Power

The decision by United States President Donald Trump to launch a war on Iran has left many international law experts questioning if the world order established after World War II is actually working.

In his second presidential term, Trump seems to be wielding total power without restraint, and the system of checks and balances enshrined in the US Constitution appears to be failing to limit his power.

Since Trump was sworn in in January 2025, he has ordered two unprovoked attacks on independent states, Venezuela and Iran; threatened to annex Greenland; strained traditional alliances with Europe; undermined the United Nations; and rattled international trade with his sweeping tariffs.

Previous constraints set by the UN system and international law appear supplanted by what Trump told reporters in January was a vision of power limited only by his “own morality”.

So what checks are there on Trump? Is he really free to attack states, set tariffs at will and, as leader of the world’s most powerful state, essentially dictate global policy? And if so, why are so many observers now saying his war on Iran is faltering?

Has international law put any checks on Trump?

Not so far.

According to analysts, both his attacks on Venezuela and Iran were in clear breach of international law and the UN Charter, principally the prohibition on the use of force under Article 2(4).

Debates about international law, how it has been geared over the decades to underpin the interests of the West and the US specifically, are hardly new. However, experts said, the Trump presidency has seen even the notional restraints of international law trampled underfoot.

Trump himself has brushed aside international law, saying in January that it would be up to him to decide when and how much international law applied to the US and his actions.

“In many respects, international law has historically served US interests, and self-interest should continue to generate US support for a rules-based order organised around the core principles enshrined in the UN Charter,” Michael Becker, a professor of international human rights law at Trinity College in Dublin who previously worked at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, told Al Jazeera, “But finding value in international law often requires adopting a long-term outlook that does not sit easily with short-term political agendas.”

“In the current geopolitical climate, the capacity of international law to provide a meaningful constraint on US action under Donald Trump has proven negligible,” Becker added. “That seems unlikely to change, especially given the failure by other states to strike a united front against Trump’s gangsterism.”

What about the UN?

Not so much.

From its founding, the role of the UN has been to promote dialogue instead of conflict and provide a global response to international challenges. However, Trump’s relationship with the body, like so many of the president’s associations, has rarely been so straightforward. On the one hand, while appearing to try to supplant the body with his members-only Board of Peace as well as sidelining UN aid efforts in Gaza, he has on occasion sought the legitimacy of the UN for a number of his projects, such as his calls in August for the UN to establish a Support Office in Haiti, to help limit migration to the US.

However, while the support of the UN may be helpful, it is clear that Trump has no intention of abiding by its charter, Richard Gowan, the Crisis Group’s UN director from 2019 to 2025, said.

“While other UN members see the US is breaking international law on a regular basis, they often hold back from criticising Washington too loudly in forums like the Security Council because they fear blowback from Trump,” Gowan said. “So Trump is learning he can sidestep the UN when he wants to and get away with it while occasionally using it for instrumental purposes.”

What about other powers?

Up to a point.

Many countries known as “middle powers”, such as Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and other Western and European states, have proven successful so far in pushing back against Trump’s efforts to unilaterally annex Greenland. But European powers have failed to condemn Trump’s unprovoked war on Venezuela and Iran, exposing their double standards in conflicts in the Middle East and the Global South.

Many analysts expect that a withdrawal of investments in the US by Gulf states, which are bearing the brunt of Iran’s retaliation to US and Israeli attacks, may also hasten the war’s end.

“Middle powers can generate friction but not a veto,” HA Hellyer of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies in London said. “Collective action – European governments, Gulf states – can raise costs and extract tactical adjustments. The structural imbalance remains: The US retains decisive military, financial and institutional primacy.”

Smaller states often hedge their bets, follow Washington or look to regional alliances for protection, Hellyer added, continuing that while pressure was strongest in Europe, where the US is no longer seen as a reliable security guarantor, the idea of establishing an alternative continues to be a hurdle. “The logic of an alternative model is accepted; the capacity to execute it quickly is not. A prolonged interregnum follows. The Gulf Arab states are in an analogous position,” he said.

In the meantime, Trump and the US are free to act as they choose. “These are exposure-management strategies, pursued until structural dependence on the US security umbrella can be reduced,” he said.

China and Russia have so far criticised the breaches of international law while avoiding clear escalation, and India and other members of the BRICS bloc have largely stayed silent, suggesting a preference for strategic ambiguity over confronting Washington directly.

What about domestic restraints?

Not really.

The US Supreme Court was able to block Trump’s use of tariffs to manage large parts of his foreign policy by rewarding allies with lower tariffs and punishing critics with punitive import duties.

But none of the other traditional guardrails – such as Congress; the Department of Justice, which has provided unwavering support to the president; and even the news media – has contained the president’s ambitions. This isn’t entirely new. Previous presidents have ordered wars without congressional approval. However, with Trump, analysts suggested, it has been systematic.

Powerful US institutions have largely failed to hold the Trump administration accountable, analysts, such as Kim Lane Scheppele, a professor of international affairs at Princeton University, said.

“His base of strong supporters are saying that they are willing to experience short-term increases in gasoline prices if it leads to a friendly government in Iran in the long term. His opponents have been his opponents on everything, so he simply ignores and threatens them,” Scheppele told Al Jazeera.

“Trump pays more attention to market performance than to public opinion, so he started saying that he was minimising costs and saying that the Iran war is short term to boost markets again.”

“What the US is spectacularly missing is leadership to oppose Trump. Congress is not doing its constitutional job to constrain him. The Supreme Court is in his pocket because he packed the court in his first term. Lower court judges are heroic and have done amazing work under serious pressures, but they don’t get foreign policy questions, given the difficulty of anyone getting ‘standing’ … in the area of international matters,” she said, referring to the requirement that parties to a lawsuit must show actual or future direct harm to themselves to bring a case to court.

She noted that lower federal courts, although limited on foreign policy, have repeatedly checked executive overreach on immigration, sanctions designations and emergency powers, often under intense political pressure.

So why are so many people saying Trump’s war is faltering?

In the eyes of many observers, Trump, with no clear war aims or a defined resolution, is in danger of losing control of a conflict that appears to be both growing and reaching into economic areas apparently unforeseen by his administration, so while traditional restraints don’t apply, market forces, like gravity, always do.

Trump has repeatedly said the war would be over soon despite none of his claimed war aims being achieved.

Oil prices have surged due to his attacks on Iran, Tehran’s counterstrikes and threats to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas passes.

The International Energy Agency’s decision on Wednesday to release 400 million barrels of oil from international petroleum reserves has failed to tame the prices. Iran has warned that oil could hit $200 a barrel as it continues its stranglehold of the waterway.

“Ultimately, the factors that might be most likely to constrain Donald Trump’s neoimperialist impulses – or his willingness to pursue the policy goals of those who have his ear – are the economic fallout from disrupting global energy markets and a broader disenchantment among US voters with his globe-trotting militarism, his rampant self-dealing and his callous disregard for the human costs of war,” Becker said.

Fans of the musical “Hamilton” know three things about the nation’s first Treasury secretary because of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s brilliance. First, that Alexander Hamilton cheated on his wife, Eliza. Second, he was killed by the vice president, Aaron Burr. Third, and most importantly, he was considered a highly principled man. And when it came to the topic of nationalizing elections, do you know how this Revolutionary War vet and founding father characterized doing so?

A threat.

Referring to corruptible public officials, Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers: No 59: “With so effectual a weapon in their hands as the exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, a combination of a few such men, in a few of the most considerable States, where the temptation will always be the strongest, might accomplish the destruction of the Union, by seizing the opportunity of some casual dissatisfaction among the people to discontinue the choice.”

Hamilton’s prescient views became the framework for the Election Clause in the Constitution. And since returning to the White House, President Trump has been searching for ways to usurp it. Last month he made calls to nationalize elections. This month he’s at it again.

He’s also pushing Congress to pass his so-called SAVE Act, which would require voters to show proof of citizenship when they register to vote. It sounds innocuous until you realize a driver’s license isn’t good enough; a passport would often be required. But half the country doesn’t have a passport, and it costs roughly $200 and a few weeks to get one. The logistical burden is unreasonable and cruel: Consider that this year, during primary season, we’ve already witnessed natural disaster — such as the tornadoes that recently ripped through the Midwest or the fires in Texas — upend entire communities. Many people would not have been able to vote, simply because they had been separated from their papers during the disaster.

The financial obstacles that would be created by the SAVE Act are at least as onerous: Why would Congress choose to financially burden voters — with what is essentially an unlawful poll tax — at a time when the unemployment rate and gas prices are up and the approval rating for nearly everyone in office is down? There are a couple of reasons. One is that the party controlling Congress hopes to suppress voting in order to defy the will of the American majority and cling to power.

Another reason lawmakers support this terrible bill is simply that Trump wants it. Some Republicans in office are so afraid of angering a vengeful president that they would rather entertain his authoritarian tendencies than go through the fire of his opposition during a primary.

For politicians such as Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who this week changed his long-held position on the filibuster in order to push the SAVE Act, it’s simply about political survival. He needs the president’s endorsement heading into the runoff for his Senate seat.

Trump has called the election overhaul bill his top priority — not the war he started with Iran, not returning the billions collected from illegal tariffs, not justice for Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. Before there was a Constitution, there was a warning, written by Hamilton and other founders, whose concerns about nationalized elections are well documented and have proved to be well founded.

You would think a nation in the midst of beating its proverbial chest about our 250th birthday would take more heed from the country’s founders. But nope: This week Florida state lawmakers, in an attempt to appease their state’s most powerful resident, passed an election overhaul law that mirrors the federal SAVE Act. More red states are likely to follow, not because a national wave of voter fraud has been unearthed by authorities, but because the authorities want to stay in the good graces of someone who has yet to prove any widespread fraud other than his own.

The party that famously railed against “the bridge to nowhere” is now offering bills that solve nonexistent problems. Or in some cases, creating problems, particularly for women who changed their names after marriage so their state IDs don’t match their birth certificates.

Cornyn is not alone in exchanging his principles for Trump’s favor; he’s just the most recent. However, the manner in which he announced his flip flop was particularly tone deaf.

“If a man takes a swing at you and barely misses, that doesn’t make him a pacifist — it just means he has bad aim,” Cornyn wrote in an op-ed about the bill for the New York Post, the newspaper founded by Hamilton in 1801. “Standing still and giving him a second free swing wouldn’t be wise or honorable: it would be foolish.”

In 2016, then-candidate Trump took his first big swing at our elections when he implied — without evidence — that his opponent, Sen. Ted Cruz, had rigged the election after losing to him in the Iowa Republican caucus. Reportedly Trump even tried to get the state’s party chair to overturn the result. He’s been throwing jabs at our elections ever since. The Jan. 6 riot was a haymaker that barely missed. Given the president’s propensity to hand out Trump 2028 hats, it seems passing the SAVE Act would be, in Cornyn’s words, setting voters up to stand there while Trump takes another swing at our democracy.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Wakefield Trinity’s fourth-round match against Leeds Rhinos in the Challenge Cup is brought to an abrupt halt after a power cut causes the stadium to be plunged into darkness just six minutes into the match.

WATCH LIVE: Challenge Cup: Wakefield v Leeds

Available to UK users only.

Rastriya Swatantra Party, founded just four years ago, set to dominate new parliament with near two-thirds majority.

A political party led by a rapper-turned-politician has won a sweeping parliamentary majority in Nepal, official results show, capping one of the most dramatic elections in the country’s recent history.

The Rastriya Swatantra Party of Balendra Shah, a 35-year-old former civil engineer and hip-hop artist known simply as “Balen”, secured 182 seats in the 275-member lower house of parliament, the Election Commission said on Thursday, with 125 won directly and a further 57 through proportional representation.

The Nepali Congress party finished in second place, with 38 seats. The Marxist party of veteran four-time Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli, whose government was ousted in a youth-led uprising last year, won just 25 seats.

Shah himself defeated the 74-year-old Oli in his own constituency.

Oli, who had dominated Nepali politics for years, congratulated his rival on X, wishing him a “smooth and successful” term.

The September 2025 protests that reshaped the country’s political landscape were initially set off by a government ban on social media, but rapidly swelled into a mass movement against corruption and economic stagnation, leaving at least 77 people dead.

Shah, whose music had long targeted those same grievances, emerged as a figurehead of the unrest, his song Nepal Haseko, or Nepal Smiling, accumulating more than 10 million YouTube views during the turmoil.

His path to likely prime minister, from engineer to rapper to Kathmandu’s first independent mayor in 2022, reflects a generational shift in a country where more than 40 percent of the nearly 30 million population is under 35, yet whose established party leadership has long remained in its 70s.

Shah said his victory was a signal of refusal to take “the easy way out” and a reckoning with the “problems and betrayals that have affected the country.”

The RSP, founded the same year as his mayoral win, ran a highly organised campaign backed by diaspora funding, particularly from Nepali communities in the United States.

Nepalese journalist Pranaya Rana described Shah to Al Jazeera as embodying “the outsider spirit that many young Nepalis are looking for to shake up the status quo.”

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi called the vote a “proud moment” in Nepal’s democratic journey, pledging close cooperation with the incoming government.

Under Nepal’s constitutional process, parties must now submit names to fill proportionally allocated seats before parliament is formally summoned by the president. A new prime minister, who will need the support of at least half of all members, is not expected to be confirmed for several days.

Despite United States President Donald Trump’s repeated declarations of victory in the US-Israeli war on Iran, Tehran’s retaliatory strikes on Israel and US military assets in the region have continued, upending global financial and energy markets.

“We’ve had two decades to study defeats of the US military to our immediate east and west. We’ve incorporated lessons accordingly,” Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi wrote in a post on X on March 1, the day after US and Israeli strikes on Tehran killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior Iranian officials.

“Bombings in our capital have no impact on our ability to conduct war,” he wrote.

According to analysts, Iran has made use of “asymmetric” warfare tactics while striking the US and Israel. So, are Tehran’s war tactics working?

Here’s what we know:

What is ‘asymmetric’ warfare?

When the balance of capabilities is unequal in a conflict – as it is in relation to weapons in this one – the weaker party can turn to unconventional methods of warfare, John Phillips, a British safety, security and risk adviser and a former military chief instructor, told Al Jazeera.

This is known as “asymmetric” warfare.

This can include the use of guerrilla tactics, terrorism, cyberattacks, use of proxies and other indirect tools, Phillips said, in order “to offset conventional inferiority, avoid the enemy’s strengths, and exploit vulnerabilities in political will, logistics, and legal or ethical constraints”.

“Iran is conventionally weaker than the US and Israel, but relatively strong compared to many neighbours,” he said.

“What makes Iran distinctive is not that it uses these methods at all, but that they sit at the centre of its grand strategy rather than at its margins.”

Why is Iran using asymmetric warfare?

In the ongoing war between Iran and the US-Israel, Washington and Tel Aviv have been using expensive missiles and drones to attack Iran and to intercept missiles Iran has fired back. The Patriot and THAAD defence systems, for example, which launch interceptors to take out incoming drones and missiles, can cost millions of dollars for each missile they fire. This compares with the $20,000-$35,000 cost of each Iranian Shahed drone.

As a result, the US has reportedly spent $2bn a day in its war on Iran and there are fears it could run out of interceptor missiles altogether if the war goes on for more than a few weeks.

It is therefore in Iran’s interests to focus on holding out against strikes and protecting its own weapons supplies while it does so, military experts say.

However, Phillips explained that precision strikes and sabotage by Israel and the US have demonstrated that Iran is not able to fully shield its missile, drone and nuclear‑related assets, while sanctions and domestic pressures have limited its capacity to sustain a very high‑tempo confrontation.

“As a result, Iran’s asymmetric approach is best understood as an effective ‘survival and leverage’ mechanism that produces a chronic, costly ‘shadow war’, rather than a path to decisive regional hegemony or victory,” he said.

Iran began using asymmetric warfare techniques following the 1979 Iranian revolution, which overthrew Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

“Instead of trying to match high‑end aircraft, precision munitions, or blue‑water fleets, [Iran] has built a ‘forward deterrence’ posture that operates in the grey zone between war and peace,” Phillips said.

“This is backed by large inventories of ballistic and cruise missiles, mass‑produced drones [often handed to proxies], cyber-operations, and a posture of underground, dispersed and hardened facilities that make preemption difficult and preserve some retaliatory capability.”

What asymmetric tactics has Iran been using?

Enemy depletion tactics

Since US-Israeli strikes on Iran began on February 28, Tehran has launched a wave of ballistic missiles targeting Israel and US military bases across the Gulf region.

Using a mix of short and medium-range ballistic missiles, as well as drone swarms through this defence system, Iran aims to deplete Israeli and US interceptor stockpiles.

Economic warfare

Iran has shut down the Strait of Hormuz through which about 20 percent of global oil and gas supplies are shipped. Linking the Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, the strait is the only waterway to the open ocean available to Gulf oil producers.

On Thursday, Iran attacked fuel tankers in Iraqi waters. Instability in and around the Strait of Hormuz drove Brent crude oil prices past $100 a barrel last week, with wild swings ongoing, prompting fears of a global energy crisis.

Iran has also targeted civilian infrastructure like airports and desalination plants which are crucial for water supply in the region, and it has launched drones targeting oil depots.

War on global finance

Meanwhile, on Wednesday this week, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) threatened to attack “economic centres and banks” with links to United States and Israeli entities in the Gulf region after what it claimed was an attack on an Iranian bank, with the war in its 12th day.

Since then, many banks like Citibank and HSBC in Qatar, have begun shutting, further threatening global financial stability.

Top technology companies such as Google, Microsoft, Palantir, IBM, Nvidia and Oracle, as well as the listed offices and infrastructure for cloud-based services, are also located in several Israeli cities and in some Gulf countries, which Iran has also threatened to attack.

Use of proxies

Iran has aimed to keep the much more powerful US military and its allies off balance through proxies in Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen. Hezbollah in Lebanon, for example, has fired missiles and drones into northern Israel since March 2 as part of Iran’s retaliatory strikes.

“At the core of this [asymmetric] approach is a network of proxies and partners – Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shia militias in Iraq, groups in Syria, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen – which receive weapons, training, funding and ideological guidance from Iran,” Phillips said.

These actors allow Tehran to threaten Israeli and US forces, as well as regional shipping lanes, on multiple fronts, “often with a degree of deniability and at a fraction of the cost of deploying its own regular forces”, Phillips noted.

‘Mosaic’ defence system

Iran has organised its defensive structure into multiple regional and semi-independent layers instead of concentrating power in a single command chain that could be paralysed by a decapitation strike. This concept is most closely associated with the formation of the parallel military force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), particularly under former commander Mohammad Ali Jafari, who led the force from 2007 to 2019.

The doctrine has two central aims: to make Iran’s command system difficult to dismantle by force, and to make the battlefield itself harder to resolve quickly by turning Iran into a layered arena of regular defence, irregular warfare, local mobilisation and long-term attrition.

What damage have these tactics done to the US and Israel?

Iran’s asymmetrical playbook has made the war more expensive for the US. It has been forced to spend money on replacing stockpiles of expensive missiles like Tomahawks and defensive systems such as Patriot and THAAD interceptors.

According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the first 100 hours alone of Operation Epic Fury – the codename for the US-Israeli assault on Iran – cost the US approximately $3.7bn, mostly unbudgeted. Israel, already reeling from the economic strain of its prolonged wars in Gaza and Lebanon, faces mounting domestic pressure as daily sirens force millions into bunkers.

While the Pentagon has not yet announced an official estimate for the cost of the war, late last week, two congressional sources told US broadcaster MS NOW that the war is costing the United States an estimated $1bn a day.

A day later, Politico reported that US Republicans on Capitol Hill privately fear the Pentagon is spending close to $2bn a day on the war.

Meanwhile, officials from President Donald Trump’s administration estimated during a congressional briefing this week that the first six days of the war on Iran had cost the US at least $11.3bn, a source familiar with the matter told the Reuters news agency.

Reporting from Washington, DC, following the publication of the CSIS analysis last week, Al Jazeera’s Rosiland Jordan said the Pentagon had put together a $50bn supplemental budget request in order to replace Tomahawk and Patriot missiles and THAAD interceptors already used in the first week of the war, along with other equipment that had been damaged or worn out so far.

Are Iran’s tactics working?

To a certain extent, they are.

According to a report by The Soufan Center, the “pattern of Iranian counterattacks suggests a layered operational approach designed to generate pressure on Gulf states, create regional disruption on land, sea, and air, while simultaneously attempting to exhaust US and allied defensive resources”.

“Tehran appears to be fighting a war of endurance: prolong the conflict, expand the economic battlefield, make the costs increasingly prohibitive, ration advanced capabilities, and impose steady human and financial costs on its adversaries. All with the hope that political tolerance erodes faster in Jerusalem and Washington than in Tehran,” the report noted.

This may be working. Questions about the cost of the war are already causing a political headache for the Trump administration in Washington.

Congress’s House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference last week that President Donald Trump is “plunging America into another endless conflict in the Middle East” and “spending billions of dollars to bomb Iran”.

“But they can’t find a dime to make it more affordable for the American people to go see a doctor when they need one,” he said. “Can’t find a dime to make it easier for Americans who are working hard to purchase their first home. And they can’t find a dime to lower the grocery bills of the American people.”

Trump won the presidency in 2024 largely on the back of a promise to handle the rising cost of living and he faces mid-term elections this year. It is likely that the cost of the war will not play well with voters, analysts say.

In Israel, opposition politician Yair Golan has also criticised his government’s economic management of the war.

In a post on X on Sunday, he wrote: “The war with Iran has been planned for months. The fact that the Israeli government has not prepared an orderly economic plan to support citizens during the war period is a disgrace.

“The serving and working public should not be the one footing the bill for the war out of its own pocket while billions of shekels go to the evading and non-working sector,” he said, adding that the opposition will soon replace the government.

Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera that at a fraction of the cost – and despite a significant technological gap – Iran has demonstrated an ability to hold the global economy at risk, to pressure Washington into “blinking first”.

“A steady stream of inexpensive drones and limited missile strikes can disrupt the thriving economies of Israel and the Gulf, sending shockwaves through energy markets and ultimately translating into higher prices at American gas stations,” he said.

Phillips, the British safety, security and risk adviser, said the strategy has worked in important but limited ways.

“It has helped the Islamic republic survive intense sanctions, clandestine campaigns and periodic strikes while maintaining a credible ability to hit US bases, Israeli territory and Gulf infrastructure, which in turn raises the political and military cost of any attempt at regime-change war,” he said.

“Iran’s reach – stretching from Lebanon and Syria to Iraq and Yemen – allows it to shape crises, quickly raise the stakes of local conflicts, and force adversaries to devote substantial resources to missile defence, counter‑UAV systems, naval protection and regional coalition management,” he noted.

“However, there are clear constraints and growing problems. Key proxies such as Hezbollah and various militias have suffered leadership and infrastructure losses; the network has become more fragmented and sometimes less controllable, increasing the risk of unwanted escalation even as its coherence as an instrument of policy erodes,” he added.

PHOENIX — When he was selected with the 13th pick of the 2024 MLB draft, outfielder James Tibbs III envisioned himself roaming the outfield of Oracle Park in a San Francisco Giants uniform for many years.

He could never have foreseen that a year and a half later, he’d be playing for a longtime Giants rival, already at the third stop of his young career.

The Giants packaged Tibbs along with Kyle Harrison, Jordan Hicks and Jose Bello in a trade to the Boston Red Sox in exchange for three-time All-Star Rafael Devers last June.

A month and a half later, Tibbs’ life was uprooted yet again, as the Red Sox moved him and Zach Ehrhard to the Dodgers in a trade for Dustin May.

MLB Pipeline prospect analyst Jim Callis has covered the draft for over 30 years, and can’t recall a situation quite like it.

“Tibbs is the only player I can think of who was taken in the top half of the first round and then traded twice during his first full pro season,” Callis said. “He really took off after joining the Dodgers, and I bet we see more consistency out of him when he’s not bouncing between [organizations] in 2026.”

Tibbs seems to have found a comfortable landing spot with the Dodgers. He posted seven home runs, 32 RBI and a .269/.407/.900 slash line over his 36 games in the Dodgers organization, rounding out his season at double-A Tulsa. And during his first camp with the Dodgers, Tibbs has turned heads. Through 15 Cactus League games, he’s hit two home runs, batting .281, with a .351 on-base percentage and .914 OPS.

He likely won’t open the season on the Dodgers’ big-league roster, but manager Dave Roberts sees his potential.

“I like James Tibbs,” Roberts said. “I like him a lot. He loves baseball, he is obsessed with getting better at the game and he just fits who I am as a baseball coach, and the players that we want, so he’s going to play in the big leagues. He’s a championship-type player.”

Tibbs was thrown for a loop by both trades, and taught him a lesson about facing adversity.

“Honestly, I might be one of the first first-round draft picks to be traded twice in their first year,” Tibbs said. “For me it was hard. I’m not going to sugarcoat it; it was hard. And really, mentally draining. [I] felt like I got punched in the face a bunch of times, and really had to learn how to get back up, and keep competing, and figure out how to be true to myself, and true to what I do well.”

Tibbs said that joining the Dodgers helped him to rediscover himself and return to his form from his time at Florida State.

“[When I joined the Dodgers, they] were like, ‘Hey, you know, we just want you to be yourself,” Tibbs said. “We want you to do what you need to do to be successful. Like, we believe in you, we believe in what you did in college. We want you to get that back and be able to be successful with how you swing the bat and how you play defense, and like, we don’t want to take that away from you.’ So obviously, there was tweaks being made, and there was things we needed to change a little bit to get to that spot, but I think for the most part, they just allowed me to be me and work within those boundaries to help figure out how to continue to make that better and better and better.

“And with that being said, I just felt a lot of relief from that.”

Tibbs clubbed 28 home runs in his junior year at Florida State, powering the Seminoles to their first College World Series trip since 2019. He received ACC Player of the Year and consensus First-Team All-American honors.

“Tibbs was one of the best offensive prospects in a loaded 2024 college class,” Callis said. “He makes good swing decisions and hits balls hard, giving him the ingredients to hit for average and power. Most of his value will come from his bat, but it’s a potentially potent bat.”

For now, Tibbs is content to be fulfilling his potential with one organization.

“Props to the Dodgers, they did everything they could to help me transition to that smoothly and make that a better process,” Tibbs said. “And it’s been a lot easier for me to go out and play every night, with the way that they’ve encouraged me and believed in me. It’s just been a blessing to be here.”

Brazzaville, Republic of Congo – On main roads and public squares across the Congolese capital, posters are up featuring the seven main candidates vying for president.

But at the Moukondo Market in Brazzaville’s fourth district – between lively discussions, people jostling for space and saleswomen trying to attract customers – many voters are less than enthusiastic about this weekend’s election.

Fortune, a 27-year-old unemployed university graduate who did not want to give his last name, said he does not expect much to come from the polls.

“When you see how money is spent during the campaign, you wonder if those in power really care about the living conditions of the population,” he said.

While Congo is the third largest oil producer in sub-Saharan Africa, about half the country’s population of about six million people live below the poverty line.

A few metres away, Gilbert, 44, shared similar sentiments. The civil servant explained that his salary is not enough to cover all his household expenses.

“I do odd jobs to supplement my income. At my age, believing that these elections will change our daily lives would be almost suicidal,” he said.

“I’ve known practically the same leader all my life,” Gilbert added. “Some call it stability. Others say that nothing changes.”

It’s a sentiment shared by many in the country: That after 40 years under a single leader, political continuity has become the norm.

President Denis Sassou Nguesso, 82, who is once again standing in the election, first came to power in Congo in 1979. After a period of political transition in the early 1990s, he returned to the presidency in 1997 after a civil war and has ruled the country without interruption ever since.

Two major constitutional revisions have marked his political trajectory. The 2002 constitution and the one adopted in 2015 notably changed certain eligibility requirements, allowing the head of state to continue to run for office.

For Nguesso’s supporters, this political longevity is primarily attributed to the stability the country has managed to maintain in a region often marked by conflict.

Congo’s neighbours include the conflict-racked Central African Republic; Gabon, which witnessed a coup in 2023; and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where the government is facing armed groups, most notably M23.

In official discourse, peace and institutional continuity are regularly presented as the main achievements of the Nguesso government.

However, several foreign observers painted a more nuanced picture of the political situation. The pro-democracy organisation Freedom House classified Congo as a “not free” country while the Ibrahim Index of African Governance highlighted limited progress in democratic participation and political accountability.

‘Asymmetrical political competition’

In the last presidential election in 2021, the official results gave Nguesso more than 88 percent of the votes cast with a reported voter turnout of 67 percent.

Nguesso is widely expected to win again when the country goes to the polls on Sunday.

Some analysts said the president’s political longevity can be partly explained by the country’s political structure.

Charles Abel Kombo, a Congolese economist and public policy observer, described the political system as a hybrid model.

“The Congolese political system combines formally pluralistic institutions – elections, political parties, parliament – with a high degree of centralisation of executive power,” he explained. “Nguesso’s political longevity can be explained in part by the structure of the institutional apparatus and the predominant role of the executive branch in the management of the state.”

According to him, the continuity of power is also linked to perceptions of stability in a country marked by the conflicts of the 1990s.

“In this historical context, this continuity can be seen as a factor of stability. But it is also accompanied by asymmetrical political competition.” In other words, political change remains theoretically possible but politically difficult.

For the economist, however, the issue goes beyond political change alone.

“The central challenge remains the ability of political actors to propose a credible plan for economic transformation. Countries dependent on natural resources need a strategic state capable of diversifying the economy and guiding productive transformation.”

Other observers took a more critical view of this political longevity.

For economic and political analyst Alphonse Ndongo, the stability often touted by the authorities must be examined with caution.

“There is indeed a stabilising regime because it has succeeded in maintaining peace. This is what is being sold today as the main recipe for success: There is no war, so the country is at peace. But this peace also allows those in power to remain there. We are in a kind of democratic illusion where elections often resemble a deal,” he said.

According to him, the current political architecture makes a change in leadership unlikely in the short term.

“It is difficult for the institutions responsible for managing elections to produce a result that differs from what everyone already expects. Everything is structured, from voter registration to the organisation of the ballot. Under these conditions, a surprising result seems unlikely,” he said.

‘Political alternatives exist’

As the debate continues in Congolese society over whether the country’s political continuity is a mark of stability or a system that is hard to change, the opposition appears fragmented and weakened.

Some established parties are boycotting the vote while some prominent potential ⁠candidates are in prison or exile.

In June, the party of opposition leader Clement Mierassa was removed from the official list of recognised political parties.

For him, the conditions for a truly democratic election are not in place.

“We have always called for essential reforms: a truly independent national electoral commission, reliable voter rolls and a law regulating campaign spending,” he said. “Without these guarantees, it is difficult to talk about free and transparent elections.”

Other political actors, however, have chosen to run in the election.

Christ Antoine Wallembaud, spokesperson for candidate Destin Melaine Gavet, said participation remains a way of defending the political space.

“The electoral system has flaws, but that does not mean that those who participate in it condone fraud. Participating also serves as a reminder of the need for reform and shows that a political alternative exists.”

For many observers, access to the media is also a key issue during election campaigns.

“Access to public media remains a recurring problem for opposition candidates. The ruling party candidate always gets the lion’s share even though the High Council for Freedom of Communication has established a list of appearances on state media so that all candidates can present their programmes,” said a Congolese journalist who requested anonymity.

Faced with these difficulties, opposition candidates often turn to private media outlets to spread their messages.

Congolese authorities, for their part, insisted that civil liberties are fully guaranteed for all.

The prime minister and spokesperson for Nguesso, Anatole Collinet Makosso, recently said freedom of opinion and expression “is doing very well”.

“Freedom of expression is alive and well in Congo. The proof is the multitude of foreign journalists here to cover this election. No journalist has been arrested because of their work or prosecuted,” he said.

For the government, this international media presence is evidence of the transparency of the electoral process and the ability of the media to work freely in the country.

However, some press freedom organisations paint a different picture. In its World Press Freedom Index, Reporters Without Borders regularly highlights the difficulties faced by local journalists, particularly in terms of access to public information, political pressure and economic constraints.

Adapting to circumstances

In the working-class neighbourhoods of Brazzaville, reactions to Sunday’s election range from resignation to pragmatism.

In Bacongo, a young man on the street explained that he has learned to adapt to circumstances.

“When the country goes left, we go left. When it goes right, we go right. Doing the opposite can be dangerous,” he said while refusing to give his name.

Beyond the political debate, economic concerns remain central.

The Congolese economy is heavily dependent on oil, which accounts for about 70 percent of its exports and nearly 40 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP), according to the World Bank. This dependence exposes the country to fluctuations in international energy prices.

Public debt has also reached high levels in recent years, exceeding 90 percent of the GDP before being partially restructured under agreements with international creditors.

In this context, several economists said the electoral stakes go beyond the single issue of political change.

Diversifying the economy, creating jobs for a predominantly young population and improving public services are major challenges in the years ahead.

But many Congolese aren’t hopeful that Sunday’s election will make a difference to their material reality because political and economic power will likely remain in the same hands.

“We all understand the system in this country,” Fortune said. “The [economic] crisis doesn’t affect everyone, nor does poverty.”

The head of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power stepped down Wednesday as part of a “planned leadership transition,” Mayor Karen Bass’ office announced.

Janisse Quiñones, who took the helm at DWP in 2024, is returning to Puerto Rico, where she is from, to help modernize the island’s electric grid.

In a statement, Bass said that Quiñones brought “steady leadership and engineering expertise to LADWP.”

“During her tenure, LADWP reinforced electric grid and water system reliability, enhanced coordination during wildfire events, and advanced investments to strengthen resilience amid increasing climate pressures,” the statement said.

Quiñones’ hefty salary of $750,000, which drew attention when she was hired, was meant to be competitive with private utility companies. She previously was a senior vice president of electric operations at Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

Quiñones managed the DWP through the Palisades fire, when a key reservoir was empty as firefighters battled the blaze.

Some argued that the reservoir, which had been drained to repair its cover, led to lower water pressure and hampered the firefight.

The DWP has pushed back, saying the repairs were necessary to protect public health and that even if the reservoir had been full, there still would have been water pressure issues, considering the extraordinary demand on the system during the fire.

A state investigation found that even if the reservoir had been full, the flow rate in the pipes “would have been a limiting factor in maintaining pressure and the system would have been quickly overwhelmed.”

Shaiel Ben-ephraim of Atlas Global Strategies explains how the US public is reacting to US-Israeli war on Iran and what shifting public opinion could mean for future US support for Israel and its position in the region.

The search for sustained consistency remained a focus for the Lakers on Sunday against a Sacramento Kings team with the NBA’s worst record.

And it helped that the Lakers were completely healthy against the Kings, something that has eluded them nearly all season.

Behind strong efforts from Luka Doncic and LeBron James, the Lakers defeated the struggling Kings 128-104 at Crypto.com Arena in their second straight blowout win.

Doncic, one of five Lakers to score in double figures, scored 28 points on 10-for-16 shooting. He made four three-pointers and had nine assists and five rebounds.

James, who played after initially being listed as questionable because of arthritis in his left foot, scored 24 points in 27 minutes on eight-for-15 shooting. He made a trio of threes and had five assists.

Deandre Ayton and Austin Reaves both had 12 points and Luke Kennard had 11 points off the bench. Rui Hachimura played 22 minutes off the bench and had eight points and two rebounds after missing the previous two games because of illness.

Nique Clifford led the Kings (14-48) with 26 points and had seven rebounds.

The Lakers are 3-3 since the All-Star break with 28- and 24-point wins after three straight losses.

“Again, just the world is falling for us 19 times (after double-digit losses this season),” Lakers coach JJ Redick said. “ It’s just part of the nature of this cycle and our guys. … Our guys bounced back and responded well throughout the season. Tied in the lost column for fifth (with Denver in the Western Conference) and a couple games out of third with a number of these teams coming up that are right there with us. So, we just are going to keep plugging away.”

Lakers forward Jake LaRavia, top, and Sacramento forward Precious Achiuwa battle for the ball during the Lakers’ win Sunday.

(Ronaldo Bolanos / Los Angeles Times)

Just as in Saturday’s win at Golden State, the Lakers (36-24) benefited from strong shooting. They shot 50% from the field and 46% from three-point range.

One of the most exciting plays happened in the first quarter when Marcus Smart dived for a loose ball and, while prone on his back, passed to James. The Lakers star then passed to a hustling Austin Reaves, who took a few dribbles to get a Kings defender to commit before making an alley-oop pass to James for a two-handed, rim-hanging dunk.

The crowd was whipped into a frenzy. The Kings called a timeout, allowing the Lakers and their fans to soak in the moment.

Lakers star Luka Doncic celebrates after a three-pointer by teammate Rui Hachimura against the Kings on Sunday.

(Ronaldo Bolanos / Los Angeles Times)

There was another play in the third quarter in which Doncic slipped and almost fell down, losing control of the ball. But Doncic regained his balance and the ball before shooting an off-balance three-pointer that gave the Lakers a 24-point lead.

“Ah, yeah, it was on purpose,” Doncic said about falling down. “I tripped on purpose and it was, how do you say, the ‘And-1 Mixtape,’ that’s what they said on the bench. So, I did it on purpose.”

Doncic smiled.

It was that kind of night for the Lakers, a game full of highlights and fun that allowed Redick to empty his bench in the fourth quarter.

“Yeah, obviously it was two great wins, but we just got to go game by game,” Doncic said. “Obviously there’s a lot of noise outside, but like tonight, we can’t pay attention to that. … I thought we played great.”

Maxi Kleber was another standout for the Lakers, making all three of his shots for six points. He also had six rebounds and a block.

His two lob dunks left his Lakers teammates celebrating from the bench.

“Every time I do something, you know, you look to the bench, everybody’s celebrating,” Kleber said. “So, obviously it’s a good push for me, a good push for the team.”

Cliff is sitting in his farm truck scanning the hillsides with powerful binoculars. “It’s the rams,” he says. “They can stray at this time of year.” I follow his direction of gaze, down a golden hillside covered in bracken and boulders to a dark patch in the valley bottom. “Hopefully not down there,” he adds. “That’s the quaking bog.”

Sometimes a chance encounter can transform your appreciation of an area, and that is about to happen for me. I’m heading up Craig y Garn mountain to catch the sunrise over the Llŷn peninsula and the first rays are already stealing over the tops of distant Cadair Idris, rousing giant shadows from under the trees. Cliff, who also happens to be my landlord for the week, points to the house on a hill above the bog: “Where you’re staying was my great-grandmother’s house – or at least what is now the living room. She kept one pig, one sheep and one cow, and made buttermilk where the conservatory is.”

Below the house, mostly out of sight, is the local village. “There used to be a pub and a shop. The school had 150 in it when I was there 70 years ago.” He grins. “I didn’t speak a word of English till I was seven.”

The tale of decline in rural amenities is a common one, but I am here to investigate an area that is pushing back hard. The Llŷn is leading the way in opening community pubs, restaurants, cafes and shops, facilities that, combined with the Wales Coast Path, make it a great area to explore.

For Cliff, the rural decline was a family lived experience. “Great uncle Bob left on a ship from Caernarfon in 1900 and joined the Klondike goldrush. Lots of people here were slate miners so could get jobs in North America.”

In fact, throughout the late 19th century, parts of Wales were gripped by emigration fever. Posters went up advertising passage on “fine fast-sailing barques”, usually with a “ballast of slates”. After many adventures, great uncle Bob settled in Whitehorse, in Canada’s Yukon, and is buried in its Pioneer Cemetery.

I leave Cliff and run up to the summit. The shadow giants have all disappeared, but the view is still dazzling, a reminder that the Llŷn is an extraordinary place. To the east, Yr Wyddfa (Snowdon) is white with ice. Looking west, I can see the Irish Sea on both sides and on the north coast a trio of conical mountains, like volcanic plugs. The tallest, Garn Ganol (561m), is an extraordinary granite intrusion that was once a busy mining area, one of only two sources in the world for curling stones. Nearby is one of the first-ever community pubs in Britain, the Tafarn y Fic, established in 1988, where I aim to finish my first walk.

I start right under Garn Ganol peak, heading down a steep and spectacular valley towards a shingle beach and the village of Nant Gwrtheyrn. The settlement was abandoned when the mines closed, but local doctor Carl Clowes set about reviving it as a cultural centre in 1978, with courses in the Welsh language. (The doctor’s cultural impact didn’t stop there: two of his sons played in the rock band Super Furry Animals, a big part of the Welsh musical renaissance of the 1990s.)

From the beach, the path winds up over a headland to St Beuno’s chapel near the hamlet of Pistyll. This simple church is more like an ancient sacred cave with its bare stone walls and straw-covered floor. From here, I loop back over the hill to Tafarn y Fic in Llithfaen.

Back in the 1980s, this village was in decline, but its relative isolation proved a vital factor in triggering community action. With alternative pubs and shops a long drive away, the defunct Victoria Hotel (the “Vic”, which transliterates as Fic in Welsh) was bought out by locals and reopened. When I drop in for a pint, there are teenagers playing pool and darts while a couple of locals are working on their laptops by the fire. Across the road is a community shop.

The pioneering Tafarn y Fic proved an inspiration to other villages in the area. My next walk is along the south coast from the village of Llanystumdwy, where Tafarn y Plu (The Feathers) stands. Here, they have a fun little honesty shop outside and a stage for concerts. “It got so busy last summer that we ran out of beer,” the barmaid tells me. “Luckily, all the other community pubs sent barrels over.”

Llanystumdwy is famous for its most successful son: David Lloyd George. The great political orator grew up here, deeply immersed in Welsh nonconformist liberalism, factors that are arguably still at play in the strong tradition of collective action. Not that community spirit is necessarily benevolent: when Lloyd George came back to speak here in 1912 as chancellor of the exchequer, suffragette hecklers were beaten unconscious by locals.

I walk through the village, past the lovely stone bridge and the great man’s grave in the woods. There is a museum, too, closed for winter at the time of my visit. Back on the coastal path, I reach Criccieth, a lovely town with an impressive castle, still much as it was when sketched by JMW Turner back in 1798, having been left in ruins by Owain Glyndwr’s forces in 1404.

Just beyond, on the town beach, is a lovely art deco building, now Dylan’s restaurant. Designed by Clough Williams Ellis, known for nearby Portmeirion, it was not actually built until the 1950s and now makes a rather stylish lunch stop on the walk.

The coastal path here follows the long, broad beaches with stunning views of Harlech Castle, the Rhinogs and Cadair Idris mountains across the bay. No wonder Turner loved the area: there is always something going on with the light. The sea is suddenly snarling with whitecaps or else washed with an orange blush. As the bay narrows into the estuary, a steam train puffs out across the causeway and a squadron of curlews lands on one of many sandbanks.

I was hoping to catch the northern branch of the Ffestiniog and Welsh Highland Line to Caernarfon and pick up the coastal path again, but that plan is foiled by a landslip. In summer, however, this would be a great option. The two heritage lines, one up to Caernarfon and one to Blaenau Ffestiniog, are fine examples of community effort too, having been rescued from oblivion by volunteers and enthusiasts who even built four new kilometres of track after the Electricity Board unhelpfully flooded part of the line in 1954. Together with the mainline to Pwllheli, they are a convenient means to starting or finishing non-circular walks.

Once I reach Caernarfon, I find a lovely ancient town with a newly redeveloped old slate-loading quay, Cei Llechi, right under the famous castle walls. The coastal path here follows the Menai Strait, circling around Foryd Bay bird reserve, then the long beach at Dinas Dinlle. Just back from the beach in the village of Llandwrog is the latest addition to the roster of community ventures: the Ty’n Llan community pub, restaurant and hotel. This vibrant and extensive project is testament to the growing confidence and capability of the community-ownership movement. It’s also a great spot to start learning Welsh, as it’s the main language of the public bar. So, iechyd da – cheers!

The trip was provided by the Wales Coast Path which follows the Llŷn peninsula for 96 miles. Pen y Braich Uchaf cottage sleeps six and is bookable through Sykes Cottages from £714 a week. Tafarn y Plu will reopen in autumn 2026 after a £2m upgrade

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney arrives in Mumbai on his first official visit to India seeking to reset strained relations and advance an ambitious trade agenda designed to reduce Canada’s dependence on the United States.

The visit marks a significant recalibration in Ottawa’s foreign policy. After years of diplomatic friction under Justin Trudeau, Carney is positioning Canada as a pragmatic middle power, intent on diversifying alliances and building new trade corridors with fast-growing economies.

From Mumbai, Carney will travel to New Delhi for talks with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, with negotiations expected to accelerate toward a comprehensive trade agreement that Canadian officials hope to conclude by November.

Repairing a Fractured Relationship

Canada–India relations deteriorated sharply after Trudeau publicly alleged that Indian agents were linked to the assassination of a Canadian citizen associated with Sikh separatism. New Delhi strongly denied the accusation, and diplomatic ties cooled considerably.

Carney’s itinerary reflects a deliberate attempt to lower political temperatures. Unlike previous Canadian leaders, he will not visit Punjab, a state central to India’s Sikh population and a major source of immigration to Canada. Sikh separatist activism has long been a sensitive issue in bilateral relations, and avoiding the region signals Ottawa’s intent to keep the focus on trade and investment rather than diaspora politics.

This shift has drawn criticism from some Sikh organizations in Canada, which argue that Ottawa risks sidelining concerns about foreign interference. However, Carney’s government insists domestic security remains non-negotiable while economic engagement proceeds.

Trade as Strategic Rebalancing

The India trip forms part of a broader diplomatic tour that includes Australia and Japan — countries Carney views as fellow “middle powers” capable of shaping a more diversified global trading system.

The strategy is driven by two pressures.

First, Canada’s economic dependence on the United States leaves it exposed to protectionist policies, including tariffs and threats to trade access. Second, global supply chains are being reshaped by geopolitical rivalry, creating opportunities for countries that can act as connectors rather than competitors.

India, now the world’s most populous nation and one of its fastest-growing major economies, represents both a vast consumer market and a strategic counterweight in global trade realignments.

Reports suggest negotiations may include a long-term uranium supply agreement worth billions of Canadian dollars, alongside cooperation in oil and gas, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, education and environmental technology. Such sectoral diversification would deepen economic interdependence beyond traditional commodities.

The momentum is reinforced by the European Union’s recent trade deal with India, which has raised expectations that New Delhi is increasingly open to structured economic partnerships with Western economies.

A Style Contrast With the Trudeau Era

Carney’s approach also signals stylistic change. Trudeau’s 2018 India visit drew criticism for perceived overemphasis on symbolic gestures and cultural theatrics, which some observers argued distracted from substantive negotiations.

Carney, a former central banker, projects a more restrained and technocratic image. Business leaders describe the trip as tightly focused on capital flows, market access and long-term economic sovereignty rather than domestic political optics.

This repositioning aligns with Carney’s broader message that Canada must adapt to what he calls a reordered global economy one less dominated by a single superpower and more defined by regional blocs and mid-sized powers coordinating strategically.

The “Middle Powers” Doctrine

Carney’s Davos speech earlier this year laid out the intellectual framework for this pivot: a coalition of middle powers pursuing “principled and pragmatic” cooperation to hedge against great-power volatility.

India fits squarely into that concept. It maintains strategic autonomy, balancing relations with the United States, Europe, Russia and the Global South. Canada hopes to mirror that flexibility while leveraging its strengths in energy, natural resources, finance and advanced technology.

After India, Carney’s stops in Australia and Japan underscore the Indo-Pacific tilt of Canada’s strategy. Together, these engagements suggest Ottawa is prioritizing economic resilience over ideological alignment.

Can Trade Override Political Tensions?

The key question is whether economic pragmatism can overcome lingering distrust.

India remains sensitive about Sikh separatist activism in Canada. Canadian authorities remain concerned about allegations of foreign interference. These issues are unlikely to disappear entirely.

However, both governments appear motivated by economic incentives. Canada seeks market diversification and foreign investment. India seeks reliable energy supplies, advanced technology partnerships and expanded global trade networks.

If negotiations proceed smoothly, Carney’s visit could mark a turning point not a full reconciliation, but a reset grounded in mutual economic interest rather than political grievance.

In an era of fragmented globalization, Ottawa is betting that strategic trade partnerships with rising powers like India can secure both growth and autonomy. Whether that bet pays off will depend on how effectively Canada balances principle with pragmatism in one of its most complex bilateral relationships.

With information from Reuters.

WASHINGTON — Amid the chaos in Kabul, politicians and pundits have declared the Taliban’s victory in Afghanistan a defeat from which U.S. influence may never recover.

“Biden’s credibility is now shot,” wrote Gideon Rachman, chief oracle of Britain’s Financial Times.

“A grave blow to America’s standing,” warned the Economist.

But take a deep breath and remember some history.

When South Vietnam collapsed after a war that involved four times as many U.S. troops, many drew the same conclusion: The age of U.S. global power was over.

Less than 15 years later, the Berlin Wall came down, the Cold War began to end, and the United States soon stood as the world’s only superpower.

The lesson: A debacle like the defeat in Kabul — or the one in Saigon two generations earlier — doesn’t always prevent a powerful country from marshaling its resources and succeeding.

I’m not dismissing the tragedy that has befallen the Afghans or the damage that U.S. credibility has suffered. When President Biden told a news conference that he had “seen no questioning of our credibility from allies,” he sounded as if he was in denial — or, perhaps worse, out of touch.

No questioning? How about the question from Tobias Ellwood, chairman of the British Parliament’s defense committee: “Whatever happened to ‘America is back’?”

Or the complaint from Armin Laschet, the German conservative who could be his country’s leader after elections next month: “The greatest debacle NATO has experienced since its founding.”

Whether he likes it or not, Biden has repair work to do.

The first step, already underway, is making sure the endgame in Kabul doesn’t get any worse.

That means keeping U.S. troops on the ground until every American is out, as Biden has promised. It also requires an energetic effort to evacuate Afghans who worked with the U.S. government and other institutions, even if that requires risking the lives of some American troops. Those Afghans trusted us; if we abandon them, it will be a long time before we can credibly ask the same of anyone else.

And, of course, the administration needs to prevent Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups from replanting themselves in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. If the United States fails at that — the original reason we invaded the country almost 20 years ago — Biden’s decision to withdraw will justly be judged a fiasco.

There’s repair work to do beyond Afghanistan, too.

“We’ve got to show that it would be wrong to see American foreign policy through the lens of Afghanistan,” Richard N. Haass, president of the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations and a former top State Department official, told me.

The United States has more important interests that need attention and allies that need reassurance, he said.

“The most important thing is to deter our major foes,” he said, referring to China, Russia and Iran.

“This is a moment to strengthen forces in Europe, mount more freedom of navigation operations [by the U.S. Navy] in the South China Sea,” he said. “This is a good time to say we’re serious about our commitment to Taiwan,” which China periodically threatens.

Biden took a step in that direction in his recent interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, listing Taiwan along with South Korea and Japan as places where the U.S. “would respond” to an attack.

If anything, Haass and other foreign policy veterans say, the questions about American credibility are likely to make Biden react more strongly to the next few challenges overseas.

“The most intriguing question is what effect this episode has on Biden’s thinking,” suggested Aaron David Miller of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Will he think: ‘I’ve got to be tougher with the Iranians now? Do I have to signal to a country like Taiwan that I’m prepared to protect American interests there?’”

But the notion that American influence has been fatally damaged is overblown, he argued.

“There have been many other instances in which U.S. credibility has been diminished, but our phone continues to ring,” Miller said.

Biden and his aides already know most of this. The premises of his foreign policy — reviving U.S. domestic strength, revitalizing U.S. alliances, and focusing on vital interests like China and Russia — provide a foundation for recovery.

“My dad used to have an expression: If everything is equally important to you, nothing is important to you,” the president said last week. “We should be focusing on where the threat is the greatest.”

The test Biden faces now is whether he can execute that strategy — and show that he’s credible where it matters most — more successfully than in his botched withdrawal from an unwinnable war.

Reporting from Sacramento — Toni Atkins is one of California’s most powerful lawmakers, ascending to leadership roles in the Assembly and Senate the last five years.

As Atkins’ clout has soared, so too has the consulting businesses of her spouse, Jennifer LeSar.

The clientele for LeSar’s two affordable housing and economic development firms has grown nearly fourfold since 2013, the year before Atkins became Assembly speaker, according to Atkins’ economic disclosure forms.

In 2018, the year that Atkins’ colleagues elevated her to Senate president pro tem, her spouse’s firms had contracts with 86 public agencies, developers, nonprofits and other clients, the forms indicate, which was more than in any previous year. The year before, LeSar had received a lucrative contract from a Bay Area agency without going through a competitive bidding process — a rare step allowed in emergencies, when a company offers a unique service or when the agency can justify a compelling reason to do so.

LeSar is now in a position to potentially garner even more business as Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders, including her spouse, propose increasingly bold responses to the state’s housing affordability crisis.

In the last three years, LeSar’s firms have received $1.3 million from state agencies alone, including contracts to implement one of the state’s largest low-income housing programs, which Atkins, a Democrat from San Diego, supports. Additionally, over the last 18 months, LeSar worked on a plan that calls for a package of state legislation that would rewrite major California housing policies. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, a Bay Area public agency, is paying LeSar’s firm more than half a million dollars for the effort, through the no-bid contract.

Agency executives said LeSar’s relationship with Atkins had no bearing on their decision to hire her, and the Senate leader said she wouldn’t treat the bills any differently than any other proposals from her colleagues.

Atkins and LeSar, who has worked in affordable housing for nearly three decades, both said they are concerned about a perception of conflicts of interest and, as a result, consult with attorneys about possible intersections in their work.

“We spend a lot of time trying to make sure in our very busy days that we’re following the letter of the law,” Atkins said.

“These questions have been asked and answered before by the press and have largely been accepted as a nonissue,” LeSar said in an email response to The Times. She declined an interview request.

Rey Lopez-Calderon, executive director of the government ethics group California Common Cause, said the dramatic increase in LeSar’s clientele could raise concerns from the public that outside groups are trying to curry favor with a powerful politician by hiring her spouse.

“That’s really obviously a number that’s eyebrow raising,” Lopez-Calderon said. “It definitely runs the risk of the public thinking something shady is going on.”

Still, he said, absent evidence LeSar or Atkins used their relationship to leverage new business, there wasn’t anything illegal or unethical about LeSar’s consulting work.

Source: State Sen. Toni Atkins’ Annual Statements of Economic Interest

(Kyle Kim / Los Angeles Times)

Lawmakers have faced questions about potential conflicts involving a spouse and development issues before. In 2011, opponents of redevelopment agencies, which provided significant funding for low-income housing, criticized then-state Sen. Bob Huff about his efforts to save the program, noting that Huff’s wife was a paid consultant for a developer with a financial stake in the issue.

Political rivals have alleged Atkins’ relationship with LeSar is also a conflict, given Atkins’ outsized role in housing debates. In 2015, Atkins, then in the Assembly, proposed legislation to impose a fee on real estate transactions, such as mortgage refinancing, to fund low-income housing development. A version of the bill passed in 2017. When she first introduced the measure, Atkins requested an opinion from the Office of Legislative Counsel, which assured her that the bill presented no conflict of interest because the funding was not tied to any specific company or project. LeSar has vowed not to bid on funding directly tied to the bill.

Assembly leader Toni Atkins denies conflict of interest in funds proposal »

The couple married in 2008 after meeting while running in housing, LGBT advocacy and political circles in San Diego, where Atkins once served as a city councilwoman. Just before her election to the Legislature, Atkins worked for LeSar Development for about 18 months. While there, she wrote a report on development near transit and handled other housing work across the state. As of last month, Atkins was pictured on the business’ website, listed as an alumna of the firm. She no longer appears on a redesign of the site that became public Wednesday.

In 2011, after Atkins had been elected to the Legislature, LeSar opened a second firm, Estolano LeSar Advisors, with Cecilia Estolano, an attorney who worked in housing and economic development for the city of Los Angeles. Last year, Atkins abstained from voting on Estolano’s appointment to the powerful UC Board of Regents, which governs the state’s flagship university system.

Recent clients for the two firms, according to Atkins’ economic disclosures, have included the city and county of Los Angeles, UC Berkeley, USC, the California Endowment, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, for-profit and nonprofit developers and the Open Society Foundations, the organization founded by billionaire George Soros.

Rick Gentry, president of the San Diego Housing Commission, praised LeSar. Among other work, he said, she guided his public housing agency in 2014 into expanding its portfolio to provide homelessness services.

“She knows as much about the industry as anyone I’ve ever met,” Gentry said.

Officials with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission cited LeSar’s experience as their reason for hiring her.

The agency was finishing an effort to plan for growth in the Bay Area through 2040 and realized that project was futile without a comprehensive attempt to deal with the nation’s worst housing affordability challenges.

“Jennifer LeSar is extremely qualified and well-positioned to take on multiple roles for this project,” wrote Vikrant Sood, a senior planner with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, in a June 2017 memo justifying her hiring.

LeSar’s firm researched prior studies on the region’s housing problems and planned and attended the group’s meetings. The result of the effort was a proposal, known as the CASA Compact, which said the Bay Area could fix its housing problems only through a suite of state legislation.

The CASA Compact calls for new state laws to boost protections for tenants, increase apartment construction near transit and help raise more than $1 billion to build low-income housing, among other things. Bay Area legislators have introduced more than a dozen bills that align with the plan, nearly all of it affecting the entire state.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission officials said LeSar did not recommend any of the policies the region decided to pursue but, rather, packaged together the conclusions into a final report. LeSar also said she declined additional work with MTC once it became clear that the CASA Compact was going to advance state bills.

She said she sought a legal opinion in January after the agency discussed offering her a new contract to help implement the plan.

LeSar initially told The Times that her attorney had advised her that the second contract would be a potential conflict so she declined the work. But in later correspondence with The Times, she said that she had been mistaken. The attorney’s advice, LeSar said, was that the new contract wouldn’t pose a conflict, but she decided to forgo the work to avoid any appearance of a problem.

Commission officials anticipated the CASA Compact process would lead to state legislation from the beginning. Sood said in the June 2017 memo that originally justified LeSar’s hiring that CASA “will yield a package of legislative and funding solutions at the state and regional level.”

Despite that, agency officials decided to pursue LeSar directly rather than putting the initial contract out to a competitive bid, a process designed to ensure an agency receives the best services for the lowest cost and without bias. The agency said it could do so because it had a compelling reason — LeSar’s background and the ambitious nature of the project — to hire her without first seeking out other firms.

No MTC officers publicly opposed hiring LeSar. Following agency rules, then-Executive Director Steve Heminger signed off on the first $200,000 of the contract himself. The agency’s administrative committee, which is made up of Bay Area elected officials, voted unanimously and without comment in December 2017 to increase the amount to $450,000. (The contract value rose to $511,000 when it was extended again at the beginning of this year.)

Some local government officials in the Bay Area’s smaller cities oppose the CASA Compact because they believe it takes away their power. Michael Barnes, a councilman in the city of Albany — a community that borders Berkeley — said LeSar’s extensive work with the MTC over the last 18 months adds to fears that lawmakers, out of deference to Atkins, will overlook local leaders’ concerns when evaluating the legislation.

“We have very strict guidelines for our ethical behavior,” Barnes said. “For me, as someone who has lived under these guidelines as an elected official, this doesn’t seem ethical.”

LeSar’s businesses also have seen an increase in contracts with state agencies, per Atkins’ economic disclosures. Since February 2016, the two firms have received at least nine contracts from four state departments. All but one — a $5,000 contract to advise housing department employees on evaluating loan documents — were awarded through competitive bidding processes.

Much of the contract work has come from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, which is responsible for administering housing and planning efforts funded by the state’s cap-and-trade program, which taxes polluters. The state has provided roughly $400 million annually through Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, one of the largest budget allocations for low-income development and one that Atkins has said she “led the effort” in the Legislature to fund. Estolano LeSar was hired to help applicants from disadvantaged communities write grants and provide other support for their projects.

Newsom’s office declined to comment, but Ken Alex, who was OPR director under former Gov. Jerry Brown, said he was unaware of Atkins and LeSar’s relationship.

“I have heard from staff that the work was good and would have been advised if it was not,” Alex said.

Atkins said she has sometimes voted in ways that have hurt her spouse’s business. In 2011, she supported ending the state’s redevelopment program, the property tax set aside for local governments that funded local affordable housing and economic development.

“I was part of a vote that actually almost killed her business for a period of time,” Atkins said.

Atkins said she doesn’t plan to write any of the bills recommended in the CASA Compact proposal. She said she wouldn’t abstain from voting on them or otherwise handle them differently than any other piece of legislation because the bills address broad policy matters and therefore don’t present a conflict.

But if CASA Compact measures pass, it could be a signal to outside groups that hiring LeSar could be beneficial to getting similar efforts through the Legislature, given Atkins’ substantial influence over the fate of legislation at the Capitol, said Lopez-Calderon of Common Cause.

“I definitely think that some businesses will imagine that exact scenario and act accordingly,” he said.

liam.dillon@latimes.com

@dillonliam

The morning after Netflix clinched its deal to buy Warner Bros., Paramount Skydance Chairman David Ellison assembled a war room of trusted advisors, including his billionaire father, Larry Ellison.

Furious at Warner Bros. Discovery Chief David Zaslav for ending the auction, the Ellisons and their team began plotting their comeback on that crisp December day.

To rattle Warner Bros. Discovery and its investors, they launched a three-front campaign: a lawsuit, a hostile takeover bid and direct lobbying of the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress.

“There was a master battle plan — and it was extremely disciplined,” said one auction insider who was not authorized to comment publicly.

Netflix stunned the industry late Thursday by pulling out of the bidding, clearing the way for Paramount to claim the company that owns HBO, HBO Max, CNN, TBS, Food Network and the Warner Bros. film and television studios in Burbank. The deal was valued at more than $111 billion.

The streaming giant’s reversal came just hours after co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos met with Atty Gen. Pam Bondi and a deputy at the White House. It was a cordial session, but the Trump officials told Sarandos that his deal was facing significant hurdles in Washington, according to a person close to the administration who was not authorized to comment publicly.

Even before that meeting, the tide had turned for Paramount in a swell of power, politics and brinkmanship.

“Netflix played their cards well; however, Paramount played their cards perfectly,” said Jonathan Miller, chief executive of Integrated Media Co. “They did exactly what they had to do and when they had to do it — which was at the very last moment.”

Key to victory was Larry Ellison, his $200-billion fortune and his connections to President Trump and congressional Republicans.

Paramount also hired Trump’s former antitrust chief, attorney Makan Delrahim, to quarterback the firm’s legal and regulatory action.

Republicans during a Senate hearing this month piled onto Sarandos with complaints about potential monopolistic practices and “woke” programming.

David Ellison skipped that hearing. This week, however, he attended Trump’s State of the Union address in the Capitol chambers, a guest of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). The two men posed, grinning and giving a thumbs-up, for a photo that was posted to Graham’s X account.

David Ellison, the chairman and chief executive of Paramount Skydance Corp., walks through Statuary Hall to the State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 24, 2026.

(Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)

On Friday, Netflix said it had received a $2.8-billion payment — a termination fee Paramount agreed to pay to send Netflix on its way.

Long before David Ellison and his family acquired Paramount and CBS last summer, the 43-year-old tech scion and aircraft pilot already had his sights set on Warner Bros. Discovery.

Paramount’s assets, including MTV, Nickelodeon and the Melrose Avenue movie studio, have been fading. Ellison recognized he needed the more robust company — Warner Bros. Discovery — to achieve his ambitions.

“From the very beginning, our pursuit of Warner Bros. Discovery has been guided by a clear purpose: to honor the legacy of two iconic companies while accelerating our vision of building a next-generation media and entertainment company,” David Ellison said in a Friday statement. “We couldn’t be more excited for what’s ahead.”

Warner’s chief, Zaslav, who had initially opposed the Paramount bid, added: “We look forward to working with Paramount to complete this historic transaction.”

Netflix, in a separate statement, said it was unwilling to go beyond its $82.7-billion proposal that Warner board members accepted Dec. 4.

“We believe we would have been strong stewards of Warner Bros.’ iconic brands, and that our deal would have strengthened the entertainment industry and preserved and created more production jobs,” Sarandos and co-Chief Executive Greg Peters said in a statement.

“But this transaction was always a ‘nice to have’ at the right price, not a ‘must have’ at any price,” the Netflix chiefs said.

Netflix may have miscalculated the Ellison family’s determination when it agreed Feb. 16 to allow Paramount back into the bidding.

The Los Gatos, Calif.-based company already had prevailed in the auction, and had an agreement in hand. Its next step was a shareholder vote.

“They didn’t need to let Paramount back in, but there was a lot of pressure on them to make sure the process wouldn’t be challenged,” Miller said.

In addition, Netflix’s stock had also been pummeled — the company had lost a quarter of its value — since investors learned the company was making a Warner run.

Upon news that Netflix had withdrawn, its shares soared Friday nearly 14% to $96.24.

Netflix Chief Executive Ted Sarandos arrives at the White House on Feb. 26, 2026.

(Andrew Leyden / Getty Images)

Invited back into the auction room, Paramount unveiled a much stronger proposal than the one it submitted in December.

The elder Ellison had pledged to personally guarantee the deal, including $45.7 billion in equity required to close the transaction. And if bankers became worried that Paramount was too leveraged, the tech mogul agreed to put in more money in order to secure the bank financing.

That promise assuaged Warner Bros. Discovery board members who had fretted for weeks that they weren’t sure Ellison would sign on the dotted line, according to two people close to the auction who were not authorized to comment.

Paramount’s pressure campaign had been relentless, first winning over theater owners, who expressed alarm over Netflix’s business model that encourages consumers to watch movies in their homes.

During the last two weeks, Sarandos got dragged into two ugly controversies.

First, famed filmmaker James Cameron endorsed Paramount, saying a Netflix takeover would lead to massive job losses in the entertainment industry, which is already reeling from a production slowdown in Southern California that has disrupted the lives of thousands of film industry workers.

Then, a week ago, Trump took aim at Netflix board member Susan Rice, a former high-level Obama and Biden administration official. In a social media post, Trump called Rice a “no talent … political hack,” and said that Netflix must fire her or “pay the consequences.”

The threat underscored the dicey environment for Netflix.

Additionally, Paramount had sowed doubts about Netflix among lawmakers, regulators, Warner investors and ultimately the Warner board.

Paramount assured Warner board members that it had a clear path to win regulatory approval so the deal would quickly be finalized. In a show of confidence, Delrahim filed to win the Justice Department’s blessing in December — even though Paramount didn’t have a deal.

This month, a deadline for the Justice Department to raise issues with Paramount’s proposed Warner takeover passed without comment from the Trump regulators.

“Analysts believe the deal is likely to close,” TD Cowen analysts said in a Friday report. “While Paramount-WBD does present material antitrust risks (higher pay TV prices, lower pay for TV/movie workers), analysts also see a key pro-competitive effect: improved competition in streaming, with Paramount+ and HBO Max representing a materially stronger counterweight to #1 Netflix.”

Throughout the battle, David Ellison relied on support from his father, attorney Delrahim, and three key board members: Oracle Executive Vice Chair Safra A. Catz; RedBird Capital Partners founder Gerry Cardinale; and Justin Hamill, managing director of tech investment firm Silver Lake.

In the final days, David Ellison led an effort to flip Warner board members who had firmly supported Netflix. With Paramount’s improved offer, several began leaning toward the Paramount deal.

On Tuesday, Warner announced that Paramount’s deal was promising.

On Thursday, Warner’s board determined Paramount’s deal had topped Netflix. That’s when Netflix surrendered.

“Paramount had a fulsome, 360-degree approach,” Miller said. “They approached it financially. … They understood the regulatory environment here and abroad in the EU. And they had a game plan for every aspect.”

On Friday, Paramount shares rose 21% to $13.51.

It was a reversal of fortunes for David Ellison, who appeared on CNBC just three days after that war room meeting in December.

“We put the company in play,” David Ellison told the CNBC anchor that day. “We’re really here to finish what we started.”

Times staff writer Ana Cabellos and Business Editor Richard Verrier contributed to this report.

Across five novels and three story collections, Lauren Groff has merged wide-screen history with intimate stories about women seeking and confronting power, including in her latest spirited — and triumphant — release “Brawler.” Along the way, Groff has become the rare literary-fiction author who’s a mainstay on the bestseller lists, and a three-time National Book Award finalist as well. On Tuesday, she’ll discuss her work at a Vroman’s Bookstore event at Pasadena Presbyterian Church with Danzy Senna, acclaimed author of “Colored Television” and other novels.

If you’re new to her work, here is where to start with Groff’s sprawling canon, which spans from steamy Florida swamps to medieval abbeys with a gift for the unexpected.

“The Monsters of Templeton: A Novel” by Lauren Groff

(Grand Central Publishing)

“The Monsters of Templeton” (2008): Groff’s debut novel pays tribute to her hometown of Cooperstown, N.Y., featuring baseball lore, a strange aquatic creature and a young woman investigating her family history. It’s overstuffed but establishes some of her key themes: broken families, mythology and everyday misogyny.

“Delicate Edible Birds and Other Stories” by Lauren Groff

(Grand Central Publishing)

“Delicate Edible Birds” (2009): Groff’s first story collection includes “L. DeBard and Aliette,” an off-kilter love story set during the 1918 flu pandemic that caught the attention of her longtime agent, Bill Clegg. Groff’s skill at historical detail is on fine display here, shifting from the World Wars to the present day, with particular sensitivity to the ways characters evolve over decades.

“Arcadia: A Novel” by Lauren Groff

(Grand Central Publishing)

“Arcadia” (2012): Groff’s breakthrough novel features a lead character, Bit, facing two forms of pressure: First, a New York ’60s hippies commune that slowly fails to live up to its values, then a near-future America ravaged by climate change. Deftly written, funny and spiky, it showcases Groff’s ability to conjure storms both internal and external.

“Fates and Furies: A Novel” by Lauren Groff

(Riverhead)

“Fates and Furies” (2015): Groff’s masterpiece upends the familiar domestic novel, studying the fracturing marriage between Lotto, a successful playwright, and Mathilde, his seemingly devoted spouse. Through some inventive structures and a playful rewiring of romantic tropes going back to Homer, Groff stitches together a portrait of a marriage that she then carefully unravels. As one character puts it: “Marriage is made of lies. Kind ones, mostly.”

“Florida” by Lauren Groff

(Riverhead)

“Florida” (2018): Set in Groff’s adopted home — she owns a bookstore called The Lynx Books in Gainesville, Fla. — her second story collection is concerned with troubling ferality. Here, snakes hiss, as do catcalling men, girls are abandoned, hurricanes blow through. Myth and metaphor still abound, but they’re more rooted in the everyday reality of a troubled parcel of the country.

“Matrix” by Lauren Groff

(Riverhead)

“Matrix” (2021): The first of a planned trilogy of historical novels, “Matrix” is set in an English abbey in the 12th and 13th centuries. Marie, who becomes the prioress of the abbey at 17, begins a rise to power — or as much power as a woman is permitted — using her fellow nuns to fight off political and violent incursions. The theme and premise owe much to Margaret Atwood, but Groff’s gift for the long view is wholly her own.

“The Vaster Wilds,” by Lauren Groff

(Riverhead)

“The Vaster Wilds” (2023): The New World of the 17th century, in all its beauty and violence, is the setting for her latest novel, a potent study of a young woman who escapes the safety of her British settlement and sets forth on a solo trek toward Canada. Dangers are ever-present, but the novel is a study in unsentimental indomitability, as the hero reckons with the elements and her past on her way to a heartbreaking coda.

Athitakis is a writer in Phoenix and author of “The New Midwest.”

Manila, Philippines – “Bongbong is our principal worry. He is too carefree and lazy,” then-President of the Philippines Ferdinand Marcos Sr wrote in 1972.

Marcos Sr was referring to his only son and namesake by the child’s moniker, Bongbong.

He was concerned about what the future would hold for the young Marcos.

“The boy must realise his weakness – the carefree wayward ways that may have been bred in him,” his father further warned in his diary.

Half a century later, his son – Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr – would be sworn in as the 17th president of the Philippines, following a landslide victory in the 2022 polls.

The rise of Marcos Jr to the presidency marked his family’s dramatic rehabilitation after the mass street protests that forced Marcos Sr from power and the family into exile in 1986.

In his inaugural speech, Marcos Jr invoked memories of his late father’s presidency – though he skipped the years of brutal dictatorship and reported plunder of state resources – to project hope for “a better future” for 110 million Filipinos.

“You will get no excuses from me,” Marcos Jr said as he took his oath of office.

“You will not be disappointed.”

But three years into his term in office, Marcos Jr’s popularity has withered.

His political alliance with Vice President Sara Duterte has shattered, and his administration is ensnared in a multibillion-dollar corruption scandal that has plunged the country into a period of uncertainty.

The president who ran on a platform of unity is now struggling to lead a divided nation that is deeply disappointed over his lacklustre performance.

On the 40th anniversary of the People Power Revolution that ousted his father, Marcos Jr seems unable to escape history as some political factions in the opposition are calling for his removal – an ending that befell his father on the fateful date of February 25, 1986.

‘No plan’

Political analyst and economist Andrew Masigan pulls no punches. Masigan said what is happening in the Philippines is a consequence of an electorate choosing the “entitled son of a dictator” over a more competent candidate.

“[Marcos Jr] campaigned under the slogan and promise of unity. Economists and political pundits all assumed that there was a plan behind it. We’ve been waiting, and it has been three years. No such thing exists,” he said.

“His plan was to be president. It was a self-serving plan. It’s a presidency about Bongbong Marcos for Bongbong Marcos,” he added.

“He just wanted the opportunity to whitewash the tainted Marcos name,” he added.

As president, Marcos Jr has “squandered” the demographic advantage of the Philippines, Masigan continued, pointing to the country’s youth, who make up almost half of the population. Given such a youthful and dynamic society, the country’s economy should have been growing 7 to 8 percent annually by now, Masigan said.

Instead, the economy posted a sluggish 4.4 percent growth in 2025, well below the government target of 5.5-6.5 percent, he added.

Susan Kurdli, an assistant professor at De La Salle University in Manila, said the first three years of Marcos Jr’s six-year term were “indeed a period of missed opportunities”.

Kurdli said the “vague direction” the Philippines is heading was only to be expected, “as Marcos Jr never ran on a clear policy ticket”.

“He won the election largely by relying on the tried and tested tactics of tribalism, name recognition and alliance building,” she said.

Foreign investment has also declined by half from $9.42bn in 2024 to $4.7bn in 2025, its sharpest fall in five years, according to the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA).

Unemployment rose at the same time from 3.8 percent in 2024 to 4.2 percent in 2025, PSA data showed. In 2025, only 172,000 jobs were added to the overall labour market, making it the fifth-worst year in job creation in 25 years, according to the think tank IBON Foundation.

A lack of economic opportunity and unemployment are the top risks for the Philippines in the next two years, the World Economic Forum (WEF) 2026 Global Risks Report notes.

If the weak economic figures have left Filipinos disgruntled, allegations of corruption have left them seething with anger.

“The scandal allegations surrounding him and his family have particularly hit a nerve with voters,” Kurdli of De La Salle University told Al Jazeera.

“They have definitely impacted the perceived legitimacy of Marcos Jr as a national leader.”

The latest corruption perceptions index conducted by Transparency International (TI) reflects that assessment.

According to the anticorruption body’s latest report, the Philippines has slipped six notches lower, ranking 120th out of 182 territories covered.

In response to the TI report, presidential spokesperson Claire Castro said Marcos Jr “has not lost interest” in fighting corruption, and is working to strengthen government institutions.

‘Ghost projects’

It was in the middle of last year when allegations first emerged that Marcos Jr had abused his authority by approving three consecutive national budgets riddled with questionable infrastructure projects amounting to billions of dollars.

Among those implicated in the alleged scheme was Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, the once-powerful speaker of the House of Representatives and a first cousin of Marcos Jr, who oversaw the drafting of the national budget.

He was accused by opposition congresspeople of manipulating the budget. An investigation by a Philippine news website also linked him to multimillion-dollar homes in the Philippines and the United States that are allegedly not listed in his government disclosure forms. He has since relinquished his post but has not been called to account despite massive protests and political pressure.

Also accused of cornering millions of dollars in public funds for pet projects were the president’s sister, Senator Maria Imelda Marcos, and his son, Ferdinand Alexander Marcos, a congressman.

Combined, the three Marcos relatives secured government projects worth at least $560m in the last three years, according to public works department data and the National Expenditure Program listed in the budget. They have all denied wrongdoing related to the awarding of the lucrative projects.

Private contractors and government bureaucrats were also linked to the scandal.

Some were reported by the news media to have spent their newfound wealth on Bentley and Rolls-Royce vehicles and gambling sprees. One mid-ranking official, whose monthly salary was the equivalent of $1,250, admitted during a congressional inquiry that he owned a GMC Denali SUV worth $200,000, a Lamborghini Urus worth between $500,000 and $700,000 and a Ferrari estimated at $1m.

Further investigations revealed several nonexistent government infrastructure initiatives, described as “ghost projects”, worth millions of dollars. Marcos Jr himself discovered an abandoned flood control project estimated to be about $1m in Baliwag, a city just north of Metro Manila.

In Quezon City in Metro Manila, the local government reported that 35 flood control projects were missing out of the 331 listed, with a total budget of almost $300m.

According to estimates by the Department of Finance, alleged corruption in flood control projects cost taxpayers approximately $2bn between 2023 and 2025.

The scale of the corruption allegations has reminded some Filipinos of the time when Marcos Sr and his wife, Imelda, ruled the country in what historians have described as a “conjugal dictatorship”.

During their two decades in power, the Marcos couple were accused of emptying the Philippine treasury of up to $10bn.

Masigan, the political analyst and economist, said despite all efforts to distance himself from the ongoing scandal, it is difficult for the current president to do so.

“The three budgets were authored, presided over and approved by the president himself. He signed it,” Masigan said.

“Everything leads to him.”

‘Give Marcos some credit’

Jan Credo, political science professor at Silliman University in Dumaguete City, Philippines, said despite the fierce criticism of the president, Marcos Jr should still get some credit for his role in highlighting the massive corruption scandal during his annual State of the Nation Address last year.

“President Marcos, in fact, started the expose when he chastised members of Congress and told them, ‘Shame on you’, for their involvement in the alleged massive bribery,” Credo told Al Jazeera.

“What this has generated is the consciousness among the public about the issue that led to the crystallisation of the social movement against corruption,” he said.

“If you ask me, Marcos Jr does not have anything to do” with the corruption, Credo said, blaming his close allies instead.

Credo also did not believe that the ongoing scandal would cost Marcos Jr the support of one of the country’s most powerful institutions, the military. Over the last four decades, two Philippine presidents, including Marcos Sr, were forced out of office in popular revolts backed by the military. Two other presidents faced coup attempts.

“Marcos Jr may be in survival mode now. But he is also fortunate to have a military that is highly professionalised and no longer politicised,” Credo said.

“The recent calls by retired military officers to withdraw support from Marcos Jr have not gained traction, because we have learned their lesson,” he explained.

Political analyst Masigan agreed, saying a move by the military was “out of the question”, noting that while there were some whispers for Marcos Jr’s removal, “nothing is being seriously considered”.

“As far as the military is concerned, they are loyal to the constitution; there is no movement to oust the president and have a caretaker government,” he added.

Securing a legacy

With just about two more years left in office, Marcos Jr still wields enough power to change the narrative of his administration, restore the Marcos name and implement policies that help Filipinos, political observers who spoke to Al Jazeera said.

But the president must act fast before the narrowing window of opportunity closes on him, and he becomes a “lame duck” leader, they added.

Major legislation that needs to be addressed includes government transparency, education, energy and investment reforms, as well as an overhaul of the transport and manufacturing industries, said Kurdli of De La Salle University.

But the most urgent policy reform that Marcos Jr has to address is the passage of a law banning political dynasties, which is the main culprit of corruption in the country, Masigan and Credo said.

“If he really wants to have an impact, he must get the antipolitical dynasty law passed,” Masigan said of the president.

In the Philippines, political dynasties have dominated about 80 percent of seats in the Senate and the House, according to a 2025 analysis by the Anti-Dynasty Network.

At the Philippine Senate, for instance, there are four sets of siblings occupying a third of the 24-seat chamber. At least eight other senators have close family members in the House.

President Marcos Jr comes from a dynasty himself. He has one sibling in the Senate, a son and two cousins in the House, and several relatives elected as town and provincial executives.

Vice President Duterte, who is the daughter of former President Rodrigo Duterte, is no different. Her brother, nephew and a cousin are serving in Congress. Another brother serves as the mayor of the Duterte stronghold, Davao City, while a nephew serves as the vice mayor.

While political dynasties are prohibited under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Congress has failed to pass a supplementary law that spells out what a ban should look like.

For Credo, getting the antipolitical dynasty law passed is “a tall order” for Marcos Jr, given that a vast majority of legislators come from dynasties, guaranteeing fierce resistance.

“But if he can get it done, that would be a major achievement on his part. He will be able to secure his place in the history books,” Credo added.

Masigan said, given the Marcos family history, it is really up to the Filipino citizenry to keep the pressure on and demand real reforms from the government.

“I’ve seen how the Marcoses operate since the 1970s. They are fond of creating a semblance of reforms and giving people hope. But it will never come to fruition,” Masigan said.

“I hope this time it’s different. But I am not holding my breath.”

For this year’s State of the Union address, as usual, the president was the center of attention. That’s just where Donald Trump lives, so it’s no wonder that he broke his record for the length of the nationally televised speech. He was the star of his own unreality show, with an audience of tens of millions. In front of him, idolatrous Republican lawmakers popped up and down to applaud like clowns in wind-up music boxes of old.

In fact, a president comes to the Capitol as a guest in Congress’ home, there only by invitation of the speaker of the House. It’s a historical nod to the separation of powers so essential to America’s system of government. But of course Trump acts as though he owns the place. And why not? The Republican majorities in the House and Senate essentially gave him the keys and title, along with much of their constitutional power over spending, federal appointments, war powers and more.

“What a difference a president makes,” a triumphalist Trump imperiously marveled about himself on Tuesday night, after exaggerating or falsely claiming his achievements of the past year.

Got that? Even with a Congress controlled by his party, with its majorities at risk in this midterm election year because of his unpopularity, Trump couldn’t find it within his narcissistic self to share the specious credit. Then again, he does act alone most of the time, and polls show he’s getting blame, not credit, from 6 out of 10 Americans.

For the good of the nation, Congress must take back its powers from Trump and, with them, more of Americans’ attention. No less than Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, pleaded as much just days before the State of the Union address.

In concurring with the Court’s 6-3 ruling last week striking down the centerpiece of Trump’s agenda — unilateral tariffs — as a usurpation of Congress’ constitutional taxing power, Gorsuch all but implored lawmakers to restore Congress’ intended role as a co-equal branch of government — and the president to respect it as such. (Spoiler: He won’t.)

Gorsuch’s opinion was a masterclass in why the founders created Congress in the very first article of the Constitution, saving the presidency and the judiciary for the second and third articles. I don’t agree with Gorsuch on much, but his concurrence should be required reading for Trump and for members of Congress who plainly need remedial civics lessons. It’s worth quoting at length; italics are mine.

“Our founders understood that men are not angels, and we disregard that insight at our peril when we allow the few (or the one) to aggrandize their power based on loose or uncertain authority,” Gorsuch wrote.

“Yes, legislating can be hard and take time,” he closed. “And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man. There, deliberation tempers impulse, and compromise hammers disagreements into workable solutions. And because laws must earn such broad support to survive the legislative process, they tend to endure, allowing ordinary people to plan their lives in ways they cannot when the rules shift from day to day. In all, the legislative process helps ensure each of us has a stake in the laws that govern us and in the Nation’s future.”

Do you know what won’t endure? Trump’s policymaking by “impulse” and fiat, by hundreds of executive orders. Indeed, it would be in his interest to work with Congress on laws that will outlive him and stand as his legacy. Yet he wants to be a king, getting quick results on a whim, by the thumbing of a tweet or a Sharpie signature on paper. Legislating requires time, compromise and ultimately sharing credit.

Perhaps that’s why Trump is so intent on erecting edifices of tangible marble and gold in Washington and beyond: Those will endure when his policies don’t. And that’s the legacy he craves — mega-ballrooms, arches, statues, busts and buildings in his name and image.

Gorsuch wasn’t in the House chamber to hear Trump’s address and his slap at the court’s tariff decision. Just four of the nine justices were, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who wrote the main opinion, and two other justices who’d joined in opposing Trump’s tariff power grab. The president insisted he’d proceed with unilateral tariffs under separate laws, adding that “congressional action will not be necessary.” Republican lawmakers applauded.

The founders, in the Constitution, required presidents to annually report on the state of the union and to “recommend” to Congress “such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” Then it’s the president’s job to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Yet as usual, Trump outlined little in the way of a legislative agenda.

The president likes to note, as he did in his address, that he’ll preside over this year’s celebrations of the nation’s 250th birthday. But he should know that the nation wasn’t born in a day, on July 4, 1776. The founders squabbled 11 years more over the Constitution, and states took another two years to ratify it.

Yes, democracy has been hard from the start. That’s why Trump’s appeal for some Americans is his action-figure persona — forget norms, laws and the Constitution.

But perhaps if Trump’s poll numbers remain in the tank, even Republicans in Congress will summon the guts to protect the institution’s powers. And if they don’t, that’s all the more reason for voters to turn the keys over to Democrats in November.

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

Oliver “Power” Grant, the close Wu-Tang Clan affiliate who oversaw the group’s enormously popular Wu Wear fashion line, has died. He was 52.

Grant’s death was confirmed by social media posts from several Wu-Tang members including Method Man, who wrote “Paradise my Brother safe Travels!!” under a post of the two together.

“We couldn’t have done it without him,” GZA wrote in his own post. “Wu wouldn’t have come to fruition without Power. His passing is a profound loss to us all.”

The group members’ posts did not cite a cause of death. The news was first reported by outlets including Okayplayer and Hot 97.

Grant, a childhood friend of Wu-Tang co-founder RZA’s older brother, was a crucial figure in the sprawling New York hip-hop collective’s ascent. Though he was not a performing member of the group, he helped raise capital for early recording sessions and structured Wu-Tang’s finances and record deals — no small feat for a collective with such a vast archipelago of group and solo projects.

“We knew that if a brother got a deal for 150k, he could keep the majority of it, but it also would facilitate and help the other brothers,” he told Passion of the Weiss in 2011. “It was part of our core and movement for us to spread the money around and help brothers eat, without a project out. It was like we were trust fund babies.”

His work set a precedent for autonomy and creative control as hip-hop became a commercial juggernaut in the ’90s.

“Everything that we learned was hard knock life, you figure it out as you go along, and take cues from those that are actively doing things,” he said. “I wasn’t a rapper, but the thrill of being a part of going and where they went, it was the inspiration for how it ended up that lead us all to going back, soaking up what we’d absorbed and coming back with ‘Protect Ya Neck.’”

He was also the driving force behind Wu Wear, the group’s wildly popular fashion line that netted tens of millions in revenue and became a fixture of ’90s hip-hop iconography. The line was later revamped as Wu-Tang Brand, and relaunched as Wu Wear in 2017. He also had cameos as an actor alongside Method Man in the 1998 hip-hop classic “Belly” and 1999’s “Black and White,” and served as an executive producer for the group’s many LPs.

Sherman Oaks Notre Dame is supposed to rely on its pitching this season, but the Knights found themselves in a slugfest with host El Dorado on Tuesday and turned loose power hitters Jacob Madrid and Troy Trejo to pull out a 9-7 victory.

Madrid hit two home runs and had four RBIs. Trejo broke a 7-7 tie with a two-run home run in the top of the seventh inning.

AJ LaSota pitched 2 1/3 innings of shutout relief. Notre Dame improved to 3-0.

Xavi Cadena had a home run and three RBIs for El Dorado.

Santa Margarita 4, Harvard-Westlake 3: Cooper Holland went three for three and the Eagles (2-1) got a strong five-inning outing from Tyler George for the road victory.

Sierra Canyon 5, Huntington Beach 2: The Trailblazers waited until Oilers ace Jared Grindlinger finished his four innings before taking charge for the home win. Grindlinger allowed no hits and no runs. Armando Solorio threw three shutout innings of relief in the win. Dane Cunningham had a home run for Huntington Beach.

Gahr 6, Crespi 1: Bryce Morrison had two hits and two RBIs and Luis Alonso threw five shutout innings with five strikeouts for 2-0 Gahr.

Corona 4, Etiwanda 2: Trey Ebel contributed two hits and Anthony Murphy made his pitching debut, throwing two scoreless innings with three strikeouts to get the save for Corona.

Norco 4, Garden Grove Pacifica 0: Landon Hovermale turned in a dominating mound performance with 15 strikeouts and one walk while giving up one hit in 6 2/3 innings. Dylan Seward, Jordan Ayala and Jayden Serna each had two hits.

Servite 8, Loyola 1: John Sullivan hit a grand slam and Gavin Gonzalez contributed three hits for Servite.

Foothill 5, Los Alamitos 3: Evan Kim had a two-run double for Foothill. He finished with three RBIs.

Chaparral 23, Eisenhower 0: Griffin Fien went four for five in the five-inning mercy rule game. Jaiden Lopez hit three doubles.

Cypress 8, West Ranch 2: Hibiki Suzuki had two hits and four RBIs for Cypress while Tate Belfanti struck out 10 in four innings.

Edison 4, Mission Viejo 2: Will Stanley struck out seven in 6 1/3 innings for Edison.

Long Beach Millikan 5, Banning 0: Maison Crommie threw six scoreless innings, striking out seven.

Royal 5, Santa Monica 0: Ethan Hall homered and Dustin Dunnwoody struck out nine and gave up one hit in five innings.

Softball

JSerra 4, Riverside Poly 0: Liliana Escobar struck out 15 for JSerra, which also defeated South Hills 2-0.

Boycotts. Prebuttals. Rebuttals. Historic guests.

California members of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives’ approach to President Trump’s State of the Union address Tuesday night are as varied as their politics and their districts.

Before the speech, Sen. Adam Schiff described Trump as an out-of-control and corrupt president who has ignored pressing issues such as climate change in order to enrich himself and punish his political enemies, including by turning the U.S. Department of Justice and the rest of the federal government into a “personal fiefdom,” unbound by the law.

“From the birth of our nation, our founders were obsessed with preventing tyranny and the emergence of another king, another despot. They created checks and balances, separation of powers, an independent judiciary. They understood that the greatest threat to liberty wasn’t foreign invasion, it was the concentration of power in the hands of one person or faction,” Schiff said on the floor of the U.S. Senate. “This president has systematically dismantled these safeguards in his second term.”

Schiff is among the Democrats boycotting the speech. Other Californians include Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), Sara Jacobs (D-San Diego), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles) and Julia Brownley (D-Westlake Village).

Sen. Alex Padilla, the son of immigrants who was tackled in Los Angeles last year when he attempted to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem a question during the immigration raids, will deliver a Spanish-language response after Trump’s address on television and online.

California has the largest congressional delegation in the nation, so its elected officials frequently have an outsized presence in the nation’s capital. An especially memorable moment was when then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) ripped up a copy of Trump’s speech after the 2020 State of the Union address.

It’s unclear whether California elected officials plan anything as dramatic tonight. But their guests are notable.

Though Garcia is not attending the speech, his guest at the event is Annie Farmer, a woman who was abused at the age of 16 by sexual predators Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin), who is attending, is bringing Teresa J. Helm — another Epstein abuse survivor.

Others plan to bring constituents from their districts — Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona) is bringing Ben Benoit, the Riverside County auditor-controller who is a longtime friend.

Pelosi’s guest is the Rev. Devon Jerome Crawford, senior pastor of historic Third Baptist Church of San Francisco. And some have surprise guests who will be unveiled later tonight.