power

The uproar over Tucker Carlson’s interview with white nationalist and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes has sparked yet another round of MAGA civil war talk.

Full disclosure: I previously worked for Carlson at the Daily Caller, so I’ve had a front-row seat for this ongoing battle for a long time now.

In case you missed the latest: Carlson invited Fuentes onto his podcast. What followed wasn’t an interview so much as a warm bubble bath of mutual validation — the kind of “conversation” that helps launder extremist ideas.

Enter Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation — once the intellectual vanguard of conservatism, now something closer to an emotional support group for people who think President Reagan was too soft. Responding to whispers that Heritage might distance itself from Carlson, Roberts rushed out a video to reassure the faithful: Heritage will have no enemies to its right.

Roberts disagreed with Fuentes (good for him) but insisted Heritage didn’t become the top conservative think tank by “canceling our own people or policing the consciences of Christians.” He also called Carlson’s critics a “venomous coalition” who “serve someone else’s agenda” — which echoes one of the oldest antisemitic tropes in the book.

And then something surprising happened: People inside Heritage actually pushed back (a brave move, given Heritage’s Orwellian “one voice” policy). Some even resigned.

The broader right-wing commentariat weighed in, too. Ben Shapiro called Carlson an “intellectual coward.” Ted Cruz made some noise. The Wall Street Journal editorial board huffed. And talk radio host Mark Levin criticized Fuentes and Carlson during a speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition. For a brief moment, it looked like accountability was actually trending.

But … why this moment? Why now?

Keep in mind: Then-former President Trump dined with Fuentes in 2022 and wrongly claimed immigrants were eating pets in 2024. As president, he told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” in 2020. And of course he launched his political career by questioning President Obama’s birth certificate. I could go on.

Despite all of this, Trump’s grip on the conservative movement only grew firmer.

Meanwhile, right-wing antisemitism has metastasized on Trump’s watch — despite his support for Israel.

Charlottesville, anyone?

The “alt-right” has shed its “alt.” They’re just “right” now.

This is especially observable when it comes to young conservatives who came of age during the Trump era. Indeed, one Heritage staffer told the New York Post that “a growing number” of Heritage interns “actually agree” with Fuentes.

And here’s the irony: The same conservative media figures now sounding the alarm helped build the machine.

Take Levin. Fuentes recently admitted that it was Levin’s radio show that first radicalized him. “He planted the seed, at least,” Fuentes told Carlson.

Likewise, aside from endorsing Trump in 2024, Shapiro made conspiracy theorist Candace Owens famous when his Daily Wire hired her to host a podcast on its platform after she became buddies with Kanye West and after she suggested the only problem with Adolf Hitler was that “he had dreams outside of Germany.”

So if these more mainstream Trumpers are horrified now, it’s probably because they helped create monsters — and those monsters are now coming to devour their creators, as monsters always do.

Rest assured, though, this rot is not limited solely to antisemitism. In recent months, MAGA figures such as Vivek Ramaswamy, FBI Director Kash Patel and even Vice President JD Vance (who is married to an Indian American woman) have all been targets of racist abuse online.

It’s important to note that none of these folks are considered “Never Trump” or Reagan conservatives. They are Trump allies. The revolution devours itself. (First they came for the Never Trumpers.…)

Again, this is far from the first skirmish in the MAGA civil war. But all of these internecine fights obscure the root cause of the problem: Trump. And yet, the orange emperor himself? Off-limits.

The fever won’t break while Trump’s still around, serving as a magnet for the worst people and cultivating the toxic ecosystem that made all of this right-wing racism possible, if not inevitable.

So by all means, conservatives: Condemn Carlson, denounce Fuentes and scold Heritage for failing to police the right and only punching left.

But as long as you avert your eyes from Trumpism, your righteous outrage is just theater — the political equivalent of aggressively mopping the floor while the pipes keep bursting.

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

As Los Angeles city officials worked on an agreement to modernize the Convention Center, more than one member of the McOsker family was playing a key role.

City Councilmember Tim McOsker supported the $2.6-billion expansion, which could bring more tourism but threatens to further exacerbate Los Angeles’ dire fiscal situation.

Nella McOsker, his daughter, runs the Central City Assn., an influential downtown Los Angeles business group, which advocated strenuously for the project.

And his nephew, Emmett McOsker, who was an aide to former Mayor Eric Garcetti, works for the Tourism Department — handling the Convention Center.

Central City Assn. President and Chief Executive Nella McOsker.

(Juliana Yamada/Los Angeles Times)

Nella McOsker often argued for the project as her father listened with his council colleagues. In September, he cast a “yes” vote.

“It’s just a family tradition of public service,” said Doane Liu, executive director of the Tourism Department, who is a longtime friend and former colleague of Tim McOsker — and Emmett McOsker’s boss. “I wish there were more McOskers working at City Hall.”

And there are. Flying a little beneath the radar, due to her last name, is a fourth family member, Anissa Raja — the councilmember’s niece (cousin to Emmett and Nella), who is also his legislative director and president of the Los Angeles County Young Democrats.

Raja does not lead with the fact that she is the councilmember’s relative.

“I don’t mention it because I’m a staffer. I keep it professional at work,” she said.

While the interplay between McOskers can create potential conflicts of interest, Nella says she logs every lobbying conversation she has with Tim’s office to the city’s Ethics Commission, just like she does with other councilmembers.

Plus, she and her dad often disagree. And in L.A. city government, lobbying a close family member is perfectly legal, as long as neither party has a financial stake.

“As a city, we made a policy decision that it shouldn’t be just because you’re related to someone that you can’t try to exert influence over them if they’re in an elected position,” said Jessica Levinson, a professor of law at Loyola Marymount University and former head of the city’s Ethics Commission.

Councilmember Tim McOsker speaking during a 2023 meeting at City Hall.

(Jay L. Clendenin/Los Angeles Times)

For decades, the McOskers — a large, tight-knit Irish Catholic family from San Pedro — have wielded power at Los Angeles City Hall. Unlike the Garcettis and the Hahns, the McOskers have not served in citywide or countywide elected office. But their breadth of influence in Los Angeles politics over the last quarter century may be unparalleled.

The McOskers are hardly alone in making city politics the family business.

There’s Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, whose father-in-law Zev Yaroslavsky once held her seat. And Herb Wesson, the former council speaker, whose son was his aide and whose daughter-in-law Alexis Wesson is chief of staff to Councilmember Adrin Nazarian.

Sometimes that leads to family members bumping up against each other in questionable ways.

Eric Garcetti’s father, Gil Garcetti — perhaps best known for being L.A. County district attorney during the O.J. Simpson trial — was president of the Ethics Commission when his son was on the City Council. That led to issues in 2006, when Gil inadvertently contributed to Eric’s reelection campaign, which was not allowed. Or consider Councilmember Curren Price, who has been charged with allegedly voting in favor of development projects his wife’s company was being paid to consult for.

The McOskers’ tradition of city service predates Tim, who worked for City Attorney James Hahn in the 1990s before becoming Hahn’s chief of staff when Hahn was mayor in the early 2000s. Tim’s father, Mac, was a city firefighter, which many in the family cite as the origin of the public service bug.

To this day, the family is as much, or more of, a fire family than a politics family — and some members have combined the two.

Tim’s brother Patrick is a retired LAFD engineer who served as president of United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, the powerful firefighters union. Another brother, Mike, who died in 2019, was vice president of the same union.

Emmett, Patrick’s son, said his father was always his hero and that he wanted to be a firefighter. But when he graduated college in 2011 following the Great Recession, the fire department wasn’t hiring, so he got into politics instead.

Tim, too, aspired to be a firefighter at one point. Two of his children are firefighters, one for LAFD and the other for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, while a cousin works for the county fire department.

In 2003, then-Councilmember Janice Hahn — sister of Mayor James Hahn and daughter of longtime county supervisor Kenneth Hahn — told The Times that Tim and his brothers Patrick, Mike and John (then vice president of the city’s Harbor Area Planning Commission) “are involved in everything.”

Rebecca Liu Morales, a former aide to then-Councilmember Eric Garcetti, was Nella McOsker’s close childhood friend in San Pedro.

“We grew up super familiar with public life and what it looks like. We were dragged to campaign events. We spent Saturdays volunteering,” said Liu Morales, who as Doane Liu’s daughter was also raised in a political family.

Little did Nella McOsker know that decades down the line, she would still be attending her father’s campaign events, helping him get elected to the City Council in 2022.

She worked as his operations director, referring to herself as his “Ego Killer” for always being willing to knock him down a peg. The campaign was filled out by volunteers from the family, from Tim’s wife, Connie, to brother Patrick, who was an avid doorknocker.

One politico who lives in the district noted that two McOskers separately knocked on his door and a third called him as part of a phone banking operation.

After Tim won his council seat, Nella took a job running the Central City Assn. Now, she lobbies councilmembers, including her father’s office.

Councilmember McOsker, along with Councilmember Yaroslavsky, proposed a law in 2023 that would have required lobbyists like Nella who are close relatives of councilmembers or high-level council staffers to disclose the relationship. They would have been prohibited from lobbying on land use development projects in that councilmember’s district. Because Nella works on issues involving downtown, not the San Pedro area, she and Tim would likely not have been affected. The law was never passed.

Rob Quan, who runs a transparency-focused good government advocacy group,
said there is no evidence that the McOskers have leveraged their relationships for undue advantage.

Tim said the family rarely talks local politics at dinners and holidays. First off, there are so many of them that the atmosphere can become chaotic.

Last time he hosted Thanksgiving, Tim said about 47 people showed up, and the tables stretched all the way outside onto the back patio. Mostly, they dote on the kids, and cousins reconnect.

“It’s not a lot about politics. It’s a lot about family,” Tim said.

When politics do come up, the McOskers often land on opposite sides.

Tim said he disagreed with his firefighter daughter Miranda and his brother Patrick, who believed LAFD Chief Kristin Crowley should have been reinstated after Mayor Karen Bass ousted her over her handling of the Palisades fire. The two showed up with other firefighters at the council chambers when the council was voting on the issue.

“You can’t have a mayor and a chief of fire … on different pages. It is dangerous,” Tim said.

While Tim and Nella both supported the Convention Center expansion, the two have split on other issues.

Earlier this year, Tim voted to increase the hotel and airport worker minimum wage — which Nella and the Central City Assn. fiercely opposed.

“There’s a different intensity I can get to with him [than with other councilmembers],” she said, referring to her conversations with her father about politics.

This summer, Nella McOsker and the Central City Assn. were part of a business coalition that proposed a ballot measure to repeal the city’s gross receipts tax on businesses, which generates about $800 million for the city annually. Her goal was to help struggling businesses by reducing their taxes.

“Terrible idea,” Tim McOsker said.

That was probably the most annoyed “Tim” got with her, Nella said.

She calls him Tim, not Dad — partially out of decorum in a world where she is lobbying him and his colleagues on a regular basis.

It’s also how she and her four younger siblings grew up — they’ve always called their parents Tim and Connie.

Nella’s son Omero is 4. She says he can be whatever he wants when he grows up, but some in the city family already have their eyes on him.

“I’m ready to offer him an internship,” Liu said.

SAN FRANCISCO — Rep. Nancy Pelosi, a trailblazing San Francisco Democrat who leveraged decades of power in the U.S. House to become one of the most influential political leaders of her generation, will not run for reelection in 2026, she said Thursday.

The former House speaker, 85, who has been in Congress since 1987 and oversaw both of President Trump’s first-term impeachments, had been pushing off her 2026 decision until after Tuesday’s vote on Proposition 50, a ballot measure she backed and helped bankroll to redraw California’s congressional maps in her party’s favor.

With the measure’s resounding passage, Pelosi said it was time to start clearing the path for another Democrat to represent San Francisco — one of the nation’s most liberal bastions — in Congress, as some are already vying to do.

“With a grateful heart, I look forward to my final year of service as your proud representative,” Pelosi said in a nearly six-minute video she posted online Thursday morning, in which she also recounted major achievements from her long career.

Pelosi did not immediately endorse a would-be successor, but challenged her constituents to stay engaged.

“As we go forward, my message to the city I love is this: San Francisco, know your power,” she said. “We have made history, we have made progress, we have always led the way — and now we must continue to do so by remaining full participants in our democracy, and fighting for the American ideals we hold dear.”

Pelosi’s announcement drew immediate reaction across the political world, with Democrats lauding her dedication and accomplishments and President Trump, a frequent target and critic of hers, ridiculing her as a “highly overrated politician.”

Pelosi has not faced a serious challenge for her seat since President Reagan was in office, and has won recent elections by wide margins. Just a year ago, she won reelection with 81% of the vote.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

However, Pelosi was facing two hard-to-ignore challengers from her own party in next year’s Democratic primary: state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), 55, a prolific and ambitious lawmaker with a strong base of support in the city, and Saikat Chakrabarti, 39, a Democratic political operative and tech millionaire who is infusing his campaign with personal cash.

Their challenges come amid a shifting tide against gerontocracy in Democratic politics more broadly, as many in the party’s base have increasingly questioned the ability of its longtime leaders — especially those in their 70s and 80s — to sustain an energetic and effective resistance to President Trump and his MAGA agenda.

In announcing his candidacy for Pelosi’s seat last month after years of deferring to her, Wiener said he simply couldn’t wait any longer. “The world is changing, the Democratic Party is changing, and it’s time,” he said.

Chakrabarti — who helped Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) topple another older Democratic incumbent with a message of generational change in 2018 — said voters in San Francisco “need a whole different approach” to governing after years of longtime party leaders failing to deliver.

In an interview Thursday, Wiener called Pelosi an “icon” who delivered for San Francisco in more ways than most people can comprehend, with whom he shared a “deep love” for the city. He also recounted, in particular, Pelosi’s early advocacy for AIDS treatment and care in the 1980s, and the impact it had on him personally.

“I remember vividly what it felt like as a closeted gay teenager, having a sense that the country had abandoned people like me, and that the country didn’t care if people like me died. I was 17, and that was my perception of my place in the world,” Wiener said. “Nancy Pelosi showed that that wasn’t true, that there were people in positions of power who gave a damn about gay men and LGBTQ people and people living with HIV and those of us at risk for HIV — and that was really powerful.”

Chakrabarti, in a statement Thursday, thanked Pelosi for her “decades of service that defined a generation of politics” and for “doing something truly rare in Washington: making room for the next one.”

While anticipated by many, Pelosi’s decision nonetheless reverberated through political circles, including as yet another major sign that a new political era is dawning for the political left — as also evidenced by the stunning rise of Zohran Mamdani, the 34-year-old democratic socialist elected Tuesday as New York City’s next mayor.

Known as a relentless and savvy party tactician, Pelosi had fought off concerns about her age in the past, including when she chose to run again last year. The first woman ever elected speaker in 2007, Pelosi has long cultivated and maintained a spry image belying her age by walking the halls of Congress in signature four-inch stilettos, and by keeping up a rigorous schedule of flying between work in Washington and constituent events in her home district.

However, that veneer has worn down in recent years, including when she broke her hip during a fall in Europe in December.

That occurred just after fellow octogenarian President Biden sparked intense speculation about his age and cognitive abilities with his disastrous debate performance against Trump in June of last year. The performance led to Biden being pushed to drop out of the race — in part by Pelosi — and to Vice President Kamala Harris moving to the top of the ticket and losing badly to Trump in November.

Democrats have also watched other older liberal leaders age and die in power in recent years, including the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, another San Francisco power player in Washington. When Ginsburg died in office at 87, it handed Trump a third Supreme Court appointment. When Feinstein died in office ill at 90, it was amid swirling questions about her competency to serve.

By bowing out of the 2026 race, Pelosi — who stepped down from party leadership in 2022 — diminished her own potential for an ungraceful last chapter in office. But she did not concede that her current effectiveness has diminished one bit.

Pelosi was one of the most vocal and early proponents of Proposition 50, which amends the state constitution to give state Democrats the power through 2030 to redraw California’s congressional districts in their favor.

The measure was in response to Republicans in red states such as Texas redrawing maps in their favor, at Trump’s direction. Pelosi championed it as critical to preserving Democrats’ chances of winning back the House next year and checking Trump through the second half of his second term, something she and others suggested will be vital for the survival of American democracy.

On Tuesday, California voters resoundingly approved Proposition 50.

In her video, Pelosi noted a litany of accomplishments during her time in office, crediting them not to herself but to her constituents, to labor groups, to nonprofits and private entrepreneurs, to the city’s vibrant diversity and flair for innovation.

She noted bringing federal resources to the city to recover after the Loma Prieta earthquake, and San Francisco’s leading role in tackling the devastating HIV/AIDS crisis through partnerships with UC San Francisco and San Francisco General, which “pioneered comprehensive community based care, prevention and research” still used today.

She mentioned passing the Ryan White CARE Act and the Affordable Care Act, building out various San Francisco and California public transportation systems, building affordable housing and protecting the environment — all using federal dollars her position helped her to secure.

“It seems prophetic now that the slogan of my very first campaign in 1987 was, ‘A voice that will be heard,’ and it was you who made those words come true. It was the faith that you had placed in me, and the latitude that you have given me, that enabled me to shatter the marble ceiling and be the first woman speaker of the House, whose voice would certainly be heard,” Pelosi said. “It was an historic moment for our country, and it was momentous for our community — empowering me to bring home billions of dollars for our city and our state.”

After her announcement, Trump ridiculed her, telling Fox News that her decision not to seek reelection was “a great thing for America” and calling her “evil, corrupt, and only focused on bad things for our country.”

“She was rapidly losing control of her party and it was never coming back,” Trump told the outlet, according to a segment shared by the White House. “I’m very honored she impeached me twice, and failed miserably twice.”

The House succeeded in impeaching Trump twice, but the Senate acquitted him both times.

Pelosi’s fellow Democrats, by contrast, heaped praise on her as a one-of-a-kind force in U.S. politics — a savvy tactician, a prolific legislator and a mentor to an entire generation of fellow Democrats.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a longtime Pelosi ally who helped her impeach Trump, called Pelosi “the greatest Speaker in American history” as a result of “her tenacity, intellect, strategic acumen and fierce advocacy.”

“She has been an indelible part of every major progressive accomplishment in the 21st Century — her work in Congress delivered affordable health care to millions, created countless jobs, raised families out of poverty, cleaned up pollution, brought LGBTQ+ rights into the mainstream, and pulled our economy back from the brink of destruction not once, but twice,” Schiff said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom said Pelosi “has inspired generations,” that her “courage and conviction to San Francisco, California, and our nation has set the standard for what public service should be,” and that her impact on the country was “unmatched.”

“Wishing you the best in this new chapter — you’ve more than earned it,” Newsom wrote above Pelosi’s online video.

Southern California Edison has cut power to hundreds of thousands of its customers this year, more than ever before, as it attempts to stop its electric lines from sparking wildfires.

The utility has told communities in fire-prone areas in recent weeks that they should expect more of the power shutoffs than in prior years and that the outages could last for longer periods of time.

The Rosemead-based company said it had lowered the wind speed that triggers the blackouts, and added tens of thousands of customers to the areas subject to them, after the devastating Jan. 7 Eaton fire. The inferno, which killed 19 people in Altadena, ignited in high winds under an Edison transmission line.

“You should be ready for the power to cut off at any moment,” Ian Anderson, a government relations manager for Edison, told the Moorpark City Council at an October meeting. He urged residents to buy generators and said the utility doesn’t reimburse customers for spoiled food and other losses if it believes the blackouts were required by “an act of God.”

“But PSPS is not an act of God,” responded Moorpark Councilmember Renee Delgado, using the acronym for public safety power shutoffs. “It’s a choice SCE is making.”

For more than a decade, California utilities have used the shutoffs to stop their equipment from sparking fires. The intentional outages have become so established in California’s wildfire prevention plans that Edison now faces lawsuits saying that it failed to shut off some of its lines before the Eaton fire.

Yet in recent months, the utility has heard a chorus of complaints from communities including Moorpark and Malibu that it is blacking out customers even when the winds are calm. And the utility often has failed to warn people of the coming outages, making it impossible for them to prepare, according to filings at the state Public Utilities Commission.

“You guys have put us into a Third World situation,” Scott Dittrich, a resident of Malibu, said at a Sept. 30 meeting that the city had with Edison to address the shutoffs.

Kathleen Dunleavy, an Edison spokeswoman, said the company recognizes that “any power outage is a hardship.”

But the outages are needed because they have prevented fires in dangerous weather, she said. “Our commitment is to keeping our communities safe,” she added.

This year, Edison has cut off 534,000 customers to prevent fires, according to data it filed with state regulators. That’s almost four times the 137,000 customers subject to the blackouts in 2024.

Under state rules, utilities can use the outages only as a measure of last resort — when the risk of electrical equipment igniting a fire is greater than the dangerous hazards the blackouts cause.

Disconnecting a neighborhood or city can cause far more than just inconvenience.

Traffic lights no longer work, causing perilous intersections. During a Dec. 10 outage in Moorpark, a utility truck failed to stop at a nonworking light on State Route 118, crashing into a sedan. The driver was injured and had to be extracted from the truck by emergency responders, according to the city’s report to state regulators.

The shutoffs also leave residents who have medical problems without the use of needed devices and refrigerators to store medications.

And they can cut off communication, stopping residents from getting evacuation warnings and other emergency messages.

During the Eaton and Palisades fires, the power shutoffs, as well as outages caused by wind and fire damage, “significantly disrupted the effectiveness of evacuation messaging,” according to a recent review of Los Angeles County’s emergency performance.

In the last three months of last year, Edison received 230 reports of traffic accidents, people failing to get needed medical care and other safety problems tied to the shutoffs, according to the company’s reports.

Dunleavy said Edison turned off the power only when staff believed the risk of fire exceeded the outages’ consequences.

Nonetheless, Alice Reynolds, president of the Public Utilities Commission, told Edison last month that she had “serious concern” about how the utility was leaving more customers in the dark.

Reynolds wrote in a letter to Steve Powell, the utility’s chief executive, that records showed that the company de-energized not just a record number of residential customers in January, but also more than 10,000 crucial facilities such as hospitals. The longest blackout lasted for 15 days, she said.

“There is no question that power outages — particularly those that are large scale and extended over many days — can cause significant hardship to customers, jeopardizing the safety of customers with medical needs who rely on electricity and disrupting businesses, critical facilities, and schools,” she wrote.

Reynolds said she would require Edison executives to hold biweekly meetings with state regulators where they must show how they planned to limit the scope and duration of the blackouts and improve their notifications to customers of coming shutoffs.

Powell wrote back to her, acknowledging “that our execution of PSPS events has not always met expectations.”

“SCE remains committed to improving its PSPS program to help customers prepare for potential de-energizations and reduce the impacts,” he wrote.

Since 2019, Edison has charged billions of dollars to customers for wildfire prevention work, including increased equipment inspections and the installation of insulated wires, which it said would reduce the need for the shutoffs.

Just four months before the Eaton fire, at an annual safety meeting, Edison executives told state regulators that the utility’s fire mitigation work had been so successful that it had sharply reduced the number of shutoffs, while also decreasing the risk of a catastrophic wildfire by as much as 90%.

A year later, at this year’s annual safety meeting in August, those risk reduction estimates were gone from the company’s presentation. Instead, Edison executives said they expected the number of shutoffs to increase this year by 20% to 40%. They added that the average size of the areas subject to the outages could be twice as large as last year.

The executives blamed “below average rainfall and extended periods of high winds” for increasing the risk that the company’s equipment could start a fire.

“The weather is getting more difficult for us,” Jill Anderson, Edison’s chief operating officer, said at the meeting.

Some customers have questioned whether the utility’s increasingly unreliable electricity lines should be solely blamed on the weather. They say the shutoffs have seemed more and more random.

The Acton Town Council told the utilities commission in January that Edison was blacking out residents when dangerous conditions “do not exist.”

At the same time, the council wrote, Edison had cut power to neighborhoods served by wires that had been undergrounded, an expensive upgrade that Edison has said would prevent the need for the shutoffs.

Edison’s Dunleavy said that although the Acton homes in those neighborhoods were served by underground lines, they were connected to a circuit that had overhead lines, requiring them to be turned off.

“We try to reroute as much as possible to minimize disruptions,” she said.

At the Moorpark City Council meeting, residents spoke of how the repeated outages, some lasting for days, had caused children to miss school and businesses to close their doors and lose revenue.

The residents also spoke of how their electric bills continued to rise as they had spent more days in the dark.

Joanne Carnes, a Moorpark resident, told Anderson, Edison’s government relations manager, that her last monthly bill was $421.

“Why are we paying more than a car payment,” she asked, “for a service that is not able to provide power?”

SEOUL, Nov. 6 (UPI) — South Korean rescue crews are searching for workers believed to be trapped after a large structure collapsed at a power plant in the southeastern city of Ulsan on Thursday, according to reports from authorities and local media.

At least seven people were trapped when a 200-foot-tall boiler tower gave way at the Ulsan branch of the state-run utility Korea East-West Power, news agency Yonhap reported, citing the National Fire Agency. The collapse occurred shortly after 2 p.m. local time.

Two people were pulled from the debris earlier, while emergency responders continue to search for others feared buried beneath twisted metal and concrete.

Prime Minister Kim Min-seok ordered the Ministry of the Interior and Safety, National Fire Agency, Korean National Police Agency and local authorities to “mobilize all available equipment and personnel to prioritize saving lives.”

“In particular, we will make every effort to ensure the safety of firefighters working on-site and thoroughly implement safety measures such as on-site control and evacuation guidance for residents,” Kim said in a statement.

Interior Minister Yun Ho-jung also issued an emergency directive calling for mass mobilization of personnel and equipment to the accident site, adding that a situation-management officer had been dispatched to coordinate on-site operations.

Photos shared by local media showed a massive steel structure toppled on its side with a heap of crumpled beams and scaffolding at its base.

The disaster has renewed scrutiny of South Korea’s industrial safety regime, which has faced criticism following a series of fatal workplace accidents.

President Lee Jae Myung has repeatedly called for tougher safety enforcement to curb such tragedies.

“When fatal accidents occur in the same way, it ultimately amounts to condoning these deaths,” Lee said at a July cabinet meeting.

In August, he ordered that every workplace fatality be reported directly to his office and proposed sanctions such as revoking business licenses and restricting bids from companies with repeated deaths.

Lee, who suffered a factory accident as a teenager, has pledged to reduce South Korea’s industrial accident mortality rate — the highest among the 38 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development member countries — to the OECD average within five years.

NEW YORK — At the top of his victory speech at a Brooklyn theater late Tuesday, Zohran Mamdani — the 34-year-old democratic socialist just elected New York’s next mayor — spoke of power being gripped by the bruised and calloused hands of working Americans, away from the wealthy elite.

“Tonight, against all odds, we have grasped it,” he said. “The future is in our hands.”

The imagery was apropos of the night more broadly — when a beaten-down Democratic Party, still nursing its wounds from a wipeout by President Trump a year ago, forcefully took back what some had worried was lost to them for good: momentum.

From coast to coast Tuesday night, American voters delivered a sharp rebuke to Trump and his MAGA movement, electing Democrats in important state and local races in New York, New Jersey and Virginia and passing a major California ballot measure designed to put more Democrats in Congress in 2026.

The results — a reversal of the party’s fortunes in last year’s presidential election, when Trump swept the nation’s swing states — arrived amid deep political division and entrenched Republican power in Washington. Many voters cited Trump’s agenda, and related economic woes, as motivating their choices at the ballot box.

The wins hardly reflected a unified Democratic Party nationally, or even a shared left-wing vision for a future beyond Trump. If anything, Mamdani’s win was a challenge to the Democratic Party establishment as much as a rejection of Trump.

His vision for the future is decidedly different than that of other, more moderate Democrats who won elsewhere in the country, such as Abigail Spanberger, the 46-year-old former CIA officer whom Virginians elected as their first female governor, or Mikie Sherrill, the 53-year-old former Navy helicopter pilot and federal prosecutor who won the race for New Jersey governor.

Still, the cascade of victories did evoke for many Democrats and progressives a political hope that they hadn’t felt in a while: a sense of optimism that Trump and his MAGA movement aren’t unstoppable after all, and that their own party’s ability to resist isn’t just alive and well but gaining speed.

“Let me underscore, it’s been a good evening — for everybody, not just the Democratic Party. But what a night for the Democratic Party,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said during his own remarks on the national wins. “A party that is in its ascendancy, a party that’s on its toes, no longer on its heels.”

“I hope it’s the first of many dominoes that are going to happen across this country,” Noah Gotlib, 29, of Bushwick said late Tuesday at a victory party for Mamdani. “I hope there’s a hundred more Zohrans at a local, state, federal level.”

On a night of big wins, Mamdani’s nonetheless stood out as a thunderbolt from the progressive left — a full-throated rejection not just of Trump but of Mamdani’s mainstream Democratic opponent in the race: former Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Mamdani — a Muslim, Ugandan-born state assemblyman of Indian descent — beat Cuomo first in the Democratic ranked-choice primary in June. Cuomo, bolstered by many of New York’s moneyed interests afraid of Mamdani’s ideas for taxing the rich and spending for the poor, reentered the race as an independent.

Trump attacked Mamdani time and again as a threat. He said Monday that he would cut off federal funding to New York if Mamdani won. He even took the dramatic step of endorsing Cuomo over Curtis Sliwa, the Republican in the race, in a last-ditch effort to block Mamdani’s stunning political ascent.

Instead, city voters surged to the polls and delivered Mamdani a resounding win.

“To see him rise above all of these odds to actually deliver a vision of something that could be better, that was what really attracted me to the [Democratic Socialists of America] in the first place,” said Aminata Hughes, 31, of Harlem, who was dancing at an election-night party when Mamdani was announced the winner.

“A better world is possible,” the native New Yorker said, “and we’re not used to hearing that from our politicians.”

In trademark Trump fashion, the president dismissed the wins by his rival party, suggesting they were a result of two factors: the ongoing federal shutdown, which he has blamed on Democrats, and the fact that he wasn’t personally on people’s ballots.

Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s chief advisors, posted a paragraph to social media outlining the high number of mixed-status immigrant families in New York being impacted by the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown and mass deportation campaign, which Miller has helped lead.

Democrats in some ways agreed. They pointed to the shutdown and other disruptions to Americans’ safety and financial security as motivating the vote. They pointed to Trump’s immigration tactics as being an affront to hard-working families. And they pointed to Trump himself — not on the ballot but definitely a factor for voters, especially after he threatened to cut off funds to New York if the city voted for Mamdani again.

“President Trump has threatened New York City if we dare stand up to him. The people of New York came together and we said, ‘You don’t threaten New York,’” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). “We’re going to stand up to bullies and thugs in the White House.”

“Today we said ‘no’ to Donald Trump and ‘yes’ to democracy,” New Jersey Democratic Chair LeRoy J. Jones Jr. told a happy crowd at Sherrill’s watch party.

“Congratulations to all the Democratic candidates who won tonight. It’s a reminder that when we come together around strong, forward-looking leaders who care about the issues that matter, we can win,” former President Obama wrote on social media. “We’ve still got plenty of work to do, but the future looks a little bit brighter.”

In addition to winning the New York mayoral and New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races, Democrats outperformed Republicans in races across the country. They held several seats on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and won the Virginia attorney general’s race. In California, voters passed Proposition 50, a ballot measure giving state Democrats the power to redraw congressional districts in their favor ahead of next year’s midterms.

Newsom and other Democrats had made Proposition 50 all about Trump from the beginning, framing it as a direct response to Trump trying to steal power by convincing red states such as Texas to redraw their own congressional lines in favor of Republicans.

Trump has been direct about trying to shore up Republicans’ slim majority in the House, to help ensure they retain power and are able to block Democrats from thwarting his agenda. And yet, he has suggested California’s own redistricting effort was illegal and a “GIANT SCAM” under “very serious legal and criminal review.”

Trump had also gone after several of the Democrats who won on Tuesday directly. In addition to Mamdani, Trump tried to paint Spanberger and Sherrill as out-of-touch liberals too, attacking them over some of his favorite wedge issues such as transgender rights, crime and energy costs. Similar messaging was deployed by the candidates’ Republican opponents.

In some ways, Trump was going out on a political limb, trying to sway elections in blue states where his grip on the electorate is smaller and his influence is often a major motivator for people to get out and vote against him and his allies.

His weighing in on the races only added to the sense that the Democrats’ wins marked something bigger — a broader repudiation of Trump, and a good sign for Democrats heading into next year’s midterms.

Marcus LaCroix, 42, who voted for Proposition 50 at a polling site in Lomita on Tuesday evening, described it as “a counterpunch” to what he sees as the excesses and overreach of the Trump administration, and Trump’s pressure on red states to redraw their lines.

“A lot of people are very concerned about the redistricting in Texas,” he said. “But we can actually fight back.”

Ed Razine, 27, a student who lives in the Bed-Stuy neighborhood of Brooklyn, was in class when he heard Mamdani won. Soon, he was celebrating with friends at Nowadays, a Bushwick dance club hosting an election watch party.

Razine said Mamdani’s win represented a “new dawn” in American politics that he hopes will spread to other cities and states across the country.

“For me, he does represent the future of the Democratic Party — the fact that billionaires can’t just buy our election, that if someone really cares to truly represent the everyday person, people will rise up and that money will not talk,” Razine said. “At the end of the day, people talk.”

The Associated Press and Times staff writer Connor Sheets contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s signature plan to impose import taxes on products coming from countries around the world ran into sharp skepticism at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Most of the justices, conservative and liberal, questioned whether the president acting on his own has the power to set large tariffs as a weapon of international trade.

Instead, they voiced the traditional view that the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise taxes, duties and tariffs.

Trump and his lawyers rely on an emergency powers act adopted on a voice vote by Congress in 1977. That measure authorizes sanctions and embargoes, but does not mention “tariffs, duties” or other means of revenue-raising.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said he doubted that law could be read so broadly.

The emergency powers law “had never before been used to justify tariffs,” he told D. John Sauer, Trump’s solicitor general. “No one has argued that it does until this particular case.”

Congress has authorized tariffs in other laws, he said, but not this one. Yet, it is “being used for a power to impose tariffs on any product from any country for — in any amount on any product from any country for — in any amount for any length of time.”

Moreover, the Constitution says Congress has the lead role on taxes and tariffs. “The imposition of taxes on Americans … has always been a core power of Congress,” he said.

The tariffs case heard Wednesday is the first major challenge to Trump’s presidential power to be heard by the court. It is also a test of whether the court’s conservative majority is willing to set legal limits on Trump’s executive authority.

Trump has touted these import taxes as crucial to reviving American manufacturing.

But owners of small businesses, farmers and economists are among the critics who say the on-again, off-again import taxes are disrupting business and damaging the economy.

Two lower courts ruled for small-business owners and said Trump had exceeded his authority.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal on a fast-track basis with the aim of ruling in a few months.

In defense of the president and his “Liberation Day” tariffs, Trump’s lawyers argued these import duties involve the president’s power over foreign affairs. They are “regulatory tariffs,” not taxes that raise revenue, he said.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan disagreed.

“It’s a congressional power, not a presidential power, to tax,” Sotomayor said. “You want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are.”

Imposing a tariff “is a taxing power which is delegated by the Constitution to Congress,” Kagan said.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch may hold the deciding vote, and he said he was wary of upholding broad claims of presidential power that rely on old and vague laws.

The court’s conservative majority, including Gorsuch, struck down several far-reaching Biden administration regulations on climate change and student forgiveness because they were not clearly authorized by Congress.

Both Roberts and Gorsuch said the same theory may apply here. Gorsuch said he was skeptical of the claim that the president had the power to impose taxes based on his belief that the nation faces a global emergency.

In the future, “could the President impose a 50% tariff on gas-powered cars and auto parts to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad of climate change?” he asked.

Yes, Sauer replied, “It’s very likely that could be done.”

Congress had the lawmaking power, Gorsuch said, and presidents should not feel free to take away the taxing power “from the people’s representatives.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett said she was struggling to understand what Congress meant in the emergency powers law when it said the president may “regulate” importation.

She agreed that the law did not mention taxes and tariffs that would raise revenue, but some judges then saw it as allowing the authority to impose duties or tariffs.

Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Samuel A. Alito Jr. appeared to be leaning against the challenge to the president’s tariffs.

Kavanaugh pointed to a round of tariffs imposed by President Nixon in 1971, and he said Congress later adopted its emergency powers act without clearly rejecting that authority.

A former White House lawyer, Kavanaugh said it would be unusual for the president to have the full power to bar imports from certain countries, but not the lesser power to impose tariffs.

Since Trump returned to the White House in January, the court’s six Republican appointees have voted repeatedly to set aside orders from judges who had temporarily blocked the president’s policies and initiatives.

Although they have not explained most of their temporary emergency rulings, the conservatives have said the president has broad executive authority over federal agencies and on matters of foreign affairs.

But Wednesday, the justices did not sound split along the usual ideological lines.

The court’s ruling is not likely to be the final word on tariffs, however. Several other past laws allow the president to impose temporary tariffs for reasons of national security.

South Asians have played a prominent role in President Trump’s universe, especially in his second term.

Second Lady Usha Vance is the daughter of Indian immigrants who came to California to study and never went back. Harmeet Dhillon, born in India and a devout Sikh, is currently his U.S. assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division. And the head of the FBI, Kash Patel, is (like potential New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani,) of Indian descent by way of Uganda.

Some Republicans have taken pride in this kind of diversity, citing it for the gains Trump made in 2024 with Black and Latino voters.

But these days, the MAGA big tent seems to be collapsing fast.

Last week, MAGA had a total anti-Indian meltdown on social media, revealing a deep, ugly racism toward South Asians.

It comes amid the first real rebellion about rampant and increasingly open antisemitism within the MAGAverse, creating a massive rift between traditional conservatives and a younger, rabidly anti-Jewish contingent called groypers whose leader, Nick Fuentes, recently posted that he is “team Hitler.”

Turns out, when you cultivate a political movement based on hate, at some point the hate is uncontrollable. In fact, that hate needs to be fed to maintain power — even if it means feasting on its own.

This monster of white-might ugliness is going to dominate policy and politics for the next election, and these now-public fights within the Republican party represent a new dynamic that will either force it to do some sort of soul searching, or purge it of anything but white Christian nationalism. My bet is on the latter. But if conservatives ever truly believed in their inclusive talk, then it’s time for Republicans to stand up and demand the big Trump tent they were hailing just a few months ago.

Ultra-conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, who opposes much of Fuentes’ worldview, summed up this Republican split succinctly.

Fuentes’ followers “are white supremacists, hate women, Jews, Hindus, many types of Christians, brown people of a wide variety of backgrounds, Blacks, America’s foreign policy and America’s constitution,” Shapiro explained. “They admire Hitler and Stalin and that splinter faction is now being facilitated and normalized within the mainstream Republican Party.”

MAGA’s anti-Indian sentiment had an explosive moment a few days ago when a South Asian woman asked Vice President JD Vance a series of questions during a Turning Point USA event in Mississippi. The young immigrant wanted to know how Vance could preach for the removal of nearly 18 million immigrants? And how could he claim that the United States was a Christian nation, rather than one that valued pluralism?

“How can you stop us and tell us we don’t belong here anymore?” the woman asked. “Why do I have to be a Christian?”

Vance’s answer went viral, in part because he claimed his wife, although from a Hindu family, was “agnostic or atheist,” and that he hoped she would convert to Christianity.

“Do I hope eventually that she is somehow moved by the same thing that I was moved in by church? Yeah, I honestly do wish that,” he said.

Vance later tried to do some damage control on social media, calling Usha Vance a “blessing” and promising to continue to “support her and talk to her about faith and life and everything else, because she’s my wife.”

But many South Asians felt Vance was dissing his wife’s heritage and attempting to downplay her non-whiteness. They vented on social media, and got a lot of MAGA feelings back.

“How can you pretend to be a white nativist politician who will ‘bring america back to it’s golden age’ … when your wife is an indian immigrant?” wrote one poster.

Dhillon received similar feedback recently for urging calm and fairness after a Sikh truck driver allegedly caused a fatal crash.

“[N]o ma’am, it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that sihks and hindus need to get the hell out of my country,” one reply stated. “You and your kind are no longer welcome here. Go the [expletive] home.”

Patel too, got it, after posting a message on Diwali, a religious holiday that celebrates the victory of light over darkness. He was dubbed a demon worshipper, a favorite anti-Indian trope.

Perhaps you’re thinking, “Duh, of course MAGA is racist.” But here’s the thing. The military has been scrubbed of many Black officers. The federal workforce, long a bastion for middle-class people of color, has been decimated. Minority cabinet members or top officials are few. Aside from another South Asian, Tulsi Gabbard, there’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Labor Secretary Lori Chavez‑DeRemer and HUD head Scott Turner.

South Asians are largely the last visible sign of pluralism in Republican power, an erstwhile proof that the charges of racism from the left are unfair. But now, like Latinos, they are increasingly targets of the base.

At the same time anti-Indian hate was surfacing last week, a whole load of MAGA antisemitism hit the fan. It started when Tucker Carlson, who in his post-network life has re-created himself as a hugely popular podcaster with more than 16 million followers on X, invited Fuentes on his show.

In addition to calling for the death of American Jews, Fuentes has also said women want him to rape them and should be burned alive, Black people belong in prison and LGBTQ+ people are an abomination.

Anyone who is not his kind of Christian “must be absolutely annihilated when we take power,” he said.

Turns out far-right Charlie Kirk was a bulwark against this straight-up American Nazi. Kirk’s popularity kept Fuentes — who often trolled Kirk — from achieving dominance as the spirit guide of young MAGA. Now, with Kirk slain, nothing appears to be stopping Fuentes from taking up that mantle.

After the Fuentes interview, sane conservatives (there are some left) were apoplectic that Carlson would support someone who so openly admits to being anti-Israel and seemingly pro-Nazi. They demanded the Heritage Foundation, historical backbone of the conservative movement, creators of Project 2025 and close allies of Tucker, do something. The head of Heritage, Kevin Roberts, offered what many considered a sorry-not-sorry. He condemned Fuentes, saying he was “fomenting Jew hatred, and his incitements are not only immoral and un-Christian, they risk violence.”

But also counseled that Fuentes shouldn’t be banished from the party.

“Join us — not to cancel — but to guide, challenge, and strengthen the conversation,” Roberts said.

Are Nazis really all bad? Discuss!

The response from ethical conservatives — Jewish and non-Jewish alike — has been that you don’t politely hear Nazis out, and if the Republican Party can’t clearly say that Nazis aren’t welcome, it’s got a problem.

Yes, the Republican Party has a problem.

The right rode to power by attacking what it denigrates at “wokeism” on the left. MAGA declared that to confront fascism or racism or misogyny — to tell its purveyors to sit down and shut up — was wrong. That “canceling,” or banishment from common discourse for spewing hate, was somehow an infringement on 1st Amendment rights or even terrorism.

They screamed loud and clear that speaking out against intolerance was the worst, most unacceptable form of intolerance itself — and would not be tolerated.

You know who heard them loud and clear? Fuentes. He has checkmated establishment Republicans with their own cowardice and hypocrisy.

So now his young Christian white supremacists are empowered, and intent on taking over as the leaders of the party. Fuentes is saying what old guard Republicans don’t want to hear, but secretly fear: He already is dangerously close to being the mainstream; just read the comments.

Roberts, the Heritage president, said it himself: “Diversity will never be our strength. Unity is our strength, and a lack of unity is a sign of weakness.”

Trying to shut Fuentes up or kick him out will likely anger that vocal and powerful part of the base that enjoys the freedom to be openly hateful, and really wouldn’t mind a male-dominated white Christian autocracy.

The far right has free-speeched their way into fascism, and Fuentes is loving every minute of it.

So now this remaining vestige of traditional conservatives — including senators such as Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell — is faced with a painful reckoning. Many mainstream Republicans for years ignored the racism and antisemitism creeping into the party. They can’t anymore. It has grown into a beast ready to consume its maker.

Will they let this takeover happen, call for conversation over condemnation to the glee of Fuentes and his followers?

Or will they find the courage to be not just true Republicans, but true Americans, and declare non-negotiable for their party that most basic of American ideals: We do not tolerate hate?

Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein” didn’t exactly wow audiences and critics when it premiered at the Venice Film Festival, and when it landed at the Telluride Film Festival a day later for a pair of late-night screenings, the response was even more muted. Leaving Colorado, the airport gate was full of hushed conversations between people registering their disappointment with the movie.

“Frankenstein,” the talk went, had three strikes against it — a plodding story, computer-generated imagery that looked appalling and was employed to often ridiculous effect and, outside of Jacob Elordi’s affecting turn as the monster, acting that seemed wildly excessive (Oscar Isaac) or hopelessly lost (Mia Goth). In short: a mess.

But then “Frankenstein” traveled to the Toronto, a city Del Toro regards as his “second home,” and finished as runner-up to “Hamnet” for the festival’s People’s Choice Award. Now playing in a theatrical limited release ahead of its Nov. 7 Netflix premiere, the movie has found favor with the filmmaker’s devoted fan base, selling out theaters, including dates at Netflix’s renovated Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood, where admission lines wrapped around the block. And some prominent critics, including my colleague Amy Nicholson, have written some thoughtful reviews of the movie, praising Del Toro’s lifelong passion project. Amy calls it the “best movie of his career.”

So in this update to my post-festival Oscar power rankings for best picture, you’ll find “Frankenstein,” a movie that’s hard to place on this list but harder still to ignore. Previous rankings are parenthetically noted.

Falling out of the rankings since September: “A House of Dynamite,” “Jay Kelly”

10. ‘Avatar: Fire and Ash’ (Unranked)

A scene from 2022’s “Avatar: The Way of Water.”

(20th Century Studios)

The last “Avatar” movie grossed $2.3 billion and, yes, earned an Oscar nomination for best picture. Yet I’m hard-pressed to find anyone who’s truly excited about devoting half a day to see the next installment, which clocks in at 3 hours and 12 minutes. Just because the first two movies were nominated doesn’t mean this one will be. But underestimating James Cameron’s ability to connect with audiences — and awards voters — seems dumb. So here we are, No. 10, sight (still) unseen.

9. ‘Bugonia’ (10)

Emma Stone in “Bugonia.”

(Atsushi Nishijima / Focus Features)

Better than “Kinds of Kindness” but not nearly the triumph of “Poor Things,” this is mid Yorgos Lanthimos — off-putting, punishing and misanthropic but also featuring another showcase for Emma Stone’s bold, creative energy. There are a number of movies that could displace it as a nominee. Park Chan-wook’s “No Other Choice” offers a more humane — and funnier — look at ugly things people can do when desperate. But I’ll stick with “Bugonia” for now. After all, how many movies inspire people to shave their heads for a ticket?

8. “Frankenstein” (Unranked)

Oscar Isaac in “Frankenstein.”

(Ken Woroner / Netflix)

Netflix has four movies arriving during the awards season window — the meditative stunner “Train Dreams,” Katherine Bigelow’s riveting, ticking-clock thriller “A House of Dynamite,” the George Clooney meta-charmer “Jay Kelly” and “Frankenstein.” (That’s how I’d rank them in terms of quality.) One of these movies will be nominated. Maybe two. At this moment, nobody, including the awards team at Netflix, knows which one(s) it will be.

7. ‘It Was Just an Accident’ (7)

Mohamad Ali Elyasmehr, left, Madj Panahi and Hadis Pakbaten in “It Was Just an Accident.”

(Neon)

Jafar Panahi’s Palme d’Or-winning thriller possesses a withering critique of the cruelty and corruption of an authoritarian regime, combined with a blistering sense of humor. Panahi (“The Circle,” “Taxi”) has been imprisoned by the Iranian government many times for criticizing the government, and his courage has been celebrated for its spirit of artistic resistance. He has been a ubiquitous presence on the festival and awards circuit this year, eager to share both the movie and his story. As the Oscars have thoroughly embraced international movies the last several years, “It Was Just an Accident” feels like it’s on solid ground.

6. ‘Wicked: For Good’ (6)

Ariana Grande, left, and Cynthia Erivo in “Wicked: For Good.”

(Giles Keyte / Universal Pictures)

An academy member recently expressed some reservations about this movie to me — not about the sequel itself, but about the prospect of seeing stars Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande embark on another tear-soaked promotional tour. Whatevs. The first “Wicked” movie earned 10 Oscar nominations, winning for production design and costumes. With the added casting category, the sequel might just surpass that number.

5. ‘Marty Supreme’ (8)

Timothée Chalamet in “Marty Supreme.”

(A24)

Josh Safdie’s wildly entertaining, over-caffeinated portrait of a single-minded ping-pong player premiered on its home turf at the New York Film Festival and people left the Lincoln Center’s Alice Tully Hall caught up in the rapture of the movie’s delirium. It might be the movie that wins Timothée Chalamet his Oscar, though he’ll have to go through Leonardo DiCaprio to collect the trophy.

4. ‘Sentimental Value’ (3)

Stellan Skarsgård, left, and Renate Reinsve in “Sentimental Value.”

(Kasper Tuxen / Neon)

Neon won best picture last year with Sean Baker’s “Anora,” and it’s not unreasonable to think it could run it back with “Sentimental Value,” Joachim Trier’s piercing drama about a family reckoning with the past and wondering if reconciliation is possible — or even desired. The three actors cast in familial roles — Stellan Skarsgård, playing a legendary director angling for a comeback, and Renate Reinsve and Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas as his daughters — are excellent, and Elle Fanning has a choice role as an A-list actor who becomes entangled in the family drama. And like “Anora,” this movie ends on a perfect, transcendent note. That counts for a lot.

3. ‘Sinners’ (4)

Michael B. Jordan in “Sinners.”

(Eli Ade / Warner Bros. Pictures)

“Sinners” made a lot of noise when it was released in April and, months later, belongs in any conversation about the year’s best movie. The job now is to remind voters of its worth at events like the American Cinematheque’s upcoming “Sinners” screening with filmmaker Ryan Coogler and Michael B. Jordan. With the level of its craft, it could score a dozen or more nominations, with only “One Battle After Another” as a threat to best that count.

2. ‘Hamnet’ (2)

Paul Mescal in “Hamnet.”

(Focus Features)

Since its tear-inducing Telluride premiere, Chloé Zhao’s tender portrait of love and loss and the cathartic power of art has been hitting regional film festivals, racking up audience awards and proving that people love a good cry. Stock up on tissues now for the film’s theatrical release later this month.

1. ‘One Battle After Another’ (1)

Leonardo DiCaprio in “One Battle After Another.”

(Warner Bros. Pictures)

The Gotham Awards did away with its budget cap a couple of years ago, allowing indie-spirited studio movies like “One Battle After Another” to clean up and, one supposes, the show’s sales team to move more tables at its ceremony. It was no secret that Paul Thomas Anderson’s angry, urgent epic would score well with film critics groups. (Panels of critics vote for the Gothams.) It’s just a question of how many dinners Anderson will have to eventually attend for a movie that has easily become the most widely seen film of his career.

Of course Luka Doncic made the one that didn’t count.

On a frigid shooting night when the star guard made just one three-pointer on 11 attempts, Doncic swished a 40-footer on a dead ball that elicited a roar from the Crypto.com Arena.

He instead made his impact in other ways.

Doncic overcame his bad shooting to still collect his first triple-double of the season, notching 29 points, 10 assists and 11 rebounds in the Lakers’ 130-120 victory over the Miami Heat on Sunday. Fellow guard Austin Reaves was also struggling with his shot, making just four of 14 three-point attempts, but rallied for 26 points and 11 assists to just three turnovers.

Although their stars slogged through concurrent off nights, the Lakers (5-2) still shot 50.5% from the field. They tallied 33 assists to 11 turnovers. They won their third consecutive game.

“We did a lot of really good things and it could have been even better if me and Luka would’ve made a shot,” Reaves deadpanned. “But supporting cast and everybody around that played really well.”

Forward Jake LaRavia, who turns 24 on Tuesday, scored in double digits for the third consecutive game off the bench, finishing with 25 points — two shy of his season high — and eight rebounds. He’s averaged 21.7 points per game in the last three games.

Doncic, who missed three games with minor finger and leg injuries, scored 40 points in each of his first three games this season. Only Wilt Chamberlain had ever started a season with three consecutive 40-point games. But Doncic was happy to sacrifice the scoring streak Sunday.

“We get a win,” Doncic said, “[it] doesn’t matter how many I scored.”

Doncic and Reaves struggled in the first quarter, shooting a combined two for seven from the field. Yet the Lakers still led by seven as the star duo combined for eight assists.

Center Jaxson Hayes was one of the main beneficiaries in that span, scoring 11 points on five-of-five shooting. He had a ferocious one-handed dunk off a Doncic assist that got Hayes so amped up that he head-butted the basket stanchion in celebration. He sank his first three-pointer since March 27, 2023, stepping confidently into a shot that put the Lakers up 23-13 and forced the Heat to call an early timeout.

Hayes finished with 15 points and five rebounds in his first start of the year as Deandre Ayton was held out because of back spasms. Ayton’s back flared up during the Lakers’ win in Memphis on Friday, causing him to sit out the entire second half. He was available to return in the fourth quarter, coach JJ Redick said after the game, but with the Lakers feeding off Hayes and Jarred Vanderbilt at center, the team didn’t want to risk further injury.

The Heat (3-3) finished the third quarter on a 20-7 run to pull within four points heading into the fourth quarter. Former UCLA star Jaime Jaquez Jr., playing in front of his hometown crowd, cut the lead to two with an emphatic one-handed put-back dunk 58 seconds in the fourth quarter. A hush fell over the Lakers crowd.

But Reaves helped quell the comeback effort.

He stumbled while trying to dribble behind his legs, but recovered to shoot a fadeaway mid-range jumper with 1.6 seconds left in the shot clock that put the Lakers up by six with 5:13 remaining in the fourth quarter. Less than 20 seconds later, Reaves threw a lob from just inside mid-court to a soaring LaRavia, who brought the crowd to its feet with a two-handed dunk.

The novel “Violet Project” aims to test whether success in politics is achieved through ethical values ​​or pragmatic approaches. The project is the product of a philosophical debate between three old friends—idealist academic Dr. Thomas Wan, morally committed businessman John Mendoza, and results-oriented car salesman Christopher Hamilton—who meet after many years at an Orlando restaurant. The tension between Hamilton’s assertion that “in politics, all means are justified” and Mendoza’s belief that “ethical values ​​pay off in the long run” will be tested through an unusual social experiment devised by Wan.

Dr. Wan chooses two of his former students from the University of Central Florida, James Frank and Gary Metros, to implement the project. These two young people are polar opposites in character. Ambitious, unruly, and down-to-earth James Frank is offered a campaign in Crystal Lake, Illinois, where he challenges ethical boundaries. Meanwhile, honest, introverted, and idealistic Gary Metros is asked to run for office in Southaven, Mississippi, adhering to ethical principles. Both accept the offer in exchange for a lucrative salary and a potential $150,000 prize.

James Frank’s Crystal Lake Adventure: The Triumph of Pragmatism

James takes quite ambitious steps as he launches his campaign. First, he brings on former mayor Roy Jimenez, who struggles with alcoholism, as an advisor. Roy’s sordid political experience will prove an invaluable resource for James. With the addition of seasoned strategist Michael Benson, a campaign driven by dirty tactics under the guise of “honesty” despite Crystal Lake’s calm and uneventful demeanor is waged.

James’s team employs various manipulation tactics throughout the election process. After Roy discovers that incumbent mayor George William has a secret relationship with a Ukrainian immigrant and aids illegal immigrants, he blackmails him into withdrawing his candidacy and directing his supporters to James. Furthermore, other independent candidates, Brian Harris and Aaron Rivera, are manipulated with money and personal accounts to James’s advantage, forcing them to withdraw just before the election.

James faces a difficult time in a televised debate due to his inexperience. Despite being outmatched by his rivals (Warren Collins and George William), thanks to the team’s backroom operations, he wins the Crystal Lake mayoral election with 6,179 votes. This victory is presented as proof that pragmatic approaches to politics can work in the short term.

Gary Metros’s Southaven Adventure: Constructive Change with Ethical Values

Gary, however, pursues a completely different strategy. He works with a professional team consisting of sociologist Dr. Lawrence Travis and urban planner Dr. Nelson Vincent. They act in accordance with Travis’s philosophy of “reviving social happiness and unity by creating a common ideal and enemy.”

Gary’s campaign in Southaven quickly evolved into a comprehensive socio-economic development project. First, he took steps to reduce unemployment by establishing a startup center. Then, he strengthened the city’s sense of belonging by establishing the New Southaven sports club and encouraging residents to attend matches frequently. His campaign, which is driven by public engagement, transparency, and positive promises, established him as a trusted leader in the eyes of Southaven voters.

Gary’s uncompromising approach to ethical values ​​led him to achieve long-term and sustainable success, and he won the Southaven mayoral election with 12,127 votes. This victory demonstrates that adhering to ethical values ​​in politics can also lead to success eventually.

Final Meeting and Project Evaluation

After both candidates are successful, they meet with the project’s funders at a luxurious restaurant in Orlando. Dr. Thomas Wan explains the criteria established at the project’s inception: the winner will be the one receiving the most votes and will receive a $150,000 prize.

James Frank is declared the official winner because he received a higher percentage of votes than Gary Metros. This result supports Christopher Hamilton’s thesis that “the end justifies the means.” However, Wan also emphasizes that both young men performed exceptionally well.

The novel’s finale presents a profound moral question. While James’s victory is based on blackmail, manipulation, and dirty tactics, Gary’s victory is based on a model that is sustainable, strengthens society, and leaves a more solid legacy in the long term. “Project Violet” demonstrates that short-term gain in politics can be achieved through pragmatism, but true lasting success and social trust can be built through ethical values.

Both young politicians have begun their new careers, but which of them will truly be considered successful will be revealed later in their political careers. The novel concludes by inviting the reader to consider the true meaning of “winning.”

An Ohio panel adopted new U.S. House districts on Friday that could boost the GOP’s chances of winning two additional seats in next year’s elections and aid President Trump’s efforts to hold on to a slim congressional majority.

The action by the Ohio Redistricting Commission came as Virginia’s Democratic-led General Assembly advanced a proposed constitutional amendment that could pave the way for redistricting in the state ahead of the 2026 congressional elections. That measure still needs another round of legislative approval early next year before it can go to voters.

Trump has been urging Republican-led states to reshape their U.S. House districts in an attempt to win more seats. But unlike in other states, Ohio’s redistricting was required by the state constitution because the current districts were adopted after the 2020 census without bipartisan support.

Ohio joins Texas, Missouri and North Carolina, where Republican lawmakers already have revised their congressional districts.

Democrats have been pushing back. California voters are deciding Tuesday on a redistricting plan passed by the Democratic-led Legislature.

The political parties are in an intense battle, because Democrats need to gain just three seats in next year’s election to win control of the House and gain the power to impede Trump’s agenda.

In a rare bit of bipartisanship, Ohio’s new map won support from all five Republicans and both Democrats on the redistricting panel. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee praised the Ohio Democrats “for negotiating to prevent an even more egregious gerrymander” benefiting Republicans.

Republicans already hold 10 of Ohio’s 15 congressional seats. The new map could boost their chances in already competitive districts currently held by Democratic Reps. Greg Landsman in Cincinnati and Marcy Kaptur near Toledo. Kaptur won a 22nd term last year by about 2,400 votes, or less than 1 percentage point, in a district carried by Trump. Landsman was reelected with more than 54% of the vote.

National Democrats said they expect to hold both targeted seats and compete to flip three other districts where Republicans have won by narrow margins.

Ohio residents criticize new map

Ohio’s commission had faced a Friday deadline to adopt a new map, or else the task would have fallen to the GOP-led Legislature, which could have crafted districts even more favorable to Republicans. But any redistricting bill passed by the Legislature could have been subject to an initiative petition campaign from opponents seeking to force a public referendum on the new map.

The uncertainty of that legislative process provided commissioners of both parties with some incentive for compromise.

But Ohio residents who testified to commissioners Friday denounced the new districts. Julia Cattaneo, who wore a shirt saying “gerrymandering is cheating,” said the new map is gerrymandered more for Republicans than the one it is replacing and is not the sort of compromise needed.

“Yes, you are compromising — your integrity, honor, duty and to represent Ohioans,” she said.

Added resident Scott Sibley: “This map is an affront to democracy, and you should all — every one of you — be ashamed.”

Republican state Auditor Keith Farber, a member of the commission, defended the map during a testy exchange with one opponent. Because many Democrats live in cities and many Republicans in rural areas, he said there was no way to draw a map creating eight Republican and seven Democratic districts — as some had urged — without splitting cities, counties and townships.

Virginia Democrats point at Trump to defend redistricting

Virginia is represented in the U.S. House by six Democrats and five Republicans. Democratic lawmakers haven’t unveiled their planned new map, nor how many seats they are trying to gain, but said their moves are necessary to respond to the Trump-inspired gerrymandering in Republican-led states.

“Our voters are asking to have that voice. They’re asking that we protect democracy, that we not allow gerrymandering to happen throughout the country, and we sit back,” Democratic Sen. Barbara Favola said.

The proposed constitutional amendment would let lawmakers temporarily bypass a bipartisan commission and redraw congressional districts to their advantage. The Senate’s approval Friday followed House approval Wednesday.

The developments come as Virginia holds statewide elections Tuesday, where all 100 seats in the House of Delegates are on the ballot. Democrats would need to keep their slim majority in the lower chamber to advance the constitutional amendment again next year. It then would go to a statewide referendum.

Republican Sen. Mark Obenshain said Democrats were ignoring the will of voters who had overwhelmingly approved a bipartisan redistricting commission.

“Heaven forbid that we actually link arms and work together on something,” Obenshain said. “What the voters of Virginia said is, ‘We expect redistricting to be an issue that we work across the aisle on, that we link arms on.’”

But Democratic Sen. Schuyler VanValkenburg, who has long championed the bipartisan redistricting commission, noted the panel still would be in charge of redistricting after the 2030 census.

“We’re not trying to end the practice of fair maps,” he said. “We are asking the voters if, in this one limited case, they want to ensure that a constitutional-norm-busting president can’t break the entire national election by twisting the arms of a few state legislatures.”

Indiana and Kansas could be next

Republican Indiana Gov. Mike Braun called a special session to begin Monday to redraw congressional districts, currently held by seven Republicans and two Democrats. But lawmakers don’t plan to begin work on that day. Although it’s unclear exactly when lawmakers will convene, state law gives the Legislature 40 days to complete a special session.

In Kansas, Republican lawmakers are trying to collect enough signatures from colleagues to call themselves into a special session on redistricting to begin Nov. 7. Senate President Ty Masterson says he has the necessary two-thirds vote in the Senate, but House Republicans have at least a few holdouts. The petition drive is necessary because Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly isn’t likely to call a session to redraw the current map that has sent three Republicans and one Democrat to the House.

Lieb, Diaz and Scolforo write for the Associated Press. Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Mo.; Scolforo from Harrisburg, Pa.; and Diaz from Richmond, Va. John Hanna in Topeka, Kan., and Isabella Volmert in Lansing, Mich., contributed to this report.

Jessika Power, an administration officer who was in series six of Married at First Sight Australia, has had tests in hospital to find out what has been causing her stomach pains

A Married at First Sight Australia star has been dashed to hospital with stomach pains.

Jessika Power, 33, has confirmed she has had tests in a bid to work out what has caused her struggle. Posting an Instagram clip from her hospital bed, the administration officer described the pain as “really intense” but, as yet, doctors have been unable to diagnose her.

“I’ve been having really bad problems with my tummy so we’re just doing some more tests, because I’m an older woman now and I’ve got to look after myself. This pain’s really intense… I’ll let you guys know what’s going on when I know. I thought if I was sick and didn’t post for a while you guys would freak out,” the star, who was in series six of Married at First Australia, told her followers.

Jessika broke up with Mick Gould, 35, before the final decision on the TV show. She since dated boat builder Ryan Loveridge but earlier this year, she split with the man, who had previously been on Celebs Go Dating.

READ MORE: MAFS UK star Rebecca dishes shocking home truths and issues warning to Leo in tense sceneREAD MORE: Celebrity Traitors star ‘told off’ by bosses after letting slip spoilers

During her time on MAFS, Jessika received huge backlash after cheating on her groom Mick with fellow contestant Dan Webb, a car broker. Speaking after the series, which aired in 2021, Jessika said: “I’m not a nasty, horrible girl [anymore] and I honestly have to laugh at the trolls.”

The young woman, from Perth, Western Australia, added: “They (the trolls) come to my Instagram to say horrible things and call me a bully – but that makes them bullies.”

READ MORE: Cute pyjama brand the MAFS UK girls all wear as viewers ‘desperate’ to knowREAD MORE: MAFS UK’s Julia-Ruth breaks major show rule as she slams co-stars in brutal post

During this year’s UK Married At First Sight, Rebecca dished out some home truths. Fans of the E4 programme , which sees total strangers ‘marry’ before trying to make a success of their sudden relationship, will know that April and Leo tied the knot relatively late in the new series after being introduced as ‘intruder bride and grooms,’ after all the other participants had already been matched.

And in Wednesday night’s episode, Rebecca, who had had some time apart from her husband Bailey as part of Partner Swap week, caught up with her co-stars over dinner and quickly set about having a candid conversation with Leo about the state of his relationship with April.

Having chatted to Rebecca about how things are going, Leo later claimed she had ‘misinterpreted’ what he said, and she then decided to put her two pence in on camera as well.

WASHINGTON — President Trump faces the most important international meeting of his second term so far on Thursday: face-to-face negotiations with Xi Jinping, who has made China a formidable economic and military challenger to the United States.

The two presidents face a vast agenda during their meeting in Seoul, beginning with the two countries’ escalating trade war over tariffs and high-tech exports. The list also includes U.S. demands for a Chinese crackdown on fentanyl, China’s aid to Russia in its war with Ukraine, the future of Taiwan and China’s growing nuclear arsenal.

Trump has already promised, characteristically, that the meeting will be a major success.

“It’s going to be fantastic for both countries, and it’s going to be fantastic for the entire world,” he said last week.

But it isn’t yet clear that the summit’s concrete results will measure up to that high standard.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Sunday that the two sides have agreed to a “framework” under which China would delay implementing tight controls on rare earth elements, minerals crucial for the production of high-tech products from smartphones and electric vehicles to military aircraft and missiles. He said China has also agreed to resume buying soybeans from U.S. farmers and to crack down on fentanyl components.

In return, Bessent said, the United States will back down from its stinging tariffs on Chinese goods.

Nicholas Burns, the U.S. ambassador in Beijing under then-President Biden, said that kind of deal would amount to “an uneasy trade truce rather than a comprehensive trade deal.”

“That may be the best we can expect,” he said in an interview Monday. Still, he added, “it will be a positive step to stabilize world markets and allow the continuation of U.S.-China trade for the time being.”

But U.S. and Chinese officials have been close-mouthed on what, if anything, has been agreed on regarding Xi’s other big trade demand: easier U.S. restrictions on high-tech exports to China, especially advanced semiconductor chips used for artificial intelligence.

Burns said the two superpowers’ technology competition is “the most sensitive … in terms of where this relationship will head, which country will emerge more powerful.”

Giving China easy access to advanced semiconductors “would only help [the Chinese army] in its competition with the U.S. military for power in the Indo-Pacific,” he warned.

Other former officials and China hawks outside the administration have said, even more pointedly, that they worry that Trump may be too willing to trade long-term technology assets for short-term trade deals.

In August, Trump eased export controls to allow Nvidia, the world leader in AI chips, to sell more semiconductors to China — in an unusual deal under which the U.S. company would pay 15% of its revenue from the sales to the U.S. Treasury.

Matthew Pottinger, Trump’s top China advisor in his first term, protested in a recent podcast interview that the deal risked trading a strategic technology advantage “for $20 billion and Nvidia’s bottom line.”

Underlying the controversy over technology, some China watchers warn, is a basic mismatch between the two presidents: Trump is focused almost entirely on trade and commercial deals, while Xi is focused on displacing the United States as the biggest economic and military power in Asia.

“I don’t think the administration has a strategy toward China,” said Bonnie Glaser, a China expert at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. “It has a trade strategy, not a China strategy.”

“The administration does not seem to be focused on competition with China,” said Jonathan Czin, a former CIA analyst now at Washington’s Brookings Institution. “It’s focused on deal making. … It’s tactics without strategy.”

“We’ve fallen into a kind of trade and technology myopia,” he added. “We’re not talking about issues like China’s coercion [of smaller countries] in the South China Sea. … China doesn’t want to have that bigger, broader conversation.”

It isn’t clear that Trump and Xi will have either the time or inclination to talk in detail about anything other than trade.

And even on the front-burner economic issues, this week’s ceasefire is unlikely to produce a permanent peace.

“As with all such agreements, the devil will be in the details,” Burns, the former ambassador, said. “The two countries will remain fierce trade rivals. Expect friction ahead and further trade duels well into 2026.”

“Buckle up,” Czin said. “There are likely more sudden moves from Beijing ahead.”

In the long run, Trump’s legacy in U.S.-China relations will rest not only on trade deals but on the larger competition for economic and military power in the Pacific Rim. No matter how this week’s meetings go, those challenges still lie ahead.

WASHINGTON — The government shutdown, already the second-longest in history, with no end in sight, is quickly becoming an additional way for President Trump to exercise new command over the government.

It wasn’t always this way. In fact, it all started with an attempt to tighten Washington’s observance of federal law.

The modern phenomena of the U.S. government closing down services began in 1980 with a series of legal opinions from Atty. Gen. Benjamin Civiletti, who was serving under Democratic President Carter. Civiletti reached into the Antideficiency Act of 1870 to argue that the law was “plain and unambiguous” in restricting the government from spending money once authority from Congress expires.

In this shutdown, however, Trump has used the funding lapse to punish Democrats, as he tried to lay off thousands of federal workers and seized on the vacuum left by Congress to reconfigure the federal budget for his priorities.

“I can’t believe the Radical Left Democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity,” the Republican president posted on his social media platform at the outset of the shutdown.

Democrats have only dug into their positions.

It’s all making this fight that much harder to resolve and potentially redefining how Washington will approach funding lapses to come.

Why does the U.S. government even have shutdowns?

In the post-Watergate years, Civiletti’s tenure at the Department of Justice was defined by an effort to restore public trust in Washington, sometimes with strict interpretations of federal law.

When a conflict between Congress and the Federal Trade Commission led to a delay in funding legislation for the agency, Civiletti issued his opinion, later following it up with another that allowed the government to perform essential services.

He did not know that it would set the groundwork for some of the most defining political battles to come.

“I couldn’t have ever imagined these shutdowns would last this long of a time and would be used as a political gambit,” Civiletti, who died in 2022, told the Washington Post six years ago.

How shutdowns evolved

For the next 15 years, there were no lengthy government shutdowns. In 1994, Republicans retook Congress under House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia and pledged to overhaul Washington. Their most dramatic standoffs with Democratic President Clinton were over government shutdowns.

Historians mostly agree the shutdowns did not work, and Clinton was able to win reelection in part by showing he stood up to Gingrich.

“The Republicans in the Gingrich era, they do get some kind of limited policy victories, but for them overall it’s really kind of a failure,” said Mike Davis, adjunct professor of history at Lees-McRae College.

There was one more significant shutdown, in 2013, when tea party Republicans sparred with Democratic President Obama. But it was not until Trump’s first term that Democrats adopted the tactic of extended government shutdowns.

How is this shutdown different?

During previous funding lapses, presidential administrations applied the rules governing shutdowns equally to affected agencies.

“A shutdown was supposed to close the same things under Reagan as under Clinton,” said Charles Tiefer, a former acting general counsel for the House and a professor emeritus at the University of Baltimore School of Law. He said that in this shutdown, the Trump administration has used “a kind of freewheeling presidential appropriation power, which is contrary to the whole system, the original Constitution, and the Antideficiency Act.”

The administration has introduced a distinctly political edge to the funding fight, with agencies updating their websites to include statements blaming Democrats for the shutdown. The Department of Defense has tapped research and development funds to pay active-duty service members. (And a private donor has helped out.) Trump has tried to initiate layoffs for more than 4,000 federal employees who are mostly working in areas perceived to be Democratic priorities.

During a luncheon at the White House with GOP senators last week, Trump introduced his budget director Russ Vought as “Darth Vader” and bragged how he is “cutting Democrat priorities and they’re never going to get them back.”

Democrats have only been emboldened by the strategy, voting repeatedly against a Republican-backed bill to reopen the government. They argue that voters will ultimately hold Republicans accountable for the pain of the shutdown because the GOP holds power in Washington.

Democrats are confident they have chosen a winning policy demand — opposing big rate hikes in healthcare plans offered under Affordable Care Act marketplaces — but there is an undercurrent that they are also fighting to halt Trump’s expansion of presidential power.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) acknowledged that his state has more to lose than perhaps any other due to the large number of federal employees and activity based there. But he argued that his constituents are fed up with a “nonstop punishment parade” from Trump that has included layoffs, cancellation of money for economic development projects, pressure campaigns against universities and the dismissal of the U.S. attorney for Virginia.

“It kind of stiffens folks’ spines,” Kaine said.

Democratic resolve will be tested in the coming week. Federal employees, including lawmakers’ own staffs, have now gone almost an entire month without full paychecks. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which helps about 1 in 8 Americans buy groceries, faces a potential funding cliff on Nov. 1. Air travel delays threaten to only grow worse amid air traffic controller shortages.

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) said he hopes his colleagues start negotiating quickly to end the impasse.

He said he’s been one of the few members of the Democratic caucus to vote for ending the shutdown because “it empowers the president beyond what he would be able to do otherwise, and it damages the country.”

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

Pakistan’s diplomatic playbook for 2025 is shifting noticeably toward trade, sustainability, and the projection of soft power. Gone are the days when foreign policy revolved solely around security concerns or aid dependency. The country’s recent economic and diplomatic maneuvers suggest a clear intent to rebrand itself as a credible, reform-driven partner focused on growth, responsibility, and engagement. From seafood export approvals by the US to partnerships with France and major development financing commitments, Pakistan’s narrative is evolving, and for once, it’s a story of initiative rather than reaction.

The US government’s decision to extend Pakistan’s seafood export approval until 2029 is a quiet but significant achievement. The deal, worth roughly $600 million annually, underscores two critical things: the growing confidence in Pakistan’s sustainability standards and the country’s ability to meet global compliance norms. For years, Pakistani exporters have faced barriers due to outdated infrastructure and quality control issues. Now, improved regulations and environmental monitoring seem to be paying off. This approval not only secures a steady stream of revenue but also signals that Pakistani industries are capable of aligning with Western ecological and safety benchmarks, something that can serve as a model for other export sectors.

In a similar spirit, the Punjab government’s recent memorandums of understanding (MoUs) with France mark another leap toward deepening provincial and international trade ties. France’s interest in Pakistan’s Special Economic Zones (SEZs) reveals confidence in the country’s industrial potential. For Punjab, the partnership could attract sustainable technologies, investment in renewable energy, and expertise in urban development. It also decentralizes diplomacy, shifting some of the engagement from federal corridors to proactive provincial actors, an approach that could make economic cooperation nimbler and more region-specific.

At the macro level, multilateral institutions are showing renewed faith in Pakistan’s economic reforms. The World Bank and International Finance Corporation (IFC) have jointly pledged a staggering $40 billion for development and private sector growth. This isn’t charity; it’s a bet on Pakistan’s capacity to absorb and utilize global capital effectively. The World Bank’s concessional loans, particularly targeting education and climate resilience, fit neatly into Pakistan’s national development goals. Meanwhile, the IFC’s $20 billion allocation to the private sector and small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) speaks to an evolving understanding that long-term economic health depends on entrepreneurial vitality rather than government-led expansion alone.

Domestically, the banking sector is mirroring this new wave of confidence. The Bank of Punjab, for instance, has reported record profits, reflecting a resilient financial system despite broader global headwinds. A profitable and stable banking environment is a prerequisite for sustained trade diplomacy; it assures foreign investors that local institutions are capable of managing large inflows and transactions transparently. When financial institutions thrive alongside industrial and export sectors, it sends a reassuring message to international partners that Pakistan’s growth is not a temporary surge but a maturing cycle.

But economic diplomacy alone doesn’t build soft power. What sets Pakistan’s recent approach apart is the coupling of trade initiatives with cultural and environmental diplomacy. The government’s efforts to promote interfaith harmony, expand cultural exchanges, and invest in green infrastructure reflect a broader understanding of influence in the modern era. Soft power, after all, isn’t about dominance; it’s about attraction. Pakistan’s reforestation programs, ecotourism initiatives, and partnerships in climate resilience not only improve its environmental record but also enhance its moral credibility on the global stage. These projects project a vision of Pakistan as a responsible global citizen, one that contributes to shared planetary goals rather than merely negotiating for its own interests.

Tourism, too, plays a key role in this narrative. The revival of heritage sites, promotion of religious tourism for Sikh and Buddhist pilgrims, and international film collaborations are creating a gentler, more relatable image of Pakistan abroad. These cultural bridges complement trade diplomacy by humanizing the country in the eyes of investors and tourists alike. They help replace outdated stereotypes with more nuanced perceptions of a nation that’s young, creative, and striving for balance between tradition and modernity.

This pivot toward soft power and trade diplomacy is not accidental; it’s strategic. Pakistan seems to recognize that credibility in global markets depends not just on economic incentives but on the consistency of reform and image. The focus on sustainability and governance reforms aims to reduce dependency on loans and shift toward mutually beneficial trade partnerships. In doing so, Pakistan positions itself not as a passive recipient of aid but as a contributor to global growth.

Critically, these moves also reflect a certain self-awareness. The emphasis on sustainability, whether in fisheries, industry, or climate policy, acknowledges that the old model of extractive growth is no longer viable. Similarly, engaging institutions like the World Bank and IFC shows that Pakistan understands the importance of credibility and transparency in attracting international capital. Trade diplomacy, when backed by responsible domestic governance and inclusive growth, becomes more than an economic tactic; it turns into a long-term strategy for stability and respect.

That said, this strategy will need to be carefully managed. The challenge isn’t just to secure deals but to ensure they deliver equitable benefits. For instance, trade approvals and foreign investments must be accompanied by support for small exporters, labor reforms, and environmental safeguards. Otherwise, the benefits will stay concentrated among elites, undermining the very soft power Pakistan seeks to build. Likewise, diplomatic capital must not be squandered on short-term optics or domestic political point-scoring. Consistency, patience, and institutional continuity will determine whether this new vision can endure.

In many ways, Pakistan’s 2025 diplomacy embodies a pragmatic realism. It doesn’t reject global partnerships or rely excessively on one bloc. Instead, it seeks balance between East and West, between economic pragmatism and moral purpose. By intertwining trade with culture, sustainability, and finance, the country is sketching the contours of a diplomacy that’s as much about persuasion as negotiation. And in a fragmented world increasingly defined by narratives rather than alliances, that’s a powerful pivot.

Recommendations

·       Establish specialized trade diplomacy desks in embassies to promote sectoral exports, green investment, and SME partnerships.

·       Strengthen provincial economic offices abroad to attract investors in key sectors like textiles, agri-tech, and renewable energy.

·       Implement domestic policies for export diversification and improve digital trade facilitation to empower smaller producers.

·       Expand cultural diplomacy programs, including art, film, sports, and education exchanges, to enhance people-to-people connections and global goodwill.

·       Ensure policy consistency and transparency across all levels of government to solidify Pakistan’s reputation as a credible, reform-driven partner in global trade and diplomacy.

As the Netherlands gears up for a snap parliamentary election on October 29, less than halfway through parliament’s usual four-year term following the collapse of the ruling coalition, the likelihood of another win for the country’s far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) is mounting.

An outright win is next to impossible. The Netherlands has always had a coalition government formed by a minimum of two parties due to its proportional representation electoral system, under which seats in parliament are awarded to parties in proportion to the number of votes they win.

The PVV, headed by Geert Wilders, also won the most votes in the last election in November 2023. It then partnered with three other far-right parties – the Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB), New Social Contract (NSC), and the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) – to form a coalition government.

But in June, PVV made a dramatic exit from the coalition government over a disagreement on immigration policy. PVV had wanted to introduce a stricter asylum policy that included closing borders to new asylum seekers and deporting dual nationals convicted of crimes, but the other parties demanded further discussions.

In a dramatic move, Wilders took to X to announce that the failure by other parties to agree to PVV’s plans meant it would leave the coalition.

Coalition partners slammed this decision and accused Wilders of being driven by self-interest. VVD leader Dilan Yesilgoz said at the time that Wilders “chooses his own ego and his own interests. I am astonished. He throws away the chance for a right-wing policy”.

Following the pull-out, Prime Minister Dick Schoof – an independent – announced that he would resign and a snap election would be held this month.

Then, in August, the NSC’s Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp also resigned after he failed to secure support for new sanctions against Israel over its war in Gaza and the humanitarian situation in Gaza City. In solidarity with Veldkamp, other NSC party members left the coalition, leaving only two parties remaining.

Now, with an election imminent, opinion polls suggest the PVV will secure the most seats in the 150-seat parliament. While a winner needs 76 seats to form a government, no single party ever makes it to that figure, which has led to a history of coalitions.

According to a poll by the Dutch news outlet, EenVandaag, on October 14, the PVV is projected to secure 31 seats. The centre-left Green-Labour alliance (GroenLinks-PvdA) is polling at 25 seats, and the centre-right Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) is polling at 23.

PVV’s former coalition partner, the centre-right VVD, could take 14 seats and the BBB, four. So far, the NSC is not projected to secure any seats at all.

Immigration fears

At the end of September, EenVandaag polled 27,191 people and found that the main sticking point between voters – and, hence, between the leaders, PVV and GroenLinks-PvdA – is immigration. Half of all voters said it was the key issue on which they would be voting this year. Housing was the second-most important issue at 46 percent, and “Dutch identity” came third at 37 percent.

While the PVV is firmly anti-immigration and wants to impose a much stricter border policy and asylum laws, GroenLinks-PvdA would prefer to allow a net migration figure of 40,000 and 60,000 migrants per year.

Tempers are running high over this issue. Last month at The Hague, a right-wing activist known as “Els Rechts” organised an anti-migration protest that attracted 1,500 attendees. According to reports, protesters threw stones and bottles at the police, set a police car alight and smashed windows of the left-wing Democrats 66 (D66) party offices.

While left-wingers argue that the immigration issue has been wildly hyped up by the far right, they are losing control of the narrative.

Esme Smithson Swain, a member of MiGreat, a Dutch non-governmental campaign group that calls for freedom of movement and equal treatment for migrants in the Netherlands, told Al Jazeera that the far right in the Netherlands and in the United Kingdom, more widely, had “constructed a narrative that there is a migration crisis”.

“They’ve managed to construct this idea of a crisis, and that distracts our attention away from populism, away from arms trades, away from social services and the welfare state being sold off.”

Whatever its merits, the right-wing message that immigration is at the root of many social ills seems to be taking hold. The far-left, pro-immigration BIJ1 party, which rejects this message, is not projected to win any seats at all in this election.

Immigration “is a key term especially for right-wing political parties to win the election”, Noura Oul Fakir, a candidate for the BIJ1 party, told Al Jazeera. “We don’t focus on it because we look at everything that’s been going on from a systemic point of view, that every form of oppression is interlinked … This fight for equality and justice, it’s about more than just immigration, but it’s also interlinked with other issues that we see nowadays.”

People ‘more emboldened to express racist views’

By January 1, 2024, the Netherlands was hosting 2.9 million migrants (16.2 percent of the population), compared to the average across European Union member states of 9.9 percent (44.7 million people in total).

Similarly, Germany hosts 16.9 million migrants (20.2 percent of the population); France, 9.3 million (13.6 percent of the population); Spain, 8.8 million (18.2 percent of the population); and Italy, 6.7 million (11.3 percent of the population), according to figures from the EU.

Mark van Ostaijen, an associate professor in public administration and sociology at Erasmus University Rotterdam, explained that immigration has become a mainstream talking point in “housing, care, educational and cultural policy domains”.

For instance, the Netherlands is currently short of 434,000 homes, including for 353,000 asylum seekers and 81,000 Dutch first-time buyers, according to figures commissioned by the Ministry of Housing and Spatial Planning (VRO).

Immigration has, therefore, been blamed for what is seen as a housing crisis.

According to Statistics Netherlands (CBS), 316,000 migrants arrived in the country in 2024, 19,000 fewer than in 2023. But CBS also found that population growth is still mainly down to net migration, with the largest number of migrants coming from Ukraine and Syria.

“I think this is indeed something that will continue the electoral legitimacy of far-right parties, or right-wing parties, even more, given the fact that the Netherlands was already quite leaning towards the conservative angle,” van Ostaijen told Al Jazeera.

“This will be a topic that will haunt our politics and our democratic decision-making and discourse for quite a while,” he said.

Anecdotal evidence bears this out. Fakir has noticed a change in the experiences of immigrant residents she and her colleagues have spoken to in the country following the growth of the PVV.

“In their personal life [they have seen] a noticeable shift where people feel more free or emboldened to express racist views, both online and in real life. Others are telling them those classic things of ‘go back to your own country, or you’re not Dutch’,” she said.

For Nassreddin Taibi, a recent graduate who works as a political analyst and plans to vote for GroenLinks-PvdA, the anti-immigration protests at the Hague “further cemented polarisation among Dutch voters” and have caused centrist parties to fall into line with the right-wing narrative.

“These protests have influenced the discourse in the sense that centrist parties now say that cutting immigration is necessary to win back trust of voters in politics,” he said.

Nearly half of voters still undecided

While the far-right PVV is projected to win the most seats in this election, it will still face an uphill journey to form a government, as other parties such as the centre-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) have ruled out joining a coalition government.

Furthermore, the PVV’s leader, Wilders, has not escaped controversy with his Islamophobic comments and anti-migration stance despite the rise in anti-immigration sentiment across the country as a whole.

Notable incidents over the years include Wilders’ likening of Islam to Nazism in 2007 and his reference to the Muslim holy book, the Quran, as “fascist” in a letter to a Dutch news outlet. His letter and comments led to Wilders being prosecuted for inciting hatred and discrimination, which he denied. In 2011, he was acquitted by a judge who ruled that his comments had fallen within the scope of free speech.

More recently, in August this year, Wilders posted an image on X that depicted a smiling, blonde and blue-eyed woman, representing the PVV; and a wrinkled, angry-looking elderly woman wearing a headscarf, representing the PvdA. It was accompanied by the words: “The choice is yours on 29/10.”

Aan U de keuze op 29/10 pic.twitter.com/royhcInDlm

— Geert Wilders (@geertwilderspvv) August 4, 2025

Fake news and misinformation have also driven the rise in far-right narratives, analysts say.

The Facebook page ‘Wij doen GEEN aangifte tegen Geert Wilders’ (We are NOT filing charges against Geert Wilders), which claims to be a PVV supporters’ page boasting 129,000 followers, said it does not intend to be “discriminatory, hateful, or incite violence”, but has nevertheless posted AI-generated images of this nature.

In one such image, which received 1,700 likes, a white family is seemingly being harassed by men of colour.

In another, a white woman is seen in a supermarket paying for groceries while surrounded by Muslim women wearing hijabs and niqabs, with the caption: “No mass immigration, no Islamisation, no backwardness of the Dutch.” The post received 885 likes.

While the outgoing home affairs minister, Judith Uitermark, has said the government is examining new ways to combat fake news, she added that the Netherlands is somewhat protected from the rise of extremism by its proportional representation system, under which no one party ever wins a majority.

Still, the Dutch Data Protection Authority has warned voters not to use AI chatbots to help them decide who to vote for.

And a large number are still deciding. EenVandaag found that some 48 percent of voters are still undecided about which candidate they will choose. If the GroenLinks-PvdA can disengage from right-wing talking points and, instead, focus on its own policies more, it may perform better than expected, analysts say.

This will be no easy task, however.

“We find ourselves doing this also as a civil society organisation, as campaigners, trying to fight off the narrative and fight off the kind of populist ideals of the far right faster than we can push for our own agenda as well. And I think a lot of the time that leaves left-wing parties in the Netherlands seeming a bit hollow,” Swain said.

Still, she says that she is holding out hope for this election, despite what feels like a “vast and growing far-right bulk of the population”.

“I think it’s very easy to kind of feel that division between ‘us and them’. Us campaigning on the left and this growing mass of the far right,” Swain said.

“We need to tackle fighting the influence of lobbying and of fake news in our political structures. And I think that becoming more united as a population would naturally fall from that.”

Oct. 23 (UPI) — The U.S. Anglican archbishop has been accused of sexual misconduct and abuse of power, according to a recently filed complaint.

Stephen Wood, 62, has been accused by a former children’s ministry worker of putting his hand on the back of her head and attempting to kiss her in his office in April 2024. The alleged incident happened two months before Wood ascended to the church’s top post, The Washington Post reported.

The woman, Claire Buxton, also accused Wood of unexpectedly giving her approximately $35,000 from church coffers before he made the alleged advance. Wood, the father of four children, remains the rector of St. Andrew’s Church in Charleston, S.C., and a bishop who oversees more than 40 churches across the southern United States.

Woods stands to be defrocked and forced to resign if his case goes to an ecclesiastical trial.

Woods issued a statement but refused to answer questions about the alleged incident.

“I do not believe these allegations have any merit,” he said in the statement. “I place my faith and trust in the process outlined in our canons to bring clarity and truth in these matters and respectfully decline to comment further at this time.”

In her statement to the Post, Buxton accused Wood of calling her “Claire Bear” in front of other people and offered to send her to a resort for spa treatments and relaxation.

“I was literally trapped in a church that felt like hell,” Buxton told The Post. She said she turned her face to avoid the kiss and immediately told a colleague about the incident.

“He put his hand on the back of my head and tried to turn it up towards him while he slowly brought his face towards my face to kiss me,” she wrote in her affidavit. “I dropped my face down towards his shoulder so he couldn’t. He held for a second and then let go, and I said, ‘Ok, bye,’ and ran out of his office.” The Post reported that at least four other church employees voiced concerns about Wood’s behavior.

The allegations against Wood come as the ecclesiastical trial of another denominational leader, Bishop Stewart Ruch, draws to a close. Ruch oversees a diocese in the Midwest and has been accused by parishioners and clergy of responding slowly to allegations against a lay leader, Mark Rivera, of abuse and grooming.

Rivera has been convicted of felony child sexual abuse. He pleaded guilty to felony sexual assault in a different case. A verdict in Ruch’s ecclesiastical trial is expected later this year.

Eating dirt is usually not a good thing, but in the new Amazon Prime series “Cometierra,” it’s a superpower.

The supernatural crime thriller, which premieres on Halloween, is based on the 2019 Dolores Reyes novel of the same name. The book follows the story of a young woman who has the ability to communicate through visions with the dead and missing people of Argentina by eating the physical land they trod.

“Cometierra” stars Lilith Curiel with supporting roles from Oscar nominee Yalitza Aparicio and Gerardo Taracena. It follows the same outline of the book but is set in contemporary Mexico to address the themes of state violence, femicide and the missing persons epidemic.

The source material and its new twist were what drew Mexican singer-songwriter Natalia Lafourcade to perform the series’s title song, “La Cometierra.”

“We have this reality in Mexico, there’s violence against many women and there’s the disappeared. It’s a very sad situation that we have, but it’s a fact,” the singer said. “It’s inspiring the way the series develops and how this girl, alongside her neighbors, creates a [positive] tribal strength out of her situation.”

Lafourcade especially liked that the series provides an organic avenue for debate and serves as a call to action to recognize that these are all problems in Mexico, while also showing that there is a deep well of beauty within the country.

“We all have a talent that we can always put forward as a service for our family, our country, just for other people,” she said.

The 41-year-old artist’s recently released single channels the energy of the series and its themes by conjuring a spoken word cadence that culminates in a nursery rhyme chant about the powers of the Cometierra.

“I wanted to make a sound that would be very strong and that would present a reality and that the lyrics wouldn’t be smooth,” Lafourcade said. “But at the same time, it would have hope and light and this feeling of joy for the next generations. So I wanted to have this mix of girls singing in a very naive tone, but also mix in a straight voice telling hard truths.”

The song, while geared toward a Mexican experience, now has a striking relevance in the United States as Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids — largely targeting Latinos — continue to take place across the country and as hundreds of detained people have been unaccounted for.

“I hope that music has this capacity to make us wake up and be conscious of situations,” Lafourcade said. “I have realized there are many themes that you can take through music, but sometimes music can become something that you hear truths that probably are not so pretty.”

Regarding some of the ugly truths of the U.S. at the moment, the “Nunca Es Suficiente” artist said that it’s not right that people should feel shame of where they come from and that communities need to show up for themselves at this point in time.

“Nobody should take our pride for our roots, our culture, our people,” she said. “The young lady [in the show] reaches a point where she’s confused about if she should use her power and give it to her people or not. She feels very afraid and insecure and she’s going through all that. But I love how she becomes a hero of her own power and I think that’s the fate of many of us, the way we can make a twist in the story we’re living every day.”

South Korea is setting its sights on joining the ranks of the world’s top four defence powers by 2030, with President Lee Jae Myung announcing a major funding boost for weapons and aerospace research at the country’s largest-ever arms fair on Monday.

Speaking at the Seoul International Aerospace & Defense Exhibition (ADEX) 2025, President Lee unveiled plans for a “larger-than-expected budget” dedicated to defence innovation, including next-generation weapons, unmanned systems, and AI-driven combat technology.

South Korea, currently ranked 10th globally in arms sales according to SIPRI data, has rapidly emerged as a major weapons exporter, fueled by rising global demand following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“Becoming one of the top four powerhouses in the defence industry is by no means an impossible dream,” Lee declared, outlining a strategy centered on self-reliance and technological sovereignty.

Technological Focus: Building Independence

Lee emphasized that Seoul’s path to military dominance will hinge on indigenous innovation from advanced semiconductors to locally developed materials and components critical for modern warfare systems.

“We will establish technological sovereignty by focusing investment on technologies, parts, and materials that must be secured independently,” Lee said, signaling a drive to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers and strengthen Korea’s high-tech defence ecosystem.

Why It Matters

South Korea’s defence surge represents a new phase in global power dynamics, as traditional arms leaders like the U.S., Russia, and China face rising competition from technologically agile exporters. The move also underscores Seoul’s bid to leverage its world-class electronics and shipbuilding expertise for military dominance.

With defence exports surging from howitzers and missiles to warships and ammunition South Korea is fast becoming a preferred arms supplier for nations seeking reliable alternatives amid supply disruptions from traditional powers.

Government: Pledging billions in R&D and industry subsidies through 2030.

Korean Defence Firms (Hanwha, LIG Nex1, Hyundai Rotem): Showcasing AI-enhanced and unmanned weapons at ADEX to attract new export clients.

Overseas Buyers: Poland, Australia, and the UAE remain top partners, signaling Seoul’s growing footprint in both European and Middle Eastern markets.

Industry Analysts: See the move as a turning point that could push South Korea past traditional mid-tier arms exporters like France and the U.K. in global rankings.

What’s Next

South Korea plans to use the ADEX 2025 platform to announce new export deals and joint ventures aimed at expanding its defence technology abroad. The government is expected to release its 2030 Defence Industry Roadmap early next year, detailing specific spending targets and export goals.

If successful, Seoul’s ascent could redefine Asia’s military-industrial balance transforming the country from a security consumer into one of the world’s dominant arms producers.

With information from Reuters.