politics

Sept. 25, 2026 7:17 PM PT

WASHINGTON — President Trump is canceling nearly $1 billion in spending approved by Congress, the White House announced Friday, using a rare and contested power to axe funding for immigrant services and diversity-focused initiatives.

Trump’s Office of Management and Budget described the funding cut as focused on “the most harmful government spending.”

Most of the cuts are focused on Health and Human Services programs that serve refugees and unaccompanied minors accused of being in the country illegally. The administration says the funds are no longer necessary because illegal border crossings have diminished considerably.

Also targeted for cuts were a Department of Education program for migrant students, a Department of Justice office focused on reducing racial tensions, a business development initiative for minority entrepreneurs, housing counseling services from the Housing and Urban Development Department and a series of grants from the Health and Human Services Department that the administration called “outright harmful and blatantly ideological.”

A White House news release announcing the funding rescission notes that some of the organizations are led by people who worked in the Obama administration.

Trump’s move was condemned by Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican in a tough reelection campaign and chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Collins said in a statement that the action came without warning or consultation. She also said she would work to address with colleagues “these illegal actions.”

“Not only is the delay itself an impoundment that was not reported to Congress, but also it is a usurpation of Congress’s appropriations powers,” Collins said. “OMB is an agency of the executive branch. It does not get to decide which programs are worth funding.”

Under federal law, Congress has 45 days to review the president’s proposed spending cuts before they take effect. But Trump made that all but impossible by announcing them with just five days left in the federal fiscal year and the House out of session through the November election. The Government Accountability Office, which is an arm of Congress, says the maneuver known as a “pocket rescission” is illegal.

Collins called it the latest attempt by OMB to “undermine Congress’s Constitutional power of the purse.”

A year ago, Trump issued a pocket rescission for the first time in nearly 50 years by blocking $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to block that rescission, saying that Trump’s authority over foreign affairs weighed heavily in its decision. This year, Trump is targeting domestic spending.

The use of a pocket rescission fits into a broader pattern by the Trump administration to exert greater control over the U.S. government, eroding Congress’ power.

What was essentially the last pocket rescission occurred in 1977 when President Carter rescinded it, and the Trump administration argues it’s a legally permissible tool, despite some murkiness, since Carter had initially proposed the claw-back well ahead of the 45-day deadline.

The administration has also fired federal workers, imposed a historic increase in tariffs, and started the war in Iran without going through Congress, putting the burden on the judicial branch to determine the limits of presidential power.

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the lead Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, described the White House action as “theft from the American people, plain and simple.”

“These are funds Congress has delivered on a bipartisan basis and should be helping people — not cut off by a president more focused on building a ballroom than investing in families,” Murray said.

Murray said that in recent spending negotiations, Democrats fought to include language to prevent the administration from usurping Congress’ power on spending decisions, but Republicans have declined to go along.

“While Trump spends tax dollars on ads promoting himself” — a reference to a taxpayer-paid TV spot that has drawn bipartisan rebuke — “Congress needs to reassert its powers to help people, and it’s past time Republicans join us in that fight,” she said.

In addition to immigrant services, the White House said it was rescinding $70 million for what it called “woke” international education programs, $28 million in grant funding for Health and Human Services research programs, and $9 million in debt relief for foreign countries that fund climate change policies. An additional $10 million was being withheld from a minority business development program.

Freking and Cooper write for the Associated Press.

Sept. 25, 2026 6:59 PM PT

The White House signaled Friday night that CNN would be left off Air Force One for President Trump’s Saturday trip, the latest media restriction from the administration in an ongoing dispute with 1st Amendment implications.

The news organization was replaced by Real America’s Voice News, a conservative outlet.

The news came just after journalists from three news outlets that Trump banned last week from the White House grounds — CNN, MS NOW and Politico — returned to the executive complex with TV cameras, laptops and microphones in hand.

A judge temporarily struck down the ban in an overnight ruling early Thursday, but his decision didn’t directly address White House pool reporters. The networks continued to refrain from covering Trump as part of the pool, even as reporters from all three outlets were allowed back in the White House.

The temporary order from the judge mentioned only the White House grounds and said nothing directly about Air Force One.

Theodore Boutrous Jr., the news outlets’ attorney, did not immediately respond to an email and phone call requesting comment Friday night.

For a while during the day, the U.S. network video pool for the White House was back in operation for the first time since Trump banned the three news outlets in an extraordinary showdown over media access.

At noon on CNN, viewers could see Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping touring the National Archives Museum along with their wives, Melania Trump and Peng Liyuan. The banner along the bottom of the screen read: “Trump and China’s Xi Visit National Archives.” It was a routine report from a state visit — but for the fact that CNN had not aired live video of Trump in several days.

“As of now, all systems are go,” said a person familiar with the pool, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the fluidity of the situation.

The pool consists of five major U.S. broadcast outlets that take turns shooting and sharing video. When the White House banned CNN — which belongs to the pool — from White House grounds, along with MS NOW and Politico, the other four pool providers declined to participate in a show of solidarity.

CNN was not commenting directly earlier Friday, referring instead to its editorial coverage. But Brian Stelter, the network’s media analyst, posted on X that CNN had a pool assignment at the National Archives event and that the White House had approved the network’s credentials.

Golden and Noveck write for the Associated Press.

At first glance, it looks like a typical Republican campaign advertisement. As images of President Trump flash across the screen, the 30-second spot says, “America will never be a communist country” and boasts about the “largest tax cuts in history.”

But there’s something different near the end — a bit of text at the bottom that says “paid for by the U.S. government.”

According to AdImpact, which tracks media spending, the advertisement cost $14,000 and it ran during conservative shows on Fox News and Newsmax.

The White House said in a statement the ad is “educational and unapologetically patriotic.”

“These public service announcements are about reminding Americans to love their country and understand what makes it worth defending, at home, at our borders, and abroad,” the White House statement said.

Fox News and Newsmax did not immediately return a request for comment.

The White House did not say what agency paid for the spot, which includes background music with singers crooning “love me” over and over.

The advertisement does not say who voters should support in the midterms, but it meshes with campaign messaging from Trump and other Republicans, particularly during the party’s unusual convention in Dallas earlier this month.

Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who is in line to chair the House Judiciary Committee if his party wins the majority in November, said in a social media post that it’s a violation of the Hatch Act for government employees to work on such a video.

“It is blatantly unethical under numerous federal ethics provisions proscribing the use of government resources for political campaigns,” Raskin wrote.

Republicans also criticized the ad.

North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, who is not running for reelection, referenced the former right-wing Hungarian prime minister to critique the advertisement.

“It’s inappropriate. It’s not like they need a GoFundMe page to have the dollars to do that sort of ad and they could do it. But using taxpayer dollars, it feels like Viktor Orban,” he said.

Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy said he hadn’t seen the ad but questioned whether it was legal.

“I don’t generally like to see politicians use public money to pay for their own campaign ads,” he said.

Catalini writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Joey Cappelletti and Steven Sloan in Washington contributed to this report.

Sept. 25, 2026 12:31 PM PT

TRENTON, N.J. — New Jersey ’s Democratic lieutenant governor has resigned after the governor demanded he step down over sexual harassment allegations and ethical lapses involving his relationships with women.

Gov. Mikie Sherrill had given Lt. Gov. Dale Caldwell an ultimatum that he resign by Friday, though she lacked the power to remove him if he said no. Sherrill announced the resignation at a news conference that afternoon.

“His decision will allow us to move forward with important work serving the people of our state,” she said. “In my administration we are committed to doing what is right, not what is politically expedient.”

Sherrill picked Caldwell, a Methodist pastor and former president of Centenary University, to be her running mate last year. They were elected together and took office in January, but within four months, Caldwell had become the subject of an anonymous complaint about his behavior with women.

In New Jersey, a governor can’t fire the lieutenant governor, as the post is independently elected. But lieutenant governors can be impeached and removed from office by the Legislature. A governor can strip a lieutenant governor of nearly all duties and responsibilities, effectively sidelining them from the administration.

Sherrill hired the law firm of a former New Jersey attorney general, Christopher Porrino, to investigate.

In a report released Thursday, the lawyers said Caldwell had committed several violations of state policy. It said Caldwell, 66, had made an advance toward a staff member’s friend and when he was rebuffed told the staffer, “you young women are looking for young sperm.”

The report also said Caldwell had tried to get a promotion for a state employee he was dating and brought personal guests to the opera and other ticketed events without paying for them, as required by ethics rules.

Caldwell denied any misconduct and said in a letter included in the report that he suspected his relationships with women were being subjected to extra scrutiny because he was a single Black man.

His lawyer, Thomas Calcagni, said Caldwell never made the sperm statement or used his position to further his romantic life. Caldwell did recommend a female friend for a promotion, Calcagni said, but only because he thought she would be a good candidate for the job. Caldwell denied ordering anyone to promote her or knowingly violating ethics rules by failing to disclose their personal relationship when he recommended her.

Sherrill had said Caldwell needed to resign because he committed “serious, repeated violations of state policy,” despite multiple warnings and trainings.

Besides being the first in line to become governor if Sherrill were to die, be removed from office or become incapacitated, Caldwell also had served as New Jersey’s appointed secretary of state. In that role, he had a supervisory role over the state’s elections.

In neighboring New York, a similar impasse has played out over the last year between Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul and her estranged Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado, who launched a caustic primary challenge to unseat her only to withdraw from the race as the election neared.

Hochul is running for reelection in November with Adrienne Adams, the former speaker of the New York City Council, as her replacement lieutenant governor nominee.

Catalini and Marcelo write for the Associated Press. Marcelo reported from New York.

Diesel prices have hit record highs as the tensions between the United States and Iran, along with the war between Russia and Ukraine, disrupt key oil and fuel trade routes.

On Friday, the average price for a gallon (3.79 litres) of diesel was $6.50, up from $5.61 a month earlier, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), which tracks fuel prices daily.

The spike has prompted the administration of US President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers to consider restricting US diesel exports ahead of upcoming midterm elections.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in August found that 47 percent of voters said the cost of living was the single most important factor in deciding how they would vote in the midterms — more than twice the share who cited the next-most important issue, “democratic values and norms”.

A new Marist poll also found that Americans have more confidence in Democrats than Republicans to handle the economy, with 42 percent choosing Democrats compared with 34 percent for Republicans.

Amid that voter sentiment, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said on Thursday that he was in touch with major oil refiners to gauge interest in a potential voluntary restriction on diesel exports, according to the Reuters news agency.

That followed remarks by Trump on Tuesday that he supported restricting diesel exports from the US, the world’s largest diesel exporter.

Energy analysts and industry groups have warned that an export ban could have unintended consequences, potentially pushing up fuel prices in the US and abroad.

Why are diesel prices so high?

Even though the US is the world’s largest diesel exporter, diesel is traded on a global market.

Disruptions to refineries in Russia and the Middle East have reduced the amount of fuel available worldwide, putting more pressure on US producers to fill the gap. In Russia, for example, drone attacks have damaged major refineries, forcing a cutback or halt in production.

“While US refineries are running at full tilt and higher than normal, the global gaps remain,” Rachel Ziemba, senior adjunct fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told Al Jazeera.

It comes as US diesel supplies are also shrinking. As of September 11, inventories had fallen to 107.9 million barrels, the lowest in more than four decades, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

With global supplies tightening, diesel prices have risen around the world — including in the US. Because American producers can sell their fuel into the global market, they are drawn to the soaring global prices rather than simply setting a lower price for domestic consumers.

Why is the US considering an export ban?

In Washington, DC, leaders have flirted with the idea of pushing US companies to stop or slow exporting diesel.

Republicans have been pushing for a slowdown or outright ban of exports in an effort to lower costs for consumers ahead of the pivotal midterm elections, where cost of living is becoming a critical issue.

Such a move, they hope, would reduce local diesel prices, which is significant as diesel is used in trucks to haul food and most products, Ziemba said, adding that US diesel exports are equivalent to about 40 percent of domestic consumption.

On Tuesday, Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, called on the president to put in place a temporary halt on exports.

“I encourage President Trump to put a temporary embargo on diesel exports through executive action,” Grassley said.

Republican Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska made a similar call: “The cost of diesel is just too damn high. I’m calling for a temporary pause of American diesel exports so that we can rebuild our reserves ahead of winter,” Sullivan said in a statement on Tuesday.

In the House of Representatives, Congressman Tim Burchett of Tennessee introduced two bills that would restrict US diesel exports: One would impose a ban through January 2027, while the other would restrict exports if the national average price reaches $5 a gallon.

The administration has not made any official policy announcements, and the White House told Al Jazeera that the president is evaluating all options.

Oil and gas industry experts say that a ban could drive up prices rather than bringing them down.

“Diesel trades on a world market, just like corn. farmers don’t sell cheaper to Americans, and refiners can’t either since they buy crude at global prices. force a lower price and they’ll make less diesel. less supply means higher prices, not lower,” Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, said in a post on X.

How would an export ban work?

A ban would prevent or restrict US refiners from selling diesel to buyers overseas, theoretically leaving more fuel available in the domestic market.

Analysts at Wood Mackenzie, a research and consulting firm, say that keeping more diesel stateside would ultimately fill up US storage tanks but also force refineries to cut production. That could affect other markets that rely heavily on US fuel, including Latin America and Europe, forcing them to compete with other global buyers for supplies and driving up prices for the global market.

Wood Mackenzie says China is the only major producer with enough spare refining capacity to potentially make up much of the shortfall.

“China is currently the only country with material spare refining capacity that could cover the loss of US refinery throughputs. However, China may well decide it is not in its interest to intercede,” analysts said.

Wood Mackenzie has warned that a ban could quickly fill US diesel inventories, forcing refiners to cut crude runs and potentially increasing US petrol imports.

That was also the view of an S&P Global analysis, which found that a complete ban could also mean that production would be reduced as storage capacity is filled up with unsold diesel. According to the analysis, that could lead to production cuts of as much as 750,000 barrels a day, which could put the US into being a net importer of petrol in the fourth quarter of this year.

Who would an export ban affect?

An export ban would affect US refiners and consumers, as well as countries that rely on US diesel.

“They [export bans] may provide temporary relief, but diesel is a global commodity. Treat one part of the system, and the effects travel elsewhere. Trade-offs are inevitable. Refiners are unlikely to cheer a blanket ban. Voluntary, controlled export reductions would generally be less disruptive in the short term,” Maksim Sonin, visiting scholar at Stanford University’s Precourt Institute for Energy, told Al Jazeera.

Disruptions to US exports could reduce the amount of fuel available on the global market. Wood Mackenzie analysts say countries in Europe and Latin America that rely heavily on US fuel could be forced to compete with other producers for supplies.

“If implemented, it would lead to European and Asian product prices increasing as the buyers of US fuel, mostly in Latin America, scramble to find new supplies, bidding up supplies. European crack spreads could widen, and overall we might see more disruptions,” Ziemba added.

“Given these issues, the US may opt for a mixture of carrots and sticks aiming to incentivise refineries to keep producing, perhaps including penalties if they cut production. There may be voluntary export quotas rather than a formal ban, and there may be exemptions for countries that provide crude oil to the US, like Mexico,” Ziemba said.

That could put pressure on consumers not only at the petrol pump but in the skies as well.

Airlines for America, an airline industry trade group, has also warned that an export ban could lead to higher prices for airlines and travellers, according to the Reuters news agency. The trade group did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

The broader concern from analysts is that restricting exports could reduce US refinery production rather than simply redirecting diesel to US consumers, potentially putting upward pressure on fuel prices both domestically and internationally.

“It’s unlikely to help US consumers much given how it fails to solve underlying problems and could backfire if refineries hold on to production. The best way to address this is to end the conflicts prompting the shortages,” Ziemba said.

WASHINGTON — For the third time this month, the Supreme Court has rejected Missouri’s bid for one more Republican-leaning congressional district.

With no dissents, the justices upheld a state court order requiring the use of a 2022 election map, which favors Republicans in six of the eight districts.

“At this late date, ordering reversion to the 2025 map in the midst of an ongoing election would usher in electoral chaos,” the justices wrote.

The GOP, with the backing of conservative federal judges, wanted to use a new 2025 election map that redrew the district in Kansas City that had elected a Black Democrat.

That would have given Republicans a 7-1 advantage, but the Supreme Court stood in the way.

“As a matter of state law, the 2022 map — not the 2025 map — must be used in the 2026 congressional election,” the justices said in an unsigned opinion. “This Court has repeatedly cautioned that lower federal courts should not ‘alter the election rules of a state on the eve of an election.”

Each side in this messy dispute accused the other of seeking to change the voting districts on the eve of the election.

On Tuesday, the opponents of the newly drawn GOP-friendly map appealed to the Supreme Court for the third time. They said it is too late to switch the districts because ballots had gone out based on the existing map.

They said the Republicans “demand a new map after votes have already been cast. Ballots using the 2022 map have been printed and mailed, and absentee voting, both by mail and in-person, began today.”

But the state’s Republican attorneys said the primary elections took place under the new 2025 map, and that argues for keeping those districts in place for the general election in November.

Last September, the Missouri General Assembly, following President Trump’s lead, voted to redraw its eight congressional districts. In recent years, the state had sent six Republicans and two Democrats to Congress.

The Legislature’s goal was to flip one more seat in favor of Republicans. The new map would do that by breaking up the Kansas City district that had elected Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Black Democrat, with a new district that favored a Republican.

But a group called People Not Politicians and its executive director, Richard von Glahn, gathered more than 300,000 signatures for a referendum to challenge the new law before it took effect.

After waiting nine months to respond, Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, a Republican, denied the referendum in early August on the same day the primary elections got underway.

Von Glahn and his group of voters sued and won a unanimous decision from the Missouri Supreme Court on Sept. 3. Its judges said the state Constitution authorizes such a referendum and a new election map cannot take effect until the voters have spoken.

Hoskins filed an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court and cited the “chaotic fallout” from the state court “irresponsible decision.”

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who oversees appeals from the 8th Circuit Court based in St. Louis, denied the appeal without comment on Sept. 8.

But shortly after his decision was issued, U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark, a Trump appointee, issued a temporary restraining order that prohibited the state from using the any voting map other than the new one.

People not Politicians appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

On Sept. 10, Kavanaugh and the full court granted the appeal and blocked the judge’s order from taking effect.

The justices did not explain their reasoning, but the meaning of the order was clear. The state Supreme Court ruling meant the new map could not be used for this year’s election.

But that did not stop the 8th Circuit Court from ruling the state must use the new map.

Siding with several Republican candidates, a 2-1 majority said the use of 2022 map was unconstitutional because the primary elections were held under the new map. Its decision ordered the elections to be held using the new map.

This was a surprising ruling, since the Supreme Court’s order on Sept. 10 barred judges in Missouri from intervening further in the dispute over the voting maps.

But after a third trip to the court, the justices said the state must use the 2022 map.

WASHINGTON — Expectations were low entering President Trump’s meetings with China’s leader, Xi Jinping, this week, after officials on both sides tempered hopes for a breakthrough. Yet the summit’s stark lack of substance surprised even the closest China watchers.

It was a visual affair designed to project a new phase of managed competition between a prevailing superpower and a rising one — a message that Washington and Beijing are ultimately capable of responsible leadership. But even a cursory look beneath the surface revealed the challenges ahead for the world’s most consequential bilateral relationship.

Industry pleas and bipartisan calls for Trump to negotiate a meaningful framework on artificial intelligence fell on deaf ears. A trade truce between the two sides was extended for a mere two months. And Trump again warned Xi not to assist Iran as the U.S. war there continues — a warning that, so far, has gone unheeded, with millions of dollars’ worth of crucial Chinese parts reportedly arriving in Tehran by the planeload.

“The U.S.-China relationship has settled into a managed stalemate. It has stabilized at the top without stabilizing underneath,” said Craig Singleton, a senior fellow on China at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

“The elaborate pageantry matters precisely because there is still relatively little substantive progress to showcase,” Singleton said. “Trump appears to value the personal relationship as an end in itself. Xi treats his relationship with Trump as a means to shape U.S. choices and forestall future competitive actions.”

President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump stand with Chinese President Xi Jinping and First Lady Peng Liyuan before Thursday night’s state dinner.

(Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images)

The summit followed a playbook from Trump that has become familiar over the last decade, placing his direct relationships at the center of diplomacy and reducing the complexities of statecraft to blunt attempts at charm.

As he did during his lavish state visit to Beijing this spring, Trump repeatedly patted Xi on the back, a gesture considered highly inappropriate in Chinese political culture that nevertheless reflected Trump’s strategic focus on personal friendship.

He toured Xi around a series of controversial renovations to the White House, including the South Lawn — now paved over with a massive helipad designed as the presidential seal — and the Rose Garden, also paved over in order for Trump to host al fresco dinner parties.

Before entering a heavily gilded Oval Office, Trump walked Xi along a renovated colonnade now adorned with gold-framed portraits of U.S. presidents. He paused at one for his predecessor, President Biden, replaced with a mocking image of an autopen, suggesting the former president was incapable of signing documents himself.

Trump patted Xi on the back once more, and the two men laughed, in a moment that generated outrage online.

“Let’s be very clear on this one point,” John Delaney, a former Democratic member of Congress, wrote on social media. “The President mocking a former President in front of the communist leader of China is the most un-American thing an American president has ever done.”

Tim Cook, executive chairman of Apple Inc., during the state dinner for Chinese President Xi Jinping.

(Annabelle Gordon / Bloomberg / Getty Images)

Part of the state visit included a dinner at the White House that was attended by some of the country’s most prominent tech executives, such as Elon Musk, Sam Altman and Mark Zuckerberg. The tech giants’ presence at the event was notable given that there was heightened public interest in knowing how China and the United States are planning to regulate artificial intelligence.

During the visit, Xi called for artificial intelligence to remain “under human control” as the two countries race for technological advancement in the industry. Lawmakers and AI industry leaders have also called for guardrails on the nascent technology, which experts warn could soon surpass human understanding. Trump, however, has been reluctant to embrace limits on the industry, and it is unclear how much the topic was discussed while Xi was in Washington.

Xi Jinping’s remarks reflect growing concern within China over whether governments in Washington or Beijing will be able to contain a technology with potentially transformative capabilities, according to a U.S. official.

But the visit showed a surprising alignment of visions between the U.S. and Chinese presidents, embracing fierce competition that avoids miscalculation and conflict. Both stressed the importance of dialogue, with Xi invoking the concept of the Thucydides trap, a historical paradigm that holds that rising powers inevitably clash with established ones.

“I don’t think anyone will be surprised if there are no significant agreements,” said David Ochmanek, a senior researcher at Rand. “My sense is that Xi sees little reason to compromise with us on anything right now.”

Trump and Xi arrive for a state dinner in the East Room of the White House on Thursday night.

(Brendan Smialowski / AFP / Getty Images)

The two men are expected to meet twice more this year, alongside other world leaders, at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Shenzhen, China, and the Group of 20 summit in Miami.

“We do not need to avoid mentioning competition, but our competition should be a healthy one, and should be kept within bounds,” the Chinese president said Thursday from the Cross Hall of the White House. “It should be a race of catching up with one another, not a wrestle in which one either wins or loses. China and the United States must hold the line of no conflict, and no confrontation between us.

“Our two militaries should maintain regular dialogue, and improve mechanisms for crisis communication and prevention,” he continued. “The Thucydides trap can be overcome.”

Shehbaz Sharif speaks as Islamabad, Riyadh and Ankara army chiefs meet to discuss Mecca pact, closer military ties.

Pakistan’s prime minister has condemned Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia, warning that any “threat to the sanctity” of the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina is a “red line that must never be crossed”.

Addressing the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Friday, Shehbaz Sharif denounced recent Houthi attacks as “deplorable”.

He added that an attack by the Iran-aligned Yemeni group, which Riyadh says targeted Mecca, “outraged Muslims across the globe”. The Houthis have dismissed the accusations as a “heinous lie”.

Last month, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkiye signed a trilateral defence pact, formally known as the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement. The pact states that an attack on any member will be treated as an attack on all. However, Islamabad and Ankara have refrained from getting involved in Riyadh’s ongoing fight with the Houthis.

The ⁠military ⁠chiefs of all three countries met in Riyadh on Friday and ⁠discussed enhancing intelligence sharing and military ⁠coordination, ‌the Pakistani military said. The chiefs reviewed the security situation and ⁠threats facing Saudi Arabia, ⁠affirmed a commitment to collective defence and ⁠pledged to turn ⁠Mecca Agreement commitments into effective cooperation, the ‌army added.

It is not clear what, if any, support Ankara and Islamabad may provide to Riyadh. In a written interview published by the US media outlet Newsweek on Friday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said support could include “intelligence, logistics or ammunition, with more extensive military assistance possible depending on the scale of the threat”.

Iran and Palestine

In Sharif’s UN address, he also referenced the US-Israeli war that was launched against Iran in late February, as well as Islamabad’s role as a co-mediator.

Pakistan’s efforts culminated in the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, signed by Washington and Tehran, which was intended to help end the conflict.

The accord has since unravelled while regional countries push for a conclusive end to the war, which has caused a global energy crisis and exacerbated tensions across the Middle East.

“Yet amid the roar of missiles, drones and guns, the voice for diplomacy must echo even louder and stronger,” Sharif said.

He added that the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has effectively blockaded, and the Bab al-Mandeb waterway, which is now largely under Houthi control, are “arteries of the global economy” that should remain free and safe.

The Pakistani prime minister also denounced what he described as Israel’s “genocidal agenda” in Palestine, while condemning “Israeli aggression against Lebanon and Syria”. These were sentiments echoed earlier in the day by Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam in his UN General Assembly address.

India, Kashmir, Afghanistan

Closer to home, Sharif’s speech touched on tensions with Pakistan’s neighbours.

Criticising India, he accused New Delhi of weaponising the Indus waters, which both countries have jointly managed for more than six decades. The two neighbours heavily rely on the Himalayan river network.

Sharif warned that “any attempt to stop, impede or divert Pakistan’s share of the waters will be treated as an act of war”.

He also called for what he described as a “just and fair solution” to the Kashmir dispute, which both Pakistan and India claim in its entirety. Sharif alleged that there have been attempts to “alter the legal status” of Kashmir through demographic engineering.

Another pressing issue for Islamabad is the threat posed by the Tehrik-e-Taliban (TTP), or Pakistani Taliban. Sharif said groups operate from “sanctuaries inside Afghanistan, with the aim of destabilising Pakistan”, insisting that attacks launched from Afghanistan “must come to a grinding halt”.

This comes as the latest cross-border fighting left several Afghan Taliban fighters dead on Friday.

Sept. 25, 2026 1:13 PM PT

MONTGOMERY, Alabama — President Trump vowed to campaign in 35 of the most competitive battleground districts in the final sprint to November’s midterm elections.

Instead, he will begin October by stumping in Alabama and Oklahoma, two of the most Republican states in the nation. His events are sure to draw enthusiastic crowds of fans, but his choice of destinations is a reminder of his deep unpopularity in much of the country during a campaign season he’s sought to make all about himself.

Trump will hold rallies Thursday in Durant, Okla., and Friday in Mobile, Ala., where he is sure to draw crowds, but also has raised eyebrows.

While organizers insist the rallies are in locations with media markets that span state lines and they will help bolster broader turnout, Trump’s itinerary is yet another sign of the uphill fight that his party faces. Republicans already have been pouring money into red states once considered safe as they try to shore up candidates facing an unhappy electorate that has soured on Trump and his polices.

Some Republicans also have been distancing themselves from the president in recent weeks as they try to appeal to voters beyond Trump’s “Make America Great Again” base. They’ve removed or downplayed references to the president on their websites and increasingly voiced opposition to his unpopular war with Iran.

But Trump’s events next week are likely to deliver something he craves: adoring crowds. He is almost guaranteed to fill the venues with the kind of die-hard supporters who fueled his political rise, projecting excitement as he tries to bolster enthusiasm and rally Republicans.

“The President’s ability to engage with and activate low-propensity voters is unmatched. That’s why he’ll be barnstorming the country to activate the voters we need to win in November,” Republican National Committee spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre said, promising more October rallies.

Democrats, meanwhile, celebrated the announcement. “The political floor is falling out from underneath Trump and Congressional Republicans, forcing them to scramble to spend and campaign in deep red territory in the final weeks,” said Viet Shelton, spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The RNC noted that Durant is on the Texas border and next to the Dallas-Fort Worth media market and will draw Republicans in Texas, which has emerged as one of the most critical states on the map. Scandal-plagued Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton, whom Trump backed over incumbent Sen. John Cornyn, is locked in a tight race against Democrat James Talarico. Gov. Greg Abbott also is facing a stronger-than-expected challenger in Democrat Gina Hinojosa.

Mobile is next to Florida’s panhandle, a Republican stronghold where high turnout can help bolster Trump-backed candidates running for Senate and governor. However, Florida Republican Sen. Ashley Moody is not expected to attend.

In Oklahoma, Trump will be stumping for Mike Mazzei, whom he backed as the Republican nominee for governor during a competitive primary. Mazzei is running against Oklahoma’s Democratic House Minority Leader Cyndi Munson.

“This race continues to get more competitive — and national Republicans are right to be worried about Mazzei,” Democratic Governors Assn. spokesperson Kevin Donohoe said in a statement.

Alabama, meanwhile, holds deep nostalgia for Trump and his early supporters. He held his first mega-rally in Mobile more a decade ago, drawing some 30,000 people to a college football stadium. The crowd made clear to skeptics of his campaign that he was more than a celebrity novelty.

“It’s very natural that he would host a rally here as he is gearing up for the midterm elections,” said John Wahl, the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor and former chair of the Alabama Republican Party.

Although Republicans remain the heavy favorites in Alabama’s statewide campaigns, they face a more challenging political landscape.

Former Democratic Sen. Doug Jones is mounting a vigorous campaign for Alabama governor against one of Trump’s most vocal allies, Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville, who welcomed the president’s visit.

Republican Rep. Barry Moore, running to replace Tuberville in the Senate with Trump’s backing, said the president’s rally “will be the jet fuel we need to win big in Alabama.”

Mobile is also near Alabama’s 2nd Congressional District, which leans red after its lines were redrawn but is not a slam dunk for Republicans as they try to dislodge Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures.

Figures has been criticizing the president’s plan to lower import tariffs on foreign beef in an appeal to cattle ranchers as he tries to fend off a challenge from his Trump-backed opponent, State Rep. Rhett Marques.

Trump has promised to ramp up his campaigning in the election’s final stretch and had said he would visit all of the most competitive districts .

“It’s all about 35 races,” he said at a recent Rose Garden dinner attended by Republican lawmakers. “I’m going to go to every one of those 35 places and we’re going to see if we can get everyone elected.”

Colvin and Chandler write for the Associated Press. Colvin reported from New York. AP reporter Bill Barrow in Atlanta contributed to this report.

NEW YORK — The nation’s cybersecurity agency on Thursday released an election infrastructure security plan 40 days before November’s midterms, laying out potential threats to election systems and listing services it would offer to election officials to protect the vote.

Election officials said the plan is both inadequate and belated after the administration gutted the agency’s election security work last year, prompting the officials to pay for private services to ensure they were prepared for the upcoming elections.

“For them to come in five weeks before the election, yeah, nice effort,” said Nevada’s Democratic Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, who added that he would have liked to see the federal government provide more funding for cybersecurity, rather than Nevada taxpayers having to pay for it.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin had originally promised to release the plan by mid-August as part of the Trump administration’s move to kickstart election security assistance after a hiatus. He announced the plan at the same time he threatened election officials for not cooperating with the administration’s preferred methods to hunt down noncitizen voting, a phenomenon that research shows is extremely rare.

The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is housed under the Department of Homeland Security, has since its founding in 2018 helped warn state and local election officials about potential threats from foreign governments.

But CISA, as it’s known, was largely absent from that role in last year’s elections after the Trump administration dismantled much of its role in election security. The administration cut some 1,000 employees from CISA and slashed $10 million from two cybersecurity initiatives, including one dedicated to helping state and local election officials.

CISA has also gone the entirety of Trump’s second term without a Senate-confirmed director, instead cycling through a series of acting leaders.

Plan refers to ‘consistent’ support that many election officials say has been lacking

The 13-page document released Thursday warns of various threats to election security, including software vulnerabilities, hacks of voter registration databases, insider threats and physical security incidents, such as bomb threats that targeted several polling locations in the 2024 elections.

But it affirms that many longstanding election practices can address such threats and says the agency’s goal is “to ensure the American people can trust voting systems and know that physical safety measures will be in place when they go to their assigned polling locations to cast their votes.”

It states that DHS has “consistently supported CISA’s delivery of cybersecurity and physical security services to election officials,” something numerous election officials around the country have said isn’t true.

Multiple secretaries of state told the Associated Press that services previously provided by CISA, such as live tabletop exercises and penetration tests to evaluate security of their systems, were not available in the lead-up to this year’s midterms.

Minnesota Secretary of State Scott Simon, a Democrat, said in August that his office expects to spend roughly $250,000 on private vendors to conduct penetration testing, which can expose security vulnerabilities and recommend actionable fixes.

Shenna Bellows, the Democratic secretary of state in Maine, told the AP the same month that communications with CISA had been “sporadic and irregular, to say the least.” She said it would be helpful if the Trump administration could restore intelligence briefings that used to be granted to election officials about threats from foreign adversaries, but noted that trust with federal officials had been broken with the cuts to the agency.

Thursday’s plan doesn’t mention any specific 2026 threats from adversaries like Russia, Iran or China, all of whom have sought to meddle in U.S. elections — either directly through hacking or indirectly through influence campaigns.

Kris Warner, the Republican secretary of state in West Virginia, said Thursday that some of CISA’s assistance to his state had been continual throughout the Trump administration, including no-cost reviews of its public-facing websites for cybersecurity issues.

Warner acknowledged CISA had cut back under the Trump administration but said he views the agency “as a resource and not as a service provider” and said his office had last year hired a departing CISA election security advisor who has helped fill any gaps that may exist.

Report follows August call between CISA and election officials

In early August, two CISA officials — acting director Nick Anderson and assistant director for integrated operations Jim Harrell — joined a National Assn. of Secretaries of State call attended by a bipartisan group of secretaries of state, according to several election administrators.

The call grew tense when Arizona’s Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes voiced his concerns about the withdrawal of federal resources.

Fontes told the AP at the time that he told the CISA officials he didn’t trust them. He said it seemed to him the officials were there “to cover their butts.”

“They even acknowledged on the call that it was too late for them to do anything for 2026,” he said.

Simon said the officials appeared interested in rebuilding relationships and previewing their future plans, which he appreciated. But he said the effort at goodwill came later than election officials needed.

“Secretaries of state have already moved on and sought other partners and other resources for the services that CISA has retreated from over the last year and a half,” Simon said.

In Michigan, a voting rights group has tried to fill the gap

In Michigan, where mail ballots have already been sent out for the Nov. 3 elections, Deputy Secretary of State Aghogho Edevbie said the state’s relationship with CISA has been “nonexistent” this year despite working together closely in previous election cycles.

“If the federal government wants to be helpful, they can’t do so at the 11th hour,” the Democrat said.

Ashiya Brown, the Michigan state director of the voting rights group All Voting Is Local, agreed. She noted the new plan says CISA has 10 regional directors to support election administrators but still doesn’t answer her biggest question.

“Does CISA still have the people and capacity to provide that support when clerks need it?” she asked. “I’m glad CISA has put forward a plan, but what matters now is whether the support described in it reaches local election officials before November.”

CISA has been hiring on its website for new positions, Brown said, but it’s unclear whether they are all staffed yet.

Meanwhile, Brown, a former security official with the Michigan Department of State, said her group has hired former CISA employees to help provide training and other support to election clerks and fill the gap.

Edevbie said even without collaboration with CISA, he is confident the state’s elections are secure.

“We are always prepared to defend our elections and to ensure that every voter who is eligible to cast a ballot can do so here in Michigan,” he said.

Swenson writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Jessica Hill in Las Vegas and Jacqueline GaNun in Lansing, Mich., contributed to this report.

Sept. 25, 2026 10:41 AM PT

CHICAGO — A U.S. citizen was left bloodied and injured on the side of the road in a Chicago suburb after a confrontation with immigration enforcement agents who mistook him for a fugitive, according to local police and a resident who tried to help the man.

The man, whose identity was not disclosed, was taken away in an ambulance after the encounter on Sunday in Evanston, a city around 12 miles north of downtown Chicago. He told police his head, neck and teeth were injured, according to a news release from the Evanston Police Department.

A federal agent told officers who responded to calls reporting an altercation at just before 10 a.m. that morning that five agents in separate vehicles were looking for a fugitive with a Chicago address and a warrant for his arrest, according to the release. The agents mistook the man for the fugitive, the agent told police.

When the man refused to give his identification, the agents tried to handcuff him, the agent said. After realizing he was a U.S. citizen and not the person they were seeking, they released him.

One police officer saw blood on the agent’s hands, according to the release. The agent told police he was injured while trying to handcuff the man, and that they left the area immediately after because they feared protesters who had gathered would attack them, it noted.

Police have visited the man at the hospital and photographed his injuries, and are investigating the encounter.

Local authorities investigating

Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss said in a post on X that the man was treated at St. Francis Hospital for minor injuries. The police department “continues to investigate the situation, and we will remain vigilant about federal activities,” he wrote.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers had “encountered an individual who resembled the target” of a “targeted enforcement operation,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement. “The individual was given lawful commands but was not cooperative and refused to identify himself.”

The officers “left the scene without further incident” after the man identified himself, according to the statement. “When ICE officers offered the individual assistance, he refused.”

Illinois authorities condemn bloody encounter

The incident drew condemnation from Illinois officials as backlash grows against ICE’s presence in communities around the country. ICE announced a record number of arrests last month, with nearly 51,000 people arrested.

“I am disgusted and outraged by reports of what happened in my hometown of Evanston on Sunday,” Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky said in a statement.

Eyewitnesses tell AP what they saw

Ryan Garton, 56, told the Associated Press that he saw the agents pinning down the man, who was Black, on the side of the road as he was driving home. He pulled over to document what was happening on video.

One agent had his knee on the man’s back and was “beating up on him,” Garton told the AP. “I’m a citizen, leave me alone,” Garton said the man screamed as the agent pinned him down. Around five people stood nearby and yelled at the agent to stop.

Garton said he urged the agent to get off the man so he could inspect his injuries, and that the agent acknowledged that he was already aware the man was a U.S. citizen. When the agent stepped away, Garton saw bloodstains in the shape of handprints on the man’s shirt.

“His upper right eye socket and temple were swollen as if he had been punched” and his face was scraped “as if it had been ground into the sidewalk,” he said.

The man told Garton that he had been walking to the pharmacy to pick up a prescription when the agents stopped him.

Michael Lipson, the owner of a store across the street from where the incident occurred, said he saw the agents wrestle the man to the ground as he repeatedly yelled that he is a U.S. citizen. The man’s face looked “badly messed up,” Lipson told the AP.

Lipson said the agents checked cards and papers from the man’s wallet before leaving them scattered on the road. Lipson laid out his sweatshirt for the man to rest on while Garton inspected his injuries.

The same day, ICE agents shot and wounded a man in Austin, Texas, the latest in a string of shootings by federal immigration agents that have prompted growing backlash against the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration tactics.

At least 10 people have died in encounters with immigration agents in President Trump’s second term, including a Colombian man shot dead in Maine in July by an agent with a history of violent behavior, and a Mexican man hit by a tractor trailer as he fled agents in Florida the same month. ICE agents fatally shot Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both U.S. citizens, during the Trump administration’s siege of Minneapolis, named “Operation Metro Surge,” earlier this year.

Mayes-Osterman writes for the Associated Press.

Voting rights groups have warned system may falsely identify voters as non-citizens, leading to disenfranchisement.

The United States Supreme Court has allowed the administration of US President Donald Trump to use a controversial voter verification system just weeks away from the midterm election in November.

The court’s emergency order on Friday allows the Department of Homeland Security to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, programme in its efforts to verify the eligibility of voters on state voter rolls.

Voting rights groups have argued the use of the system, which was revamped under the Trump administration in 2025, risks falsely identifying individuals as non-voters, potentially leading to individuals being wrongfully purged from voter rolls.

Those challenging the administration’s use of the database have charged that information on citizenship can be out of date. They pointed to a Travis County, Texas election official who found that up to 25 percent of the “non-citizens” identified by the system in the jurisdiction were in fact US citizens.

US states oversee election administration under the country’s constitution and are not required to use the SAVE system, but several Republican-led state governments have voluntarily opted to use the database.

Still, it was not immediately clear if Friday’s decision would have any meaningful impact on the midterm elections on November 3, in which voters will determine which parties control the US House of Representatives and the Senate.

Existing law blocks most states from systematically purging voters from their rolls within 90 days of an election. The emergency order is not also the final say on the matter, only granting the administration the ability to use the system until the court makes a final ruling.

The three liberal justices on the panel, which has a 6-3 conservative supermajority, issued a dissenting opinion, saying the majority disregarded “the harms that the modified SAVE system has caused, and will likely continue to cause, to lawful voters”.

The Citizens for Ethics watchdog group charged that the decision “puts millions of Americans at risk of being unlawfully targeted by the admin’s unreliable voter purge system weeks before the midterms”.

Trump has focused heavily on election administration in the run-up to the midterm vote, which could serve as a major check on his authority in the final two years of his term.

He has for years claimed, without evidence, that US elections are marred by widespread fraud and has repeatedly falsely claimed the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to Democrat Joe Biden, was “stolen”.

Evidence has suggested that fraud of any kind, including instances of non-citizens voting in the US, has been glancingly rare in the country.

In September, the Supreme Court rejected a bid from Trump to restrict mail ballot procedures before the midterm election.

BEIJING — It’s unclear if President Trump’s elaborate reception of his Chinese counterpart in Washington dazzled President Xi Jinping, but for the Chinese public, it made quite an impression.

Trump’s rare welcome of Xi and his wife, Peng Liyuan, at the airport, as well as the bilateral and cultural events the leaders attended were closely covered — and praised — by Chinese state media. Those who watched at home saw a China elevated in status.

“I read the news that the U.S. reception standards for President Xi are very high,” Xiang Ziyu, a postgraduate student in Beijing, told The Associated Press. “I’m quite impressed because it shows that our country has become really powerful.”

That takeaway was shared by several people interviewed by the AP as well as in comments on Chinese social media, which praised China’s cooperation with the United States.

The official People’s Daily newspaper allocated the entire front page to the trip, featuring six photos of the Xi-Trump meetings.

Meanwhile, on the Chinese search engine Baidu, the three most popular search topics on Friday were the talks between Trump and Xi; the state dinner attended by Xi and Peng; and greetings extended by Xi to Chinese people on the occasion of the Mid-Autumn Festival being celebrated on Friday.

Shen Zuohang, a Beijing resident, felt reassured by the coverage and by Trump and Xi’s seeming agreeability on topics like trade, artificial intelligence and security.

“We have no trade war and no military conflict. Even on the issue of Taiwan we are moving in a good direction instead of having heated confrontation,” Shen said.

“The two sides are handling issues in a more acquiescent way.”

According to China’s Foreign Ministry, Xi called on Trump to oppose the independence of Taiwan, an island democracy China claims as its own territory, and to handle the issue with caution. Trump did not immediately make comments on Taiwan, but had previously described U.S. arms sales to the island as open to negotiations with China.

Xiang, the student, said the summit overall sent a positive signal and will help improve the Chinese public’s opinion of the relations between the two countries.

“It is better than not communicating,” he said.

Associated Press video producer Wayne Zhang in Beijing and writer Simina Mistreanu in Taipei, Taiwan, contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Friday upheld President Trump’s expanded use of government data to spot non-citizens who are registered to vote.

The justices granted an emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and set aside a judge’s order that blocked use of this data on the grounds it was error-prone, particularly for naturalized citizens.

Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.

The decision will aid states that seek to scrub their voter rolls and remove those who are not citizens.

Several Republican-led states including Texas and Florida supported the administration’s appeal.

The use of the new database “allowed Texas to more efficiently, promptly, and economically ensure the accuracy of its voter rolls,” the state said. It was “able to run its entire list of 18 million voters” through the expanded system of checks “in bulk and for no cost.”

It’s not clear the decision will have much impact in California and other Democratic-led states. It is likely to have a limited impact in the month ahead because the law forbids states from purging their voter rolls in the 90 days prior to an election.

The court, in an unsigned opinion, said the law supported use of the data.

“The federal Government has an obligation to respond to requests from state and local election officials seeking to verify the citizenship of voters,” the court said. “The order below prevents the federal government from using the program it believes is best suited to the task.”

The administration said the Department of Homeland Security can respond to more than 1 million requests per day to check if a person appears to be a citizen or not based on Social Security records and other data files.

If not, state or county election officials may require these suspect voters to furnish proof of their citizenship.

However, states and local election boards are not required to conduct these searches. The administration also said its data reports are not final proof of citizenship.

Upholding these data searches “would not require states, candidates, parties, or voters to do anything,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer told the court. “It would simply make available to states additional information. … States that wish to use that information in the course of ensuring that only eligible citizens cast ballots this November should be free to do so.”

In dissent, Jackson said the court’s order creates the “risk that states might cancel the voter registrations of at least some recently naturalized citizens or force such persons to provide proof of citizenship before voting.”

The new system of voter checks is based on the 40-year-old Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, that was created by Congress. Then, the goal was to check if applicants were entitled to receive federal benefits.

Last year, Trump issued an executive order directing Homeland Security to expand the reach of SAVE to provide states “access to appropriate systems for verifying the citizenship or immigration status of individuals registering to vote or who are already registered to vote.”

It is a federal crime for non-citizens to register and vote.

Trump has long maintained that non-citizens are voting, but he has had little evidence to support that claim.

Voting rights advocates sued, contending the new “mass verification” system was not authorized by Congress and relied on data that is protected as private under the law.

In June, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, agreed and blocked use of the expanded searches. The administration has “trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote,” she said.

On Sept. 4, the U.S. court of appeals by a 2-1 vote refused to overturn her ruling, prompting the administration’s fast-track appeal.

The voting rights advocates, led by the League of Women Voters, had urged the court to stand aside.

“The government has recklessly created an error-laden master citizenship database that endangers millions of Americans’ privacy and voting rights,” they said.

The data searches are flawed, they argued, because they “only reflect a person’s citizenship status when they applied for a Social Security number. That status does not automatically update if the person later naturalizes.”

Texas admitted that the mass checks yield “some inaccurate information.” It said 2,724 people were cited as “potential non-citizens” among its 18 million registered voters.

In response, county officials had to check further to confirm the citizenship of these voters, the state said.

Last week, the Supreme Court dealt Trump a defeat when it blocked use of his proposed postal rules that could have prevented millions of voters from casting ballots by mail.

In a brief order, the court said Trump’s claims of power over states and their voting were “unlikely to succeed.”

But in the case of the expanded data files, the court said the law appears to favor the administration.

ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE — Pope Leo XIV told journalists they were welcome to report on him, as he responded to the Trump administration’s attempt to bar U.S. media from the White House and affirmed the importance of journalists covering public figures.

Leo spoke to reporters Friday on his way to France for a four-day visit. Asked by a CNN reporter about the Trump administration’s attempt to bar CNN and other reporters, Leo said the media was welcome on his plane.

“I am very happy that here, you are all welcome,” he said. Good media coverage is important, he said, and equally important “that we have it all the way around, for everyone”

CNN, MS NOW and Politico were back at the White House on Thursday after a judge handed them a reprieve from President Trump’s ban, but the extraordinary showdown between him and outlets whose coverage he dislikes continued.

On a high-profile day when Chinese leader Xi Jinping was visiting Washington and attending a state dinner, no major American network was airing live coverage, and both CNN and MS NOW said their journalists were denied access to Xi’s state dinner arrival.

The American pope has long affirmed the need for free and independent press, a point he made in one of his first audiences as pope. Speaking to journalists who covered the 2025 conclave that elected him, Leo called for the release of imprisoned journalists and affirmed the “precious gift of free speech and the press.”

That said, since the COVID-19 pandemic, independent media have been prevented from covering photo opportunities inside the pope’s private studio when heads of state visit. Additionally, many of the pope’s private audiences with other groups and individuals are closed to non-Vatican press.

Leo had opposed Trump on the war

Leo’s airborne comments about Trump followed his April back-and-forth over the American president’s criticism of his opposition to the Iran war. Leo’s position won him points with some Parisans opposed to Trump’s policies who came out in droves to celebrate the first official state visit by a pope in 18 years.

“He dared, at his level, to oppose the American president,” said retiree Thierry Marien, who lined up hours early to grab a spot on the popemobile route to Notre Dame cathedral, where Leo was to celebrate vespers later Friday. “Not because he is opposed to the American president but because he’s opposed to countries where we can see there’s a risk of their political systems becoming a bit more dictatorial and there are already enough of those in the world.”

“I appreciated that he did that. He could quite easily have said to himself, ‘In my situation, I won’t criticize any heads of state,’” he said.

Leo took further distance from the Trump administration policies later Friday by making a lengthy visit to UNESCO, the U.N. cultural and educational agency, from which the U.S. has withdrawn as part of its retreat from the international organization.

Leo, who has championed multilateral diplomacy, toured the UNESCO grounds inside and out, greeted its employees and received a guided tour of some of its art collections. He then delivered a speech on the values UNESCO espouses to promote peace through culture and education.

Leo apologizes to reporters

Also on the flight Friday, Leo also apologized for missing an opportunity to speak with the press the last time he traveled internationally, when his Iberia charter broke down in Spain’s Canary Islands and he returned home solo on the king’s private jet, skipping his traditional airborne press conference.

More than 70 reporters and the Vatican delegation waited for several hours at the airport for a replacement plane to arrive. Leo addressed the media’s disappointment when he came to the back of the plane to greet reporters.

“A special mention I would like to make for those of you who were traveling with me when we returned to Rome from Spain,” he said. “I want to apologize personally for an incident, that I had nothing to do with, but which I know left a number of you unhappy with the fact that we couldn’t have the flight back together back to Rome.”

In other comments to reporters, Leo said he believed his alma mater Villanova would be the fan favorite when the Augustinian university plays the Catholic University of Notre Dame’s basketball team in Rome on Nov. 1.

“They tell me that the people coming to the match, 90% are Villanova and 10% Notre Dame, so the voice of the people of God will be very strong on the Villanova side,” Leo said.

Winfield writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — Some of the loudest cheers for Sen. Ted Cruz at the Republicans’ recent midterm convention in Dallas came after the Texas politician targeted Muslim Americans and their faith’s religious code.

“Sharia law has no place in America,” said Cruz. “We need to stand together and stop it now.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott chimed in moments later, vowing to “fully ban Sharia law in Texas.”

Muslim American civic leaders and scholars — in Texas and other states — are responding forcefully to this latest surge in anti-Sharia rhetoric that dates back more than 15 years.

They passionately defend Sharia — the way it’s practiced in the United States — as positive guidance that has elements in common with the codes of other faiths, such as the Ten Commandments and the collective body of Jewish law derived from the Torah. They rebut the claims of GOP critics that Sharia is a coercive code that threatens the U.S. Constitution and judicial system.

Though there are multiple interpretations of Sharia, its essence is to serve as a code for how Muslims should live and worship — covering such matters as prayer, pilgrimages, fasting, charitable donations and personal virtue.

Among the most energetic of Sharia’s defenders is Illinois-based Sabeel Ahmed, director of an outreach project called GainPeace. He travels widely around the U.S., with a recent focus on Texas, speaking at mosque-sponsored workshops and open houses.

“Sharia is often misunderstood,” Ahmed posted on Instagram after a midsummer visit to Plano, Texas. “Many people think Sharia is only about punishments, but in Islam it is Allah’s guidance for living with faith, justice, mercy, and responsibility.”

Ahmed attributes the durability of anti-Sharia vitriol to politicians and social-media influencers who want to rile up their voting base or their followers.

“They gain popularity by saying it,” he told The Associated Press. “It’s the job of the Muslims to educate what is the proper meaning of the word Sharia. We cannot be angry or hateful.”

Sharia’s role varies significantly among Muslim nations

Among those appalled by the anti-Sharia surge in the U.S. is Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, a Sudanese-born Islamic scholar who taught for many years at Emory University School of Law in Atlanta. He is a longtime critic of the relatively small number of governments in Muslim nations that coercively enforce Sharia, saying Muslims are better off in secular states where their religious observance is a matter of free choice.

An-Na’im says he and other Muslim Americans embrace Sharia willingly as a core part of their identity, even as they also embrace American values.

The demonization of their beliefs displays “a shocking ignorance of what Sharia means,” An-Na’im said. “It’s a total dehumanization of the other, the rejection of their right to be human.”

The rhetoric is similarly dramatic among Sharia’s opponents — epitomized by the two U.S. representatives from Texas, Republicans Keith Self and Chip Roy — who co-founded the Sharia-Free America Caucus in Congress.

“Sharia is a direct threat to our Constitution and Western values and seeks to replace our legal system and erode our basic freedoms,” Roy said earlier this year. “Our immigration system must be prepared to confront this challenge and defend our Judeo-Christian values.”

By last count, the caucus had more than 60 members. All of them are Republicans, and its members have introduced several anti-Sharia bills since the caucus was formed last December. None of those measures have been successful.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, has designated the caucus as an anti-Muslim hate group.

“The bigoted rhetoric used by this caucus resembles the hatred that anti-Catholic politicians once unleashed against Irish Americans,” said CAIR research and advocacy director Corey Saylor.

“Islam is an American faith, present for over 250 years,” he added. “No one who wrote the Constitution or enforced it since has empowered these legislators to pick which religions get to exist in America.”

Texas has been a battleground for Sharia disputes

There has been substantive anti-Sharia action in Texas. In August, Attorney General Ken Paxton demanded documents from the Dallas-based Islamic Tribunal, which provides religious guidance to Muslims.

Paxton said in a news release that the investigation by his office sought to determine if the tribunal was engaged in illegal activity, such as acting as a court, applying foreign laws that conflict with Texas or federal law, or issuing rulings that imply government authority.

“This is America, and we will not be governed by sharia law,” Paxton said.

The Islamic Tribunal subsequently updated its website with a “ Clarification of Mission and Activities,” stressing that its guidance “complements, and never replaces, the legal, social, and professional services available in American society.”

“The Tribunal does not function as a court of law and does not issue legally binding judgments,” it said. “Our role is limited to mediation and religious arbitration requested by members of the Muslim community in matters related to faith, family guidance, and internal religious affairs.”

Any matters requiring legal enforcement are referred directly to the Texas judicial system, said the tribunal, which likened its work to the services provided by Jewish Beth Din courts and Catholic ecclesiastical tribunals.

Sharia defenders seek to broaden understanding of its essence

Asma Uddin, a professor at Michigan State University’s College of Law, has argued in her writings that many American politicians are depicting ordinary Muslim religious practices — such as prayer, choice of apparel, family counseling and mosque attendance — as evidence of a political danger.

In an interview with the AP, Uddin depicted the current wave of anti-Sharia rhetoric as fearmongering by politicians who view the issue as advantageous for them.

“When politicians use this, it’s giving them exactly what they’re looking for,” she said. “They’re looking for a scapegoat … and this gets people riled up.”

Sabeel Ahmed, who has made three outreach trips to Texas so far this year, plans a trip to Houston in a few weeks for another mosque open-house. He’s also working on a book to be mailed to Christian clergy across the U.S., seeking to broaden their understanding of Sharia and other Islamic practices.

“Islam is not to be feared,” Ahmed said. “People should meet a Muslim, go to the mosque, reach out to us. Let’s emphasize the commonalities we have.”

Crary writes for the Associated Press.

Youth group threatens return to mass protests, sets deadline for Gyanesh Kumar to quit due to reports of meddling with voter lists.

India’s ‘cockroach’ party youth movement has threatened to launch nationwide protests unless the country’s chief election officer does not resign by Saturday.

Founder of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), Abhijeet Dipke, announced on Friday that protests would begin in Mumbai on October 2 – if Gyanesh Kumar does not step down.

The CJP, a satirical outfit born on Instagram in May after India’s chief justice compared unemployed young Indians to “cockroaches” and “parasites”, has shaken the staunchly conservative government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

On Thursday, the group demanded that Kumar quit within 48 hours, following a newspaper report linking him to altered voter lists. Opposition parties say the lists have been manipulated to benefit Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

“If Gyanesh Kumar does not resign by tomorrow, CJP will begin its nationwide protest from Mumbai on 2 October, and take it to cities across India,” Dipke posted on X.

“This Gandhi Jayanti let’s pledge to save democracy,” he added, referring to the October 2 holiday marking independence leader Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday.

Report provokes political storm

On Wednesday, the Indian Express newspaper reported that two election commissioners had raised questions or voiced concern with Kumar at least 14 times in 10 months, mostly over the process of updating voter lists that began last year.

The main opposition Congress party announced protest marches on state election offices across India on Friday, demanding Kumar’s arrest, his removal and an independent review of decisions and voter-list changes made under him.

Opposition parties have long accused the commission of deleting the names of millions of voters without warning and adding new voters without verification to favour the BJP.

Election panel rejects claims

The Election Commission of India said that “differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberation in any institution” and that all its actions were lawful.

The BJP has defended the commission, accusing the opposition of a smear campaign because it keeps losing elections.

“Neither the Election Commission of India nor any constitutional body in India is under dictatorial rule,” BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra said on Wednesday.

CJP-led protests in July forced the resignation of Modi’s education minister over exam-paper leaks, one of the prime minister’s biggest political setbacks since coming to power in 2014.

SACRAMENTO — Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco got slapped down Thursday by the California Supreme Court in not one but two cases. Ouch.

First, the court told Bianco to return more than 600,000 ballots he had seized as part of an ill-conceived, conspiracy-laden “investigation” into voter fraud — making it clear it was the sheriff who was the criminal.

“The seizure of the ballots was unlawful,” the court wrote, before ordering Bianco to give them back to the registrar of voters and “refrain from further handling of the ballots except as necessary to comply with our order.”

Then the court, in a separate case, told Bianco he’s not a law unto himself, and in fact does have a boss in the form of the state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta. Bonta had previously ordered Bianco to pause his investigation, and Bianco largely ignored him.

The court found that the constitutional authority held by the attorney general “includes the power to give binding directions to sheriffs.”

While the high-profile lawsuit about Bianco’s seizure of hundreds of thousands of ballots from last year’s special election on redistricting has grabbed headlines, the second case about the authority of the state attorney general to oversee all California sheriffs and district attorneys is equally powerful.

It’s the first time the court has weighed in on a long-running debate in California over whether elected sheriffs have to answer to anyone. Not only did Bianco lose for election deniers everywhere in the first case, he also managed to clarify for all California sheriffs in the second case that they are not as powerful as some would like to believe.

Combined, the two opinions by the state’s highest court give another layer of assurance to Golden State residents that the integrity of the November midterm elections is as secure as the state can make it — some welcome news in a national landscape where free and fair elections are increasingly at risk.

The quiet advocate

Before we get into what the ruling means for midterms in California, there are two overlooked bits that make these cases even more interesting.

First, gubernatorial candidate and former Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra has been closely involved in the ballot-seizing case, but also pretty quiet about it.

Whenever a politician does something good and doesn’t advertise it, it always catches my attention. Politicians, especially ones running for office, aren’t big on modesty.

But Becerra has not spent a lot of time talking about this, even though he is actually a working attorney on this case, as an advisor to the UCLA Voting Rights Project. He came up with ideas, he participated — this wasn’t just a put-my-name-on-it role, I’ve been told by folks who know.

And it’s not the first time Becerra has helped the Voting Rights Project in a major endeavor. It was their work that helped define the legal arguments that made Proposition 50 happen. That’s last year’s ballot initiative that redrew California voting maps to favor Democrats, in response to a Texas effort to gerrymander in favor of Republicans. It was Proposition 50 ballots that Bianco seized.

“Today the California Supreme Court handed voters a great victory,” Becerra said in a statement from the voting project. “The Court knocked election deniers off their feet and strengthened our hand in election protection just ahead of the November vote. We must use every lever at our disposal to beat back voter interference and intimidation.”

That line about knocking election deniers is not hyperbole. In some far-right, conspiracy-rich circles, Bianco’s cowboy-saving-the-day routine was viewed as heroic. Maybe even something to emulate.

Across the country, there are rumblings — including from President Trump — about seizing ballots from past or future elections. While this ruling is firmly rooted in California law, most states have similar chains of custody when it comes to ballots. So it’s likely to at least make other would-be-Biancos pause.

In a later interview, Becerra told me that the Voting Rights Project was “the one thing I decided I would do after I came home from being secretary in Washington, D.C.,” whether he ran for office or not, “just because I so believe in the work that they do.”

He said as he campaigns this year, he’s seeing anxiety in minority communities from that interference and intimidation, maybe even fear that could pressure some legal voters to sit this one out.

“It makes it tough when you’ve got all these things standing in your way before you even get to thinking about going to vote,” Becerra said. “The Latino community, other communities, mostly under-served communities, I always tell them, we’re not rich. The way we win these things is by voting.”

The Liu concurrence

The second fact that caught my attention was a concurring opinion on the ballot case by Justice Goodwin Liu.

While the court was unanimous in its findings, Liu wrote his own opinion highlighting how the Riverside registrar of voters was “caught between a rock and a hard place” when the sheriff of his own county showed up with a warrant, guns and “enough trucks to remove several pallets of materials.”

That trifecta, Liu wrote, left the registrar little room for dissent — but that’s a problem.

Liu’s point seemed to be that with the current state of our president making election denial chic, our voting officials need to step up. He said the registrar should have come directly to the court for relief, and not left it to the Voting Rights Project and other plaintiffs.

“It is a lot to ask of our election officials that they not only do their jobs competently but also stand ready to sue anyone who unlawfully interferes with their duties,” Liu wrote. “Yet here we are.”

Since Bianco seized the ballots, state law has been changed. This session, legislators passed (and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed) at least 13 laws pertaining to election security, including making it a felony to break the chain of ballot custody, and ensuring that local election officials immediately contact the state in instances when that is threatened. Those laws will offer protection to election officials if a situation like this comes up again.

But Liu’s point is still valid. Being an election official is no longer a sleepy little job, but a front-line battle for democracy, and for “our democracy to flourish, our elections must be conducted in accordance with the law.”

Which brings us back to the midterms. California shouldn’t be complacent, but the state isn’t slouching on preparation, or resolve.

As Bonta put it, “if you can imagine it, we are ready for it.”

I’m not quite that confident — and definitely concerned for contests outside of the Golden State — but Thursday’s rulings are a reminder that the law still holds, even when lawmen try to break it.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: Ballot seizure by Riverside County sheriff was ‘unlawful,’ California Supreme Court rules
The California angle: This deadly fungus isn’t just a rural threat anymore. New studies point to cities and oil wells
The L.A. Times Special: Hollywood would get 20% federal film tax credit under proposed new bill
Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

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

Political polls are like weather forecasts. They’re worth passing consideration, maybe, but you’d have to be a fool to bet your house on their accuracy.

And yet there’s something that rings true about the recent poll suggesting that L.A. Mayor Karen Bass is in deep trouble among likely voters as she tries to hold on to a job that Councilmember Nithya Raman is trying to snatch away from her.

Here are the numbers, as compiled by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times:

Raman: 39%.

Bass: 28%.

Undecided: 33%.

Bass has naturally tried to debunk the poll. What else could she do, when her supporters are outnumbered by people who can’t make up their minds? Bass would need to dominate the undecided vote to have a chance, but given her high unfavorability rating, that’ll be hard to do.

On the other hand, Raman certainly hasn’t put things out of reach, despite the fact that Bass carries the baggage of the Palisades fire and has made only minimal progress on her signature issue — homelessness. Election day is less than two months away, and Raman has failed to convince anywhere near a majority that she’s the answer.

So what do Raman and Bass need to do between now and Nov. 3?

Some speculate that Bass may need to step up the negative attacks.

I beg to differ.

We need both candidates to be bolder, more creative, more convincing, and to tell us things we haven’t heard before.

All the recent L.A. mayors I’ve known had their faults and failures, whether the task was filling potholes, building out transit or addressing the high cost of housing. But among their best qualities, Dick Riordan was arrogantly confident, Jim Hahn had a steady hand on the tiller, Antonio Villaraigosa was tireless and passionate, Eric Garcetti was a long-range thinker on earthquakes, water and energy.

L.A. needs a mayor with all of those qualities. A cheerleader. A task master. A ball buster.

Running the second-largest city in the country is no easy task, because many of the problems at street level begin well beyond local control, related in part to an economy that leaves too many people behind.

But if you want to lead a world-class city, you need to have world-class answers on the big stuff like housing and homelessness and on the basics, too, like fractured sidewalks and neglected parks. Most voters don’t give a hoot about which candidate is more of a socialist or a moderate. City Hall is broken, and they want to know who can fix it.

On Wednesday, I checked the same sadly neglected area around City Hall that I wrote about in April and found only minimal improvements. Graffiti has been washed from the Frank Putnam Flint fountain, but it remains a broken-down monument to neglect, as it has for most of the past 60 years. And all around it, most of the little placards identifying native plants are broken or missing.

People rest on the Frank Putnam Flint fountain outside City Hall, a sadly neglected area.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

The L.A. Mall is still a largely abandoned wreck, with broken planter boxes and weeds at street level. A woman with two shopping carts told me she’s been homeless for 5½ years. The restaurant next to the nearby police department is shuttered; the restaurant across the street from it is long dead, and the once-vibrant downtown — which generated revenue that benefited every neighborhood of the city — is gasping.

I drove down Hope Street, south of 12th Street, because a reader who lives in that area and has told me about repeated fires at abandoned properties. A tractor was clearing debris from a recent blaze.

I drove west on Olympic toward Alvarado, an area I visit regularly to see a friend. Streets are strewn with trash. They’re always strewn with trash. At Olympic and South Lake, where encampments line the street and a fire once spread into a church parking lot, destroying vehicles, there’s a concrete triangle that was heaped with trash. It’s always heaped with trash, like a municipal dump on a busy thoroughfare.

Next I headed west on Wilshire to the RFK Memorial I wrote about 10 months ago, near the site of the 1968 Bobby Kennedy assassination. It remainsfenced-off, with trash and graffitiand with overgrown vines covering tributes to Kennedy. The city was going to help the school district clean things up. Then the school district took on the task.

It’s still a mess. Actually, it’s more than that. It’s an indictment. And so is the fact that in Studio City, where frustrated neighbors complained for five years that an abandoned property had been taken over by squatters, it took a recent fire to get City Hall’s attention.

The property, since cleared, is in Raman’s district, and she and Bass traded accusations about who had dropped the ball.

“As far as homelessness goes, I don’t see either candidate really showing a clear vision to solve this,” said Kayt Miranda, whose home was damaged by the fire at the abandoned property. “I mean, it’s a tall order, and I wouldn’t want to be in charge of that. But I’m not hearing anything from either of them that sounds like it will work or hasn’t been tried already.”

To be fair, Bass and Raman have each had lots of success on homelessness, with thousands of people being brought indoors. That job is not easy, especially given the number of people with mental illness and addiction issues. I know this from personal experience, having spent a year trying to steer a friend in from homelessness.

But the pace is too slow and the cost too high. As my colleague David Zahniser reported earlier this year, $300 million had been spent on the mayor’s Inside Safe program since December 2022, and as of last December, 40% of the 5,800 people who had been housed were back on the street.

And that was with an estimated annual cost per person of $82,000. Raman, who had supported the program, became a critic of it and touted a less expensive strategy that itself has been criticized for its slow pace, as Times City Hall reporter Noah Goldberg wrote in August.

Not long ago, a homelessness policy expert suggested to me that if we could figure out a way to double the nearly $1,000 Social Security Disability subsidy many homeless people get, it would open some doors in a housing market they’re now priced out of. Too expensive? It’s cheaper than what we’re doing.

I’d like to hear the candidates rethink the playbook like that, double down on what works and drop what doesn’t.

I’d like to hear from a candidate with a realistic plan to get L.A. out of the cellar in park rankings nationally, to break up the 10-year logjam for a sidewalk repair and the two-year wait to fix a street light.

All those undecided voters know exactly what they want.

A mayor who says fix the busted fountain by the end of the week, or else.

They want someone to win their vote.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

The slate of statewide measures on the Nov. 3 ballot provides voters two opportunities to tax the rich, which in past years has proved tantalizing to California’s left-leaning electorate.

Only one of those measures has strong voter support, however, and it’s not the proposition that’s attracted nationwide attention, ignited a nearly quarter-billion-dollar political slugfest and created a rift among top leaders in the Democratic Party.

Likely voters expressed middling support for Proposition 40, a one-time 5% tax on billionaires’ assets intended to compensate for an impending $100 billion in federal healthcare funding cuts. They were far more likely to back Proposition 3, a ballot measure that would make permanent a tax increase on the wealthy that funds schools and healthcare, according to a poll released Friday by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that is co-sponsored by The Times.

Proposition 3 appears to be a much less controversial endeavor, which may explain why it has more voter support. The ballot measure would extend a tax enacted in 2012 on individuals who earn at least $360,000 a year that is set to expire in 2031. Proposition 40 proposes a brand-new tax on billionaires and is opposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, who fears that it could hurt the state’s finances in the long run.

“When you’re going about taxing the billionaires’ assets, I mean that’s something kind of new and different, and it’s risky, and the governor’s against it, and you know a lot of people are expressing caution about it,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the poll.

Voters are deeply concerned about income disparity but also skeptical about the unusual approach of the billionaire tax.

Proposition 40 has drawn the greatest attention and campaign spending of the 14 ballot measures voters will decide on Nov. 3.

In the poll, 45% of likely voters support the proposal, while 42% oppose it and 13% are undecided. That’s a decline in support compared with six weeks ago, when 48% of likely voters supported it while 41% opposed it, and comes after nearly $100 million of spending on television ads, social media messages and mailers, largely from opponents.

The billionaire tax was crafted by a healthcare union in response to legislation passed by congressional Republicans and signed by President Trump last year that could result in millions of Californians losing Medi-Cal coverage, rural hospitals shuttering and other healthcare services being slashed unless a new funding source is found.

The proposal would retroactively apply to billionaires who lived in California as of Jan. 1, prompting some to preemptively move out of the state. Ninety percent of the revenue would fund healthcare programs, and the remaining funds would be spent on education programs and food assistance.

There are two counterproposals on the ballot that would nullify the wealth tax if either receives more votes than Proposition 40, and they have raised $144 million. Voters are torn about Proposition 41, which would prohibit any new state taxes from being excluded from a voter-approved cap that restricts how much tax revenue the state can spend each year. The billionaire tax would have such an exclusion. Voters also are divided on Proposition 42, which would prohibit new taxes on personal property, intellectual property, retirement accounts and other assets and would limit situations in which a ballot measure or state lawmakers can impose or raise taxes retroactively — both of which are essential parts of the billionaire tax initiative.

Proposition 42 has greater support, with 43% backing it, 34% opposing it and the remainder undecided, according to the poll. Even more voters were uncertain about Proposition 41: 3 in 10 said they were undecided, while 37% said they supported it and 33% said they planned to vote against it.

The large number of undecided voters this close to the election points to voters being overwhelmed by the sheer number of statewide ballot measures, DiCamillo said.

“It’s confusion,” he said, adding that many voters may make a decision once they receive more ballot information.

That said, the fact that none of these proposals has the support of more than 50% of likely voters doesn’t bode well for their prospects, DiCamillo said.

Ballots will begin arriving in the mailboxes of the state’s 23.2 million voters in days.

Democratic voters outnumber Republicans by nearly 2 to 1 in California, but the party’s leaders are deeply divided about the billionaire tax, given the volatile state budget’s reliance on the wealthy. Newsom, who is pondering a 2028 presidential campaign, and the two men vying to replace him — Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton — oppose it. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), a potential 2028 White House contender, supports it, as does the California Democratic Party.

Additionally, Dave Regan, president of Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West and architect of the ballot measure, has come under scrutiny. Regan has been accused of threatening and intimidating women who worked for the union’s parent organization, and of physically assaulting one, according to reporting by The Times. He was also accused of trying to extort SEIU’s state council, suggesting that it could face an investigation over “governance issues” if it did not support Proposition 40, according to an investigation commissioned by SEIU.

Regan has denied these claims, describing them as a “smear” campaign orchestrated by Proposition 40 opponents.

Much less attention has been paid to Proposition 3. Californians who earn more than $360,000 now are subject to a 10.3% tax, while those who earn more than $721,000 face a 12.3% levy. The vast majority of the billions raised through this tax go to K-12 schools, while the remainder is spent on community colleges and healthcare.

The other ballot measure that is receiving national attention is Proposition 39, which would require voters to present a government-issued identification document to cast a ballot or provide a PIN or the last four digits of their Social Security number when submitting mail-in ballots.

The measure also would require the California secretary of state and county election officials to verify that registered voters are U.S. citizens by “using government data,” which according to supporters could include information in the federal Social Security Administration database, jury summons information and other government records.

The proposal comes as Trump has continued to make claims that elections, notably in California, are being rigged by Democrats. Americans are increasingly alarmed about the security and sanctity of voting, and growing fears about intimidation efforts at polling places in the midterm elections.

Fifty-two percent of likely California voters oppose the voter ID proposal, while 39% support it and 9% are undecided, according to the poll.

“It doesn’t look like it’s in a strong position,” DiCamillo said, noting that while voters have opposed it in prior polls, the opposition has grown.

Nearly one-third of voters were undecided about two other propositions:

• Likely voters were evenly split about Proposition 4, which would repeal a ban on public funding of campaigns, with 35% supporting it and 35% opposing it, and the remainder undecided.
• Four out of 10 likely voters opposed Proposition 43, which would increase the threshold necessary to pass local taxes from a simple majority to two-thirds, while 31% supported measure and 29% were undecided.

Voters will also face questions about environmental policy, housing, recall elections and other matters, as well as statewide, congressional and local elections. Californians are fatigued by the length of the ballot.

The Berkeley IGS/Times poll findings are based on an online survey in English and Spanish of 6,989 registered California voters, 4,512 of whom are considered likely voters, on Sept. 15-20. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of about 2 percentage points in either direction in the overall sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.

Iran says it has put forward a plan to the United States to reopen the Strait of Hormuz within seven days, as Qatar passes messages between the two countries at the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

Speaking on the sidelines on Thursday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the timetable could begin as soon as Washington accepted the proposal.

Both sides have described the indirect contact facilitated by Qatar in New York positively, but neither has indicated any diplomatic breakthrough as the war approaches its seven-month mark.

Analysts have told Al Jazeera a firm peace deal remains unlikely, with Iran still wanting to follow the approach set out in an earlier agreement, which would give it and Oman a main role in managing the strait before moving on to discussing terms for a broader peace deal.

For its part, the US, which has claimed to be “in total control” of the Strait of Hormuz, wants Iran’s nuclear programme to be the subject of discussions straight away.

Iran has previously made clear that it will not engage with broader peace talks, including addressing the issue of its nuclear programme, until the US naval blockade of its ports in and around the Hormuz strait is lifted, sanctions are repealed and the US provides a guarantee of an end to strikes, among other conditions.

Here’s what we know.

What has Iran proposed?

Araghchi told reporters in New York that Iran had presented its plan to the US through intermediaries. “If certain conditions are met, the Strait of Hormuz would be open on the end of the seventh day and [peace] talks would restart,” he said.

He did not give details but said the proposal resembles the June 17 memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed by Iran and the US, which briefly eased the conflict before breaking down. “The moment they accept this plan, from the next day, this timetable can start, and after seven days, the strait will be open,” he said.

Under the June agreement, Iran undertook to allow ships to pass through the strait without paying tolls for 60 days – that was the period of time given for peace talks to take place. But the MoU left open what would happen after that period.

Araghchi did not say whether the same arrangement formed part of his new proposal. Nor did he spell out what Washington would have to do before the seven-day timetable began, how either side would verify those steps, or what rules would govern shipping once the strait reopened.

It is highly unlikely Iran would be offering to cede control of the Strait of Hormuz, analysts say.

Urban Coningham, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, told Al Jazeera that Tehran is unlikely to receive the sanction relief it has previously demanded and, therefore, sees the strait as its primary ticket to helping it recover from the war economically.

“Hormuz is a clear Iranian red line,” he told Al Jazeera. “The Iranians will not get reparations for the war, so control of the strait is the only way they can recover economically. I cannot see them backing down from that.”

Why does the June agreement matter?

The MoU signed in June set out an immediate halt to military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, where Israel has launched strikes and occupied part of the country, and triggered a 60-day period for negotiations on a lasting peace settlement. It included US waivers for Iranian oil exports and provisions to restore maritime traffic through the strait.

It deferred other issues, including the future of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, to broader peace talks.

But the agreement unravelled the following month amid renewed confrontation over shipping routes through the strait.

Coningham told Al Jazeera that Iran’s latest proposal follows this earlier model: “Open the strait within seven days, then start talks on the nuclear file.”

But “the US does not want to compartmentalise the issues, it wants them discussed as one package”, he said.

How else does this new proposal place pressure on the US?

Coningham also sees a political calculation in making the offer publicly at the UN as Americans contend with high fuel prices. “By explicitly saying this may be the only chance before the midterms, Iran is putting pressure on Trump over oil and gas prices and the strait,” he said. “It is a tactic to put more pressure on the US.”

The strait, which runs between Iran and Oman, is a vital route for oil and gas exports from the Gulf. Disruption to shipping has driven up energy prices far beyond the region, giving both governments an economic reason to reach an agreement despite their differences.

With the US midterm elections approaching, a deal to get it reopened could give Trump a chance to bring down fuel prices before voters go to the polls – potentially giving the Republican Party a much-needed electoral boost before the midterms.

Trump has presented the electoral calculation differently, however. In his address to the General Assembly on Tuesday, he accused Iran of waiting to see how his Republican Party performs in November and predicted a deal would happen after the vote. He also threatened to “annihilate the Islamic Republic” if there was no agreement.

Trump claimed the election did not affect his own decision-making on Iran: “The only thing that does is that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon.”

That leaves an open question about whether the prospect of lower energy prices is enough to persuade his administration to accept Iran’s proposed order of talks. Coningham doubts it. “Trump is prepared for this to go on through the midterms,” he said. “The same problem remains where the proposal does not answer questions about the nuclear file.”

Where do broader US-Iran peace talks stand?

Araghchi met US envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner on Tuesday in talks mediated by Qatar. The Iranian foreign minister described the exchange as productive and said messages continued to pass between the sides.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said it would be wrong to describe the meeting as a major breakthrough, however.

Burcu Ozcelik, a senior research fellow for Middle East security, told Al Jazeera that the major blockage for Washington and Tehran is that each is making different assumptions about how much pressure they can exert on the other. The Trump administration is unlikely to revive the failed MoU, she said, because it assesses its naval blockade and tighter sanctions as working.

“The US appears to believe it can wait this out until Tehran is prepared to make meaningful concessions,” Ozcelik said.

“But Iran remains defiant despite indications that it is hurting economically.”