, which are easily addressed,” said Chehaitli, who is the author of The Lebanese Land and Maritime Borders: A Historical, Geographical and Political Study.

“It is either the solution or the gateway to a solution and could be sufficient to prevent any future war.”

He said military observers from the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization — placed under the operational command of the U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, or UNIFIL, after the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war — would resume their primary role of observing ceasefires and supervising armistice agreements.

UNIFIL’s mandate is set to expire in January.

Such an agreement to end the war would “keep the door open for a future peace deal that could involve political and economic relations,” Kahwaji argued.

That would largely depend on Israel’s acceptance and on the U.S. acting as guarantor.

“But the U.S. has not always been an honest broker, and will always side with Israel,” Kahwaji said.

At Jimmy Kimmel’s annual monologue to advertisers at Disney’s recent upfront presentation, the ABC late-night host offered sympathy to his ousted CBS cohort Stephen Colbert.

“First, it’s bad enough to lose your job,” Kimmel said. “Imagine getting replaced by the owner of the Weather Channel.”

Byron Allen, the media mogul whose holdings do include the Weather Channel, laughed when the gag was repeated to him during a recent phone conversation. “I like Jimmy Kimmel a lot,” he said.

Allen, never lacking in self-confidence, can afford to roll with the jokes. Episodes of his 20-year-old syndicated program “Comics Unleashed,” a half-hour show featuring mostly lesser-known stand-ups sharing routines and stories, are replacing “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” on CBS in the 11:35 p.m. time period starting Friday.

While it’s a triumph for Allen, 65, it’s also a sign of how the traditional late-night talk show — one of television’s most culturally influential formats — may no longer be sustainable in the era of streaming TV.

CBS said last year it canceled Colbert because it lost $40 million a year as the late-night viewing habit among audiences has eroded in the streaming era. Many in the TV industry are skeptical of the claim, believing Skydance Media wanted to silence the relentless Trump-bashing host in order to clear the government regulatory path for its acquisition of network parent Paramount. (The FCC’s approval of the deal came days after the cancellation was announced.)

Cedric the Entertainer, left, with Byron Allen on the set of “Comics Unleashed.”

(Allen Media Group)

But no one who has worked in late-night television in recent years can dispute how financial challenges are clouding the format’s future. Polished after-hours programs with a live audience, large teams of writers and producers and high-priced hosts are fighting off obsolescence as traditional TV audiences get smaller and ad revenues shrink. While CBS is the first to act, other networks have thought about getting out of the business altogether.

Since 2022, “The Late Show” lost 20% of its audience in the advertiser-coveted 18-to-49 age group, according to Nielsen data. Ad spending on all late-night television shows hit $209 million in 2025, down from $519.7 million in 2017, according to data from Guideline.

“Nothing is forever, especially in television,” said former network executive Ted Harbert, who oversaw the launches of “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,” and “Late Night with Seth Meyers” at NBC. “Digital tech is killing late night.”

The hosts of the programs and their funniest bits are arguably seen by more people than ever before thanks to clips replayed on social media platforms. But the revenue generated by digital viewing doesn’t approach what the networks get for audiences watching live on TV.

Over the last 10 years, late-night shows flocked to YouTube as a way to be a part of the national conversation and bring attention to the shows. Harbert believes the notion that the clips alone — which may feature a funny bit or a snapshot of a conversation with a guest — would help lure viewers to traditional TV was folly.

“The shows cannibalized themselves by making their show available in snack-size clips after the network airing,” he said. “And viewers obviously would rather watch a couple of five-minute clips than a whole show.”

Late-night shows were once among the most profitable programs on TV because of their ability to reach viewers in the 18-to-34 age group that attract premium prices for commercial time. But the same demographic was the first to gravitate to streaming platforms and abandon traditional TV which thrives on appointment viewing.

Daniel Kellison, a former producer for “Jimmy Kimmel Live” and “The Late Show with David Letterman,” noted that Kimmel — who has also been targeted by the Trump administration for his harsh barbs — has seen his TV ratings increase this year.

But the overall trend for the time period is still down. While Kellison believes Colbert’s cancellation is an effort by CBS to appease Trump, he agrees that the genre needs to evolve and adapt to the changing media landscape.

“There’s always going to be an audience for conversation around politics and life and these sort of shows will exist in different formats and I think it’s incumbent upon people to figure out how to present them,” he said.

CBS executives have said they want to develop a new network show in the late-night time period. But for the next year it will lease the slot to Allen. His company Allen Media Group pays CBS for the time, covers the cost of production and sells the advertising. He is also the host. The deal will erase whatever losses the network experienced in that TV block.

“Comics Unleashed” has been running in the 12:35 a.m. hour since CBS canceled “After Midnight” last year. When that show moves to the earlier time slot, it will be replaced by another Allen program, “Funny You Should Ask,” a comic quiz show hosted by John Kelley.

Allen said he has great respect for the late-night TV tradition. His mother was a tour guide at NBC in Burbank and he was able to hang out on the studio lot to watch Johnny Carson tape “Tonight.” Allen would get advice from Carson, whom he calls his hero and mentor, and eventually got a shot at doing stand-up on “Tonight” when he was 18 years old.

Allen even asked CBS to move the start date of “Comics Unleashed” to May 22 because it is the anniversary of Carson’s final show in 1992. But his sentimentality ends when it comes to the economics of programming in that time slot.

“We will be in profit,” Allen said of “Comics Unleashed,” which according to Nielsen has seen its audience grow in the 12:35 a.m. time slot by 26% since October.

Kimmel has accused CBS of dumping Colbert for “Comics Unleashed” because Allen’s show doesn’t partake in political humor that could alienate the White House as Skydance moves to close its next acquisition: Warner Bros. Discovery.

“I feel like CBS is turning 11:35 p.m. into a ‘least’ time slot,” Kimmel said at the Disney presentation. “Least as in least likely to offend the president with the rerun of ‘Comics Unleashed’ from 2007 featuring Paula Poundstone and Andy Dick.”

Poundstone and Dick are not among the 1,000 comedians who have appeared on “Comics Unleashed” over the years, many of whom went on to become stars. But not having the program dabble in political humor is a business decision.

The guests stick to storytelling and slice-of-life material that doesn’t date, which is why the episodes can attract an audience years after being taped. They don’t plug books, movies, concerts or any other elements that would be dated by future airings.

“Twenty years ago when we shot our first episode I said ‘we’re making it ‘I Love Lucy,’” Allen said. “I want these shows to be funny today and 20 years from today.”

Allen said his company will produce 130 new episodes of “Comics Unleashed” for the 2026-27 TV season.

But the reason the current set of late-night hosts leaned into politics so heavily in recent years is because it works.

When Colbert took over “The Late Show” from Letterman in 2015, the program’s ratings sputtered as the audience did not really know Colbert outside of the satirical figure he played on Comedy Central with his show “The Colbert Report.”

The night Trump scored his surprising win in the 2016 presidential race against Hillary Clinton, Kelly Kahl, then an executive vice president of CBS Entertainment, sent a text to Chris Licht, then executive producer of “The Late Show,” telling him it was “the best thing to happen to the show.”

Colbert found his voice on the program, which rose to No. 1 in the ratings and has been there ever since.

Bolivian President Rodrigo Paz has announced a cabinet reshuffle and other measures as protests demanding his resignation continue. Paz said the government wants to build a collaborative government with broader participation from social and economic groups.

“What’s black and white and read all over?” That is the setup for what used to be the first joke learned by most every American kid. These days, delivering the punch line would leave the kids bewildered. They might just say, “What’s a newspaper?”

In our new media age, that is not a question with an obvious answer. Ask the people in New Orleans who just found out their venerable Times-Picayune will no longer be available in print every day. Based in a city and state with a perennially high level of corruption and dysfunction, the Times-Picayune has been a powerful and admired community watchdog. The question is, will it be as effective with a smaller staff and just three days of print publication a week? And there is a bigger question, one that applies to the newspaper industry as a whole: Can printless watchdogs still have teeth?

Newspapers are different from most other businesses because one of their paramount functions is to provide a public service that may bring no monetary return and may not even interest most of their customers. In a democracy, someone needs to keep an eye on the elected officlals, bureaucrats, business leaders, lobbyists, police and assorted shysters who have the power to mess with people’s lives. Traditional newspapers, from the big city dailies to the small town weeklies, have always had reporters who make it their mission to protect the public interest. Often, they write important stories that few people read — coverage of state legislatures, for instance. But those being watched by the watchdogs read those stories and it tends to keep them honest.

In the past, newspapers were so profitable that, so it was said, any fool could get rich owning one. That made it fairly easy for a publisher to pay for investigative reporters, foreign correspondents and governmental news, the kind of work that is expensive, time-consuming and does not offer any obvious payback, other than a good reputation. But, with so many advertising dollars jumping to the Internet, the newspaper business model has crashed and newsroom cuts have hit everywhere. Often, the newspaper coverage that gets axed first is the stuff that appears to contribute the least to the bottom line. A glaring example is the way reporters in state capitals have become a vanishing breed.

Some think independent bloggers can pick up the slack. Yet, good as they may be, no blogger has the institutional weight of an established newspaper. A newspaper can take on the powers that be because it is one of those powers.

What about online newspapers? After all, it’s the information that matters, not the means of delivering the information. Politico is proving to be a powerful online source of news about national politics. The Huffington Post, though primarily opinion-driven, is a rich source of information. MSNBC.com does a decent job of aggregating and creating news reports.

The best online news is being done by the biggest newspapers — the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal. Of course, their online offering is largely a byproduct of reporting done for the print editions. Could the same quality be maintained if they were online only?

One answer to that can be found in the hometown of Microsoft and Amazon.com. Before moving to the L.A. Times, I had a long career at the Post-Intelligencer in Seattle. In 2009, after decades of winning awards and losing money, the Seattle P-I stopped print publication. About 150 talented journalists lost their jobs while 20 were kept on to reinvent the newspaper as a completely online endeavor. By some measures, seattlepi.com has been a success -– low operational costs and plenty of jazzy content — but it is not the comprehensive newspaper it once was. And lacking the institutional weight it once had, this all-electronic publication is no longer a serious player in community affairs.

Still, there is no going back. The future of the news business is online and I suspect it will come out just fine — as long as all involved can resist the ultimate temptation: becoming a “click whore.” For the uninitiated, that is anyone or any entity that will post any darn thing that draws lots of page views, or “clicks.” The problem here is not just the sort of “news” that is put online to chase clicks, it is the important news that is left out.

Sure, any fool can get a lot of page views by running photos of cute kittens, funny dogs, hot cheerleaders and bosomy models in bikinis. It might bring in a lot of money. It might be read all over.

But it would not be a newspaper.

The race for the 34th Congressional District in the core of Los Angeles was supposed to be a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. The two dozen hopefuls vying for a spot in the top-two primary were full of self-proclaimed fighters ready to oppose President Trump and establishment Democrats.

Instead, it’s shaping up to be a contest between the powerful group of Latinos who make up a majority of the district’s voters and the small but politically potent Korean American community, as Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez and former city planning Commissioner Robert Lee Ahn grabbed the runoff spots that will determine L.A.’s next member of Congress.

“This is really ethnic politics 101,” said Matt Barreto, a UCLA professor of political science who helps run the polling firm Latino Decisions.

Ahn, an attorney and a relative unknown in the crowded primary field, surprised many with a victory that vaulted him ahead of multiple Latino candidates in a district where more than half the voters are Latino. If elected in the June 6 runoff, he would be the only Korean American member of Congress and the first in nearly 20 years.

But it wasn’t surprising to anyone who studies the intricacies of identity politics in Los Angeles, or to those who had been paying attention to Ahn’s aggressive focus on Korean American voters.

Ahn’s campaign staff spent dozens of hours registering voters at malls and outside restaurants in Koreatown, signing up hundreds of new voters. Ahn made his pitch at multiple Korean churches in the district, and a large portion of his donor base was from the Korean American community, which helped him raise more money than Gomez in the latter part of the campaign despite a deluge of cash Gomez received from political committees.

And when Virginia state legislator Mark Keam, also a Korean American, flew to Los Angeles to endorse Ahn, a bank of TV cameras from Korean American news stations was there.

Robert Lee Ahn raised the most money by far in latest campaign finance reports »

Daniel Hong, a 38-year-old who works in the film industry, voted for the first time Tuesday even though he’s been a citizen for about 20 years. Hong, who is Korean American, said he read numerous articles about Ahn and received multiple phone calls from his campaign.

“That was the first time anybody has ever reached out to me for my vote,” said Hong as he stood outside a polling place set up in a Korean Presbyterian church.

Deborah Choi, 62, said she voted for Ahn so “he can speak for Korean Americans here.” The first wave of Koreans immigrated to the U.S. “so many years ago,” Choi said, but their representation in the highest elected offices remains low. She hopes her 36-year-old son will one day run for office too.

Though county election officials have yet to process more than 13,000 ballots, the 41-year-old Ahn remains thousands of votes ahead of the third-place candidate, fellow former planning Commissioner Maria Cabildo.

With turnout expected to hover around 15% of registered voters, preliminary returns show Ahn’s strategy paid off big. The biggest strongholds of votes for Ahn centered on Koreatown, Westlake and Chinatown, while the 42-year-old Gomez was ahead in neighborhoods throughout the northeast part of the district.

In early absentee ballot returns headed into primary election day, Korean Americans made up nearly a quarter of votes even though they comprise just 6% of registered voters.

Few Korean Americans have come this close to winning a seat in Congress since 1998, when Republican Jay Kim of Diamond Bar lost to a primary challenger after three terms in office. (David Min, a UC Irvine professor, announced a challenge to GOP Rep. Mimi Walters of Orange County this week.)

“Korean Americans in Southern California have been hungry for political representation for a very long time,” said Taeku Lee, a professor of politics and law at UC Berkeley. Lee said the recent campaign that helped propel David Ryu, the first Korean American elected to the L.A. City Council, may have also helped the community learn on-the-ground skills that mobilized voters in the congressional race.

The symbolism of Ahn’s win was not lost on his supporters Tuesday night.

“It’s very significant,” said Jinha Park, a radiologist who attended Ahn’s election night party at a Mexican restaurant in Westlake. “The Korean American community has always felt voiceless at the federal level.”

The question now, as the two Democrats ready for what could be a costly runoff, is whether Ahn, the son of Korean immigrants, can broaden his appeal beyond the Korean American voters who are motivated to send him to Washington.

He faces a fierce challenge: While progressive candidates to his left spoke passionately about fighting for “sanctuary cities” that protect undocumented immigrants and single-payer healthcare, Ahn emphasized the “business sensibility” he would bring to the office and argued there was room to negotiate with Republicans on certain issues, an idea that could prove unpopular in a district where just 9% of voters are Republican, and where Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton in last year’s presidential primary.

Ahn will also have to make a case to Latino voters, who make up more than half of registered voters in the district, why they should choose him over Gomez. The three-term assemblyman is the son of Mexican immigrants, has amassed dozens of establishment endorsements from Democratic elected officials, labor unions and environmental groups, and touted his progressive record in the Legislature.

Among his backers is Xavier Becerra, who rose to become the highest-ranking Latino U.S. congressman and vacated the seat to become California’s attorney general.

Votes that went to the remaining Latino candidates in the primary made up more than 38% of voters at last count, and the district has sent a Latino to Congress for more than half a century.

“When [Ahn is] running against a guy named Gomez, as good as his outreach might be in the Latino community, Latinos’ gut and heart is going to be more with Gomez,” said UCLA professor Barreto.

Ahn dismissed the idea. “The notion that Latinos will only vote for a Latino … I think we’re really going to transcend that with our campaign,” Ahn said in an interview Wednesday. He appears to be positioning himself as an outsider, which would be similar to the campaign Ryu ran when he made his successful council run in 2015. Ahn called Gomez a “professional politician that is powered by special interests.”

Gomez’s camp shot back, saying voters will see through Ahn’s formidable fundraising and realize his credentials don’t match with the district.

“More than anything, he’s ideologically out of step with the district,” said Parke Skelton, a campaign consultant for Gomez. Skelton said Ahn, who changed his registration from Republican to Democrat in 2012, “has taken positions that really put him out of the mainstream Democratic base in this district.”

christine.maiduc@latimes.com

For more on California politics, follow @cmaiduc.

ALSO

Half the candidates in L.A.’s latest congressional race have their own immigrant story. With Trump, this contest is personal.

Results from L.A.’s congressional primary

Updates on California politics

Sign up for our free Essential Politics newsletter

President Trump said the United States is “freeing up Cuba” and ruled out escalation after the US indicted former Cuban President Raul Castro in Miami over the 1996 downing of exile planes.

WASHINGTON — Barney Frank, the longtime Democratic congressman and leading liberal who brought new visibility to gay rights and crafted the most significant reforms to the financial system in a generation, has died. He was 86.

Frank died late Tuesday, according to Jim Segel, Frank’s former campaign manager and close friend.

After representing broad swaths of Boston’s suburbs in Congress for 32 years, Frank and his husband moved to Ogunquit, Maine. He entered hospice there in April with congestive heart failure and is survived by his husband, Jim Ready, and sisters, the longtime Democratic strategist Ann Lewis and Doris Breay, along with brother David Frank.

A self-described “left-handed gay Jew,” Frank was known for his acerbic wit, combative style and focus on marginalized communities. He represented the party’s left wing while keeping close with Democratic leaders who sometimes frustrated progressives.

He is best known as a pioneer for LGBT rights. After decades of grappling with his sexuality, he publicly came out as gay in 1987, the first member of Congress to do so voluntarily. With his 2012 marriage to Ready, he became the first incumbent lawmaker on Capitol Hill to marry someone of the same sex.

But in an April interview as he entered hospice, Frank said he hoped he would be remembered for advocating a brand of politics that embraced progressive ideals without forcing them on voters prematurely. It is an approach he feared was being rejected as Democrats prepare for what could be a rollicking primary as they hope to retake the White House in 2028 and move past the Trump era.

“I hope I made the point that the best way to accomplish the improvements in our society that we need, particularly in making it less unfair economically and socially, is by conventional political methods,” Frank said. “The main obstacle to our defeating populism and going further in the right direction is that mainstream Democrats have to make it clear that we oppose that part of the agenda of our friends on the left that is politically unacceptable. They’re right about a lot of things but you have to have some discretion.”

“You should not take the most unpopular parts of your agenda and make them litmus tests,” he added. “And that’s what my friends on the left have been doing.”

Frank’s path to public life

Born in 1940 in Bayonne, N.J., Frank wrote in his 2015 memoir that he was drawn to public life after Emmett Till, a Black 14-year-old from Chicago, was lynched by white men in Mississippi. Frank would volunteer in Mississippi during the Freedom Summer of 1964, though he acknowledged the fast-talking style was a challenge in the Deep South.

“My direct organizing of Mississippi voters was limited by the fact that my accent [to this day more New Jersey than New England], my poor diction, and my rapid speech, especially when I got excited, rendered me largely incomprehensible to rural Mississippians of both races,” he wrote.

He entered politics in 1968 as an aide to Boston Mayor Kevin White before winning a seat in the Massachusetts House in 1972. Frank was elected to Congress in 1980, an otherwise dismal year for Democrats as the party lost dozens of seats in the U.S. House and Republican Ronald Reagan won the White House.

Frank’s pragmatic style surfaced early in his congressional career. He joined the liberal Democratic Study Group to help push then-Speaker Tip O’Neill (D-Mass.) to respond more aggressively to the Reagan administration. But Frank said he found himself more often agreeing with O’Neill’s less confrontational approach.

Years later, as Congress prepared to pass a massive tax overhaul package, Frank intended to vote “no,” opposed to the bill’s lowering of top tax rates. He changed his mind, however, when he worked out a deal boosting affordable housing tax credits.

“I was happy to sacrifice my ideological purity to improve legislation that was going to become law with or without me,” he wrote.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat and former House speaker, called Frank an “idealist to the nth degree.”

“The goals, the vision, the promise of it all,” she recalled in an interview. “Nobody could ever surpass what he brought to the table in that regard.”

Making history in Congress

Through his early years in Washington, Frank led something of a double life.

Privately, he socialized in the city’s gay circles and had relationships but did not publicly acknowledge his sexuality. The media at the time rarely reported that someone was gay unless that person was involved in a scandal. When Frank in 1987 invited a reporter to his office to formally ask whether the congressman was gay, Frank responded, “yeah, so what?”

Other elected leaders, perhaps most notably San Francisco’s Harvey Milk, had come out years before. Members of Congress, including Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.), were previously outed through scandal.

Frank’s approach made him the most prominent gay leader in national politics for much of the 1980s and 1990s. He helped secure AIDS funding and pressed the Democratic Clinton administration, unsuccessfully, to lift a ban on gays serving in the military.

But there were low points, too, most notably an overwhelming 1987 House vote to reprimand him for poor judgment involving a male prostitute he hired in 1985. Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia, the Republican whip at the time, pressed for the more severe punishment of censure, which was rejected by a large margin.

Frank became something of a punch line among conservative Republicans, with House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) calling him “Barney Fag” in 1995. Armey said he misspoke and later apologized from the House floor.

Along the way, Frank became known as one of the most quotable lawmakers in Congress.

Regarding abortion, he said Republicans believed “life begins at conception and ends at birth,” criticizing the party’s push to curb social programs. After Ken Starr released a report describing President Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky in sometimes intimate detail, Frank said it required “too much reading about heterosexual sex.”

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) entered Congress the same year as Frank and he recalled his former colleague: “You may get a blow, but it was softened by the humor that came with it.”

Presiding over a financial overhaul

By 2007, Frank was the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, where he would leave his lasting policy mark as the U.S. economy careened toward collapse. He worked with the Republican Bush administration to pass a rescue package, providing vital support to financial institutions but spurring a populist revolt that still courses through American politics.

Once the initial crisis eased, Frank helped develop the most significant reform legislation since the New Deal. Working with then-Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), the Dodd-Frank Act would enhance consumer protections, impose new capital requirements for banks and boost the ability of regulators to monitor risk.

“Barney and I shared a fantastic relationship,” Dodd said. “I had many good moments in those 36 years in Congress, but none more significant, joyful, or productive than those almost two years working with Barney on our banking bill.”

During President Trump’s second term, his Republican administration has worked to roll back many of the legislation’s provisions, arguing they were too onerous.

Frank faced his toughest reelection campaign in years in 2010 as the tea party wave swept over American politics. He opted against running again in 2012, though remained engaged in politics long after leaving Congress and was a fierce critic of Trump.

Asked for his prediction on who might succeed Trump, Frank said “unfortunately I won’t get to vote for it.”

Sloan writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Two police officers who helped defend the U.S. Capitol from an attack by a mob of President Trump’s supporters sued on Wednesday to block anyone — including Jan. 6, 2021, rioters — from receiving payouts from a new $1.776-billion settlement fund for people who claim to be victims of politically motivated prosecutions.

The officers’ attorneys filed the federal lawsuit a day after acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche defended the fund’s creation during a congressional hearing. Blanche, a personal attorney for Trump before joining the Justice Department, wouldn’t rule out the possibility that rioters who assaulted police on Jan. 6 would be eligible for fund payouts.

The lawsuit claims the government’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund” is an illegal slush fund that Trump will use to “finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name.” It describes the fund’s creation as “the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century” and calls for dissolving it.

“No statute authorizes its creation, the settlement on which it is premised is a corrupt sham, and its design violates the Constitution and federal law,” the suit says.

The fund stems from a settlement of Trump’s $10-billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. It’s designed to compensate those who believe they were mistreated by prior administrations’ Justice Department. Decisions on payouts will be made by a five-member commission appointed by the attorney general.

More than 100 police officers were injured during the Capitol riot. Nearly 1,600 people were charged with Jan. 6-related crimes, but Trump used his pardon powers to erase all of those cases in a sweeping act of clemency last year.

The plaintiffs suing Trump over the fund are Metropolitan Police Department officer Daniel Hodges and former U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn, who is running in Maryland for a seat in Congress. Hodges and Dunn both testified before Congress about their harrowing experiences on Jan. 6. Videos captured a rioter ripping a mask off Hodges as he was pinned against a door during a fight for control of a tunnel entrance.

The officers claim the fund “encourages those who enacted violence in the President’s name to continue to do so.”

“Dunn and Hodges already face credible threats of death and violence on regular basis; the Fund substantially increases the danger,” the suit alleges.

On Tuesday, members of Congress peppered Blanche with questions about the fund. He described it as “unusual” but not unprecedented. Blanche failed to acknowledge that Trump’s Justice Department has investigated and prosecuted some of the Republican president’s political enemies, including former FBI Director James Comey and New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James.

Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also are named as defendants in the officers’ lawsuit. Spokespeople for the Justice and Treasury departments didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on the suit.

One of the attorneys for the officers is Brendan Ballou, a former Justice Department prosecutor who handled Jan. 6 cases.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The YOLO caucus is in session.

In a Republican-led Congress defined by deference to President Trump, there’s a small but steadily growing cohort who have found themselves more willing to break with the White House. Although the president maintains a firm grip on Republican voters, the expanding club could hinder his agenda on everything from the Iran war to immigration funding at a moment when his party holds a tenuous majority on Capitol Hill.

Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana is the newest member of the club. Just days after losing his primary to a Trump-backed challenger, Cassidy on Tuesday reversed himself on legislation involving the war in Iran and voted with Democrats to rein in U.S. military action.

“The way our Constitution is set up, Congress should hold the executive branch accountable,” he told reporters the day before.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas could be next after Trump endorsed Ken Paxton, Cornyn’s rival for the Republican nomination in next week’s runoff.

Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky is perhaps a founding member of the YOLO caucus — slang for “you only live once,” used to punctuate unbothered or even foolhardy behavior. He frustrated Trump since the president’s first term, and his status was solidified after losing his primary on Tuesday to a Trump-backed challenger. Massie has enraged Trump by voting against his signature tax and spending bill and by pushing for the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files.

He hinted there’s more to come before he leaves office.

“I got seven months left in Congress,” Massie said with a grin during his concession speech as the crowd erupted.

More Republicans feel free to shrug off Trump

Other similarly situated Republicans include Sen. Thom Tillis, who was a fierce critic of former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and has more recently turned his attention to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. There’s also Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who joined Democrats last week in a bid to curb Trump’s war powers in Iran. Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky have voted against some of Trump’s Cabinet picks. And in the House, Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska has pushed to reclaim congressional power over tariffs.

“If the legislative branch always votes with the president, we do have a king,” Massie said in his concession speech Tuesday.

This hardly amounts to a revival of the Never Trump movement that some Republicans unsuccessfully hoped would curb the president’s excesses during his first term or block him from returning to office. Many in the party, including Trump’s occasional detractors, have either stood by or been unable to block the president as he launched the war in Iran and presided over an aggressive immigration enforcement operation and the dismantling of the federal workforce.

Today’s unencumbered Republicans don’t fit into an ideological box. But they are united by a sense of emboldening that can only be attained in a few ways in Trump’s Washington.

Many, like Tillis, McConnell and Bacon, have decided to retire and can cast votes knowing they’ll never again have to face Republican primary voters. Others like Collins and Murkowski have more leeway because they represent states that tend to reward political independence. And some like Massie banked on the idea that voters could support both Trump and someone who occasionally crossed him.

It’s a paradox for Trump. As he demands total loyalty and pushes out Republican dissenters, he’s left with a growing cohort who, for one reason or another, owe Trump nothing.

Democrats look to capitalize

That could be a problem for Senate Majority Leader John Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson, who are already governing with threadbare majorities. Shifting loyalties of even a few Republican lawmakers could dramatically complicate the ability for either chamber to pass substantial legislation ahead of the November midterm elections.

Thune called Cornyn a “principled conservative” and “very effective senator” on Tuesday.

“None of us control what the president does,” he said.

The next tests could come later this week as Thune pushes a funding package for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection designed to pass on a party line basis.

Democrats are eager to pounce.

Speaking at an event in Washington on Tuesday sponsored by the Center for American Progress, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said he would aim to drive a wedge between Republicans by using a so-called discharge petition to bring issues directly to the floor for a vote.

That tactic has been successful in securing House passage on issues including the Epstein files and temporary protection of Haitian immigrants.

“When we’re disciplined and when we’re focused and when we put pressure in particular on the so-called swing seat Republicans, they have been breaking with us,” Jeffries said.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom told reporters on Tuesday that Trump’s endorsement of Cornyn’s rival was a sign that his political power lies within the Republican base — not the American public at large.

“He’s showed the only influence he has, and that’s an outsize influence within the base of the party,” the potential 2028 Democratic presidential contender said. “Otherwise he’s shown little to no influence with the American people.”

Counting the votes

That leaves Republicans gaming out how they might cobble together the votes needed to pass legislation.

Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota called Cassidy a “good friend” and said the loss was “tough for him.” He said Cassidy “will always vote in line with what he thinks is best” but doubted he will become a less reliable Republican vote.

His fellow Louisianan, Sen. John Kennedy, said Cassidy deploys power “rationally and maturely” and “will continue to do the same thing.”

Cassidy repeatedly rejected the notion that he will spend his final months in Washington as a troublemaker for Trump, saying he’s going to do “what’s good for my country and my state.”

Yet the independent streak that ended his political career quickly resurfaced. A week after Trump visited China, Cassidy spoke of a Western alliance that’s “totally falling apart” and will be unable to “push back on the threat China represents.” He seemed stunned that the administration would create a nearly $1.8-billion fund to compensate Trump allies who they believe have been unjustly investigated and prosecuted.

“I just came off the campaign trail,” he said. “People are concerned about making their own ends meet, not about putting a slush fund together without a legal precedent.”

Sloan and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press. AP writer Stephen Groves in Washington contributed to this report.

The indictment of former Cuban President Raul Castro over a 1996 plane shootdown revives a decades-old case at a moment of heightened US pressure on Havana. Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett explains why the timing matters.

Rodrigo Paz is under pressure from weeks of demonstrations and poor economic conditions.

Bolivia’s right-wing President Rodrigo Paz has said he will reorganise his cabinet as he faces calls to resign amid weeks of widespread protests.

During a news conference on Wednesday, Paz said he would reshuffle his ministers in a bid to ease tensions with antigovernment protesters.

“We need to reorganise a cabinet that must be able to listen,” Paz told reporters.

Since taking office in November, Paz and his government have faced backlash to economic restructuring measures, including controversial cuts to fuel subsidies. The country is in one of its worst economic crises in decades.

Protesters have taken to the streets to express frustration with Paz’s free-market reforms. His inauguration ushered in a period of right-wing leadership after nearly two decades of governance by the Movement for Socialism (MAS).

Thousands of farmers, labourers, miners and teachers have denounced Paz’s reforms. Riot police clashed with protesters again in the capital, La Paz, earlier this week.

While Paz acknowledged frustrations in his remarks on Wednesday, his government has depicted the protests as dangerous and anti-democratic.

Minister of Foreign Affairs Fernando Aramayo said earlier in the day that the mass protests and roadblocks were aimed at destabilising the country and “disrupting the democratic order”.

Former leftist President Evo Morales, who continues to exert influence over the country’s politics, has expressed support for the demonstrations.

The Paz government, meanwhile, has accused Morales of fomenting unrest. The former socialist president faces charges of statutory rape and has an arrest warrant out against him. His allies, however, say the charges are part of an effort to remove him from political life.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has expressed support for Paz, whose election is seen as part of a regional shift to the right.

“Let there be no mistake: the United States stands squarely in support of Bolivia’s legitimate constitutional government,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a social media post on Wednesday. “We will not allow criminals and drug traffickers to overthrow democratically elected leaders in our hemisphere.”

Paz also slammed Colombian President Gustavo Petro, who has frequently feuded with right-wing governments in the region, for recent comments describing the protests as a “popular insurrection”.

The Bolivian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced on Wednesday that it would ask the Colombian ambassador to leave the country, citing interference in domestic political affairs.

“If they expel the ambassador simply for proposing dialogue and mediation, it means we’re sliding towards extremism that could lead to a very difficult situation for the Bolivian people,” Petro said in an interview with the local radio station Caracol.

WASHINGTON — Republican senators are considering dropping a proposal for $1 billion in security money for the White House complex and President Trump’s ballroom after it has failed to win enough party support on Capitol Hill.

Pressured by the White House, Republicans have tried to add the money to a roughly $70-billion bill to restore funding to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol. But the security proposal has met with backlash from some GOP lawmakers who are questioning the cost and the lack of detail from the White House and U.S. Secret Service about how the taxpayer dollars would be used.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said Wednesday that the bill was “back to square one” without the security money because “the votes are not there.”

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said the effort to add the security package to the bill was a “bad idea” and he does not think there is enough backing to pass it, even if it were reduced.

The text of the bill has not yet been released. But Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) acknowledged “ongoing vote issues” as leaders try to measure Republican support, as well as “ongoing parliamentarian issues” as they try to figure out what will be allowed in the bill under the chamber’s rules.

The wrangling comes as Democrats have criticized Republicans for trying to fund Trump’s ballroom when voters are concerned about basic affordability issues — and as some GOP lawmakers have grown increasingly frustrated with Trump. Several have spoken out against the administration’s $1.8-billion settlement fund designed to compensate Trump’s allies, and many were upset by the president’s endorsement Tuesday of Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton in the party primary runoff next week against Sen. John Cornyn.

“There’s always a consequence with taking on United States senators,” Thune said. Trump “obviously has his favorites and people he wants to endorse and that’s his prerogative. But what we have to deal with up here is moving the agenda, and obviously that can become slightly more complicated.”

Republican opposition blocks Secret Service request

Under the Secret Service request, about $220 million would pay for security improvements related to the ballroom. The rest would go for a new screening center for visitors, training and other security measures.

Tillis said the bill should not have included the other security improvements “because it’s just giving everybody the ‘billion-dollar ballroom.’”

“They need to explain to me why we need this,” Tillis said, noting that Trump had originally said private money would cover the project.

Several other Republicans in the House and Senate have questioned the request, and senators left a briefing with the director of the Secret Service last week saying they needed a lot more information.

People “can’t afford groceries and gasoline and healthcare, and we’re going to do a billion dollars for a ballroom?” asked Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who lost reelection in the GOP primary on Saturday after Trump endorsed one of his opponents.

Sen. Jim Justice (R-W.Va.) said he is supportive of the security money and thinks it is necessary to protect the president. But he acknowledged that the optics are not very good for Republicans, and that they have not communicated about it well.

“We’ve got people out there who are worried about how in the world they’re going to have enough gas to get home,” Justice said.

Tensions rise between Senate and White House

As Republicans challenged parts of his agenda, Trump unloaded on the Senate in a social media post.

He urged Republicans to fire the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, who said over the weekend that parts of the $1-billion security proposal cannot remain in the ICE and Border Patrol bill. Trump renewed his long-standing calls for the Senate to pass the SAVE Act, a Republican bill that would require all voters to prove U.S. citizenship, and to end the Senate filibuster.

“Republicans play a very soft game compared to the Dumocrats,” he wrote. “It is their single biggest disadvantage in politics.”

Trump said Democrats would eliminate the filibuster “on the First Day” if they ever get full power in Washington again and that Republicans need to “get smart and tough” or “you’ll all be looking for a job much sooner than you thought possible!”

Republicans have been loyal to Trump on most issues, but they have resisted his repeated calls — even in his first term — to kill the filibuster, which triggers a 60-vote threshold in the Senate.

Hanging over the growing GOP rift is Trump’s surprise endorsement of Paxton. That intervention has Republican senators privately fuming that it could cost them their majority in November as they view the incumbent, Cornyn, as the better candidate in the November general election.

Democrats test Republicans on settlement fund

As Republicans move forward on the immigration enforcement legislation, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Democrats plan to force a vote on Trump’s proposed settlement fund.

Democrats have an opening because Republicans are trying to pass the immigration enforcement bill through a complicated budget process that requires a long series of amendment votes. Democrats are considering multiple amendments potentially to block that new fund outright or to ban any payments to Trump supporters who harmed law enforcement officers in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Those amendments, along with others, could pass as a growing number of Republicans speak out against the fund and other parts of Trump’s agenda.

Thune said he was “not a big fan” of the new fund, which the administration announced as a part of a settlement that resolves the president’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. Cassidy called it a “slush fund” and said “you can’t just make up things.”

Tillis said he thinks it is a “real risk” that some of the rioters charged — and later pardoned by Trump — in the Jan. 6 attack could get compensation through the fund. He said that would be “absurd.”

On Wednesday, two police officers who helped defend the Capitol in the 2021 assault sued to block the payouts. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, a personal attorney for Trump before joining the Department of Justice in Trump’s second term, would not rule out the possibility that rioters who assaulted police on Jan. 6 would be eligible for compensation when he testified in a Senate hearing this week.

Jalonick, Freking and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press.