South Korean President Lee Jae Myung delivers a speech during a ceremony to mark the 77th Armed Forces Day in Gyeryong, South Korea, 01 October 2025. File Photo by KIM HONG-JI /EPA
Dec. 19 (Asia Today) — President Lee Jae-myung said Friday that while North Korea’s “hostile two-state” line may reflect current realities, South Korea must “return to our proper place” and work to restore channels for contact, dialogue and cooperation.
Speaking at a joint work report by the Foreign Ministry and the Unification Ministry at the Government Complex Seoul, Lee pointed to what he described as an unprecedented buildup along the inter-Korean boundary.
“For the first time since the 1950s war, North Korea has erected triple fences along the entire demarcation line, severed bridges, cut off roads and built retaining walls,” Lee said. He added that North Korea may have acted out of concern that the South could invade, but said it was regrettable and appeared tied to “strategic desires.”
Lee said the moves could be part of Pyongyang’s strategy, but argued South Korea must respond with patience and sustained effort to improve what he described as a situation in which the North “fundamentally refuses contact itself.”
“As I’ve said before, we must find even the smallest opening,” Lee said. “We need to communicate, engage in dialogue, cooperate and pursue a path of coexistence and mutual prosperity between the North and South.”
He said there is currently “not even a needle’s eye of an opening,” repeating that the situation is “truly not easy.”
Lee also appeared to criticize the previous administration’s approach to North Korea, saying “one could call it a kind of karma.” He added that if a strategy contributed to the current impasse, “then we must change it now.”
Lee said the government should make proactive efforts to ease tensions and create conditions for trust to emerge, adding that the Unification Ministry should now take a leading role.
“It is certainly not an easy task, but it is equally clear that it is not something we should give up on,” he said.
The United States Department of the Treasury has announced new sanctions on several family members and associates of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, as the Trump administration increases pressure on Caracas and continues to build up US forces on Venezuela’s borders.
The sanctions announced on Friday come as the US military continues attacks on boats off the country’s coast, which have killed more than 100 people. The US military has also seized a Venezuelan oil tanker and imposed a naval blockade on all vessels arriving and departing from Venezuelan ports that are under US sanctions.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Announcing the new sanctions, US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said in a statement that “Maduro and his criminal accomplices threaten our hemisphere’s peace and stability”.
“The Trump Administration will continue targeting the networks that prop up his illegitimate dictatorship,” Bessent added.
The new sanctions target seven people who are family members or associates of Malpica Flores, a nephew of Maduro, and Panamanian businessman Ramon Carretero, who were named in an earlier round of US sanctions that also targeted six Venezuela-flagged oil tankers and shipping firms, on December 11.
Flores, who is one of three of Maduro’s nephews by marriage, dubbed “narco-nephews” by the US Treasury Department, is wanted because he “has been repeatedly linked to corruption at Venezuela’s state-run oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela, SA”, the Treasury said in a statement.
It was not immediately clear how Flores’s role in Venezuela’s state-run oil company related to “propping up Nicolas Maduro’s rogue narco-state”, which Bessent said in his statement was the reason for widening sanctions to additional family members and associates of the president.
The US has claimed that tackling drug trafficking is the primary reason for its military escalation in the region since September, including the strikes on vessels in the eastern Pacific and Caribbean, which international law experts say amount to extrajudicial killings.
Despite the Trump administration’s repeated references to drug trafficking, its actions and messaging appear increasingly focused on Venezuela’s oil reserves, which are the largest in the world. The reserves have remained relatively untapped since sanctions were imposed on the country by the US during the first Trump administration.
Homeland Security adviser and top Trump aide Stephen Miller said last week that Venezuela’s oil belongs to Washington.
“American sweat, ingenuity and toil created the oil industry in Venezuela,” Miller claimed on X. “Its tyrannical expropriation was the largest recorded theft of American wealth and property,” he added.
US sanctions, particularly those targeting Venezuela’s oil industry, have contributed to an economic crisis in the country and increased discontent with Maduro, who has governed Venezuela since 2013.
For his part, Maduro has accused the Trump administration of “fabricating a new eternal war” aimed at “regime change” and seizing Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.
The European Union has also imposed targeted sanctions on Venezuela, which it renewed last week until 2027.
The European sanctions, first introduced in 2017, include an embargo on arms shipments to Venezuela, as well as travel bans and asset freezes on individuals linked to state repression.
PHOENIX — Erika Kirk, widow of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk and the organization’s new leader, endorsed a potential presidential bid by Vice President JD Vance on the opening night of the conservative youth group’s annual conference.
After telling the cheering crowd that Turning Point would help keep Congress in Republican hands next year, she said, “We are going to get my husband’s friend JD Vance elected for 48 in the most resounding way possible.”
Vance would be the 48th president if he takes office after President Trump.
Kirk’s statement on Thursday is the most explicit backing of Vance’s possible candidacy by a woman who has been positioned as a steward to her late husband’s legacy. Charlie Kirk had become a powerbroker and bridge builder within the conservative movement before he was assassinated in September.
Vance was close with Charlie Kirk, whose backing helped enable his rapid political rise. After the assassination, Vance and his wife joined Erika Kirk in Utah to fly her husband’s remains home to Arizona aboard Air Force Two.
Vance is set to speak to Turning Point on Sunday, the conference’s last day. The convention has featured the usual spectacle and energy that have characterized the organization’s events, but the proceedings have also been marred by intense infighting among conservative commentators and estranged allies who have turned on each other in the wake of Kirk’s death.
As Trump’s vice president, Vance is well-positioned to inherit the movement that remade the Republican Party and twice sent Trump to the White House. But it would be no small task for him to hold together the Trump coalition, which is built around personal loyalty to him more than shared political goals.
Various wings of the conservative movement already are positioning to steer the party after Trump’s presidency, a skirmish that’s becoming increasingly public and pointed.
Turning Point, with its thousands of young volunteers, would provide a major boost for Vance in a fractious primary. Now 41, Vance would be the first Millennial president if elected, a natural fit for the organization built around mobilizing youth.
Trump has repeatedly mused about running for a third term despite a constitutional prohibition. However, he’s also speculated about a 2028 ticket featuring Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Although Rubio previously ran for president in 2016, he has said he would support Vance as Trump’s successor.
Brown and Cooper write for the Associated Press. Brown reported from Washington.
WASHINGTON — President Trump made dozens of promises when he campaigned to retake the White House last year, from boosting economic growth to banning transgender athletes from girls’ sports.
But one pledge stood out as the most important in many voters’ eyes: Trump said he would not only bring inflation under control, but push grocery and energy prices back down.
“Starting the day I take the oath of office, I will rapidly drive prices down, and we will make America affordable again,” he said in 2024. “Your prices are going to come tumbling down, your gasoline is going to come tumbling down, and your heating bills and cooling bills are going to be coming down.”
He hasn’t delivered. Gasoline and eggs are cheaper than they were a year ago, but most other prices are still rising, including groceries and electricity. The Labor Department estimated Thursday that inflation is running at 2.7%, only a little better than the 3% Trump inherited from Joe Biden; electricity was up 6.9%.
And that has given the president a major political problem: Many of the voters who backed him last year are losing faith.
“I voted for Trump in 2024 because he was promising America first … and he was promising a better economy,” Ebyad, a nurse in Texas, said on a Focus Group podcast hosted by Bulwark publisher Sarah Longwell. “It feels like all those promises have been broken.”
Since Inauguration Day, the president’s job approval has declined from 52% to 43% in the polling average calculated by statistician Nate Silver. Approval for Trump’s performance on the economy, once one of his strongest points, has sunk even lower to 39%.
That’s dangerous territory for a president who hopes to help his party keep its narrow majority in elections for the House of Representatives next year.
To Republican pollsters and strategists, the reasons for Trump’s slump are clear: He overpromised last year and he’s under-performing now.
“The most important reasons he won in 2024 were his promises to bring inflation down and juice the economy,” Republican pollster Whit Ayres said. “That’s the reason he won so many voters who traditionally had supported Democrats, including Hispanics. … But he hasn’t been able to deliver. Inflation has moderated, but it hasn’t gone backward.”
Last week, after deriding complaints about affordability as “a Democrat hoax,” Trump belatedly launched a campaign to convince voters that he’s at work fixing the problem.
But at his first stop, a rally in Pennsylvania, he continued arguing that the economy is already in great shape.
“Our prices are coming down tremendously,” he insisted.
“You’re doing better than you’ve ever done,” he said, implicitly dismissing voters’ concerns.
He urged families to cope with high tariffs by cutting back: “You know, you can give up certain products,” he said. “You don’t need 37 dolls for your daughter. Two or three is nice, but you don’t need 37 dolls.”
Earlier, in an interview with Politico, Trump was asked what grade he would give the economy. “A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus,” he said.
On Wednesday, the president took another swing at the issue in a nationally televised speech, but his message was basically the same.
“One year ago, our country was dead. We were absolutely dead,” he said. “Now we’re the hottest country anywhere in the world. … Inflation is stopped, wages are up, prices are down.”
Republican pollster David Winston, who has advised GOP members of Congress, said the president has more work to do to win back voters who supported him in 2024 but are now disenchanted.
“When families are paying the price for hamburger that they used to pay for steak, there’s a problem, and there’s no sugarcoating it,” he said. “The president’s statements that ‘we have no inflation’ and ‘our groceries are down’ have flown in the face of voters’ reality.”
Another problem for Trump, pollsters said, is that many voters believe his tariffs are pushing prices higher — making the president part of the problem, not part of the solution. A YouGov poll in November found that 77% of voters believe tariffs contribute to inflationary pressures.
Trump’s popularity hasn’t dropped through the floor; he still has the allegiance of his fiercely loyal base. “He is at his lowest point of his second term so far, but he is well within the range of his job approval in the first term,” Ayres noted.
Still, he has lost significant chunks of his support among independent voters, young people and Latinos, three of the “swing voter” groups who put him over the top in 2024.
Inflation isn’t the only issue that has dented his standing.
He promised to lead the economy into “a golden age,” but growth has been uneven. Unemployment rose in November to 4.6%, the highest level in more than four years.
He promised massive tax cuts for the middle class, but most voters say they don’t believe his tax cut bill brought them any benefit. “It’s hard to convince people that they got a tax break when nobody’s tax rates were actually cut,” Ayres noted.
He kept his promise to launch the largest deportation campaign in U.S. history — but many voters complain that he has broken his promise to focus on violent criminals. In Silver’s average, approval of his immigration policies dropped from 52% in January to 45% now.
A Pew Research Center survey in October found that 53% of adults, including 71% of Latinos, think the administration has ordered too many deportations. However, most voters approve of Trump’s measures on border security.
Republican pollsters and strategists say they believe Trump can reverse his downward momentum before November’s congressional election, but it may not be easy.
“You look at what voters care about most, and you offer policies to address those issues,” GOP strategist Alex Conant suggested. “That starts with prices. So you talk about permitting reform, energy prices, AI [artificial intelligence] … and legislation to address healthcare, housing and tax cuts. You could call it the Affordability Act.”
“A laser focus on the economy and the cost of living is job one,” GOP pollster Winston said. “His policies on regulation, energy and taxes should have a positive impact, but the White House needs to emphasize them on a more consistent basis.”
“People voted for change in 2024,” he warned. “If they don’t get it — if inflation doesn’t begin to recede — they may vote for change again in 2026.”
U.S. senators peppered Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr with questions during a wide-ranging hearing exploring media censorship, the FCC’s oversight and Carr’s alleged intimidation tactics during the firestorm over ABC comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s comments earlier this fall.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) called Wednesday’s hearing of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee following the furor over ABC’s brief suspension of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” amid social media backlash over Kimmel’s remarks in the wake of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s killing.
Walt Disney Co. leaders yanked Kimmel off the air Sept. 17, hours after Carr suggested that Disney-owned ABC should punish the late-night comedian for his remarks — or face FCC scrutiny. Soon, two major TV station groups announced that they were pulling Kimmel’s show, although both reinstated the program several days after ABC resumed production.
Progressives were riled by the President Trump-appointed chairman’s seeming willingness to go after broadcasters in an alleged violation of their First Amendment rights. At the time, a few fellow Republicans, including Cruz, blasted Carr for suggesting to ABC: “We can do this the easy way or hard way.”
Cruz, in September, said that Carr’s comments belonged in the mob movie “Goodfellas.”
On Wednesday, Carr said his comments about Kimmel were not intended as threats against Disney or the two ABC-affiliated station groups that preempted Kimmel’s show.
The chairman argued the FCC had statutory authority to make sure that TV stations acted in the public interest, although Carr did not clarify how one jumbled sentence in Kimmel’s Sept. 15 monologue violated the broadcasters’ obligation to serve its communities.
Cruz was conciliatory Wednesday, praising Carr’s work in his first year as FCC chairman. However, Democrats on the panel attempted to pivot much of the three-hour session into a public airing of the Trump administration’s desire to punish broadcasters whom the president doesn’t like — and Carr’s seeming willingness to go along.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) called Wednesday’s Senate committee hearing.
(Associated Press)
Carr was challenged by numerous Democrats who suggested he was demonstrating fealty to the president rather than running the FCC as an independent licensing body.
Despite the landmark Communications Act of 1934, which created the FCC, the agency isn’t exactly independent, Carr and fellow Republican Commissioner Olivia Trusty testified.
The two Republicans said because Trump has the power to hire and fire commissioners, the FCC was more akin to other agencies within the federal government.
“Then is President Trump your boss?” asked Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.). The senator then asked Carr whether he remembered his oath of office. Federal officials, including Carr, have sworn to protect the Constitution.
“The American people are your boss,” Kim said. “Have you ever had a conversation with the president or senior administration officials about using the FCC to go after critics?”
Carr declined to answer.
Protesters flocked to Hollywood to protest the preemption of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” after ABC briefly pulled the late-night host off air indefinitely over comments he made about the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)
The lone Democrat on the FCC, Anna M. Gomez, was frequently at odds with her fellow commissioners, including during an exploration of whether she felt the FCC was doing Trump’s bidding in its approach to merger approvals.
Trump separately continued his rant on media organizations he doesn’t like, writing in a Truth Social post that NBC News “should be ashamed of themselves in allowing garbage ‘interviews’” of his political rivals, in this case Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.).
Trump wrote that NBC and other broadcasters should pay “significant amounts of money for using the very valuable” public airwaves.
“Without a doubt, the FCC is leveraging its authority over mergers and enforcement proceedings in order to influence content,” Gomez said.
Parts of the hearing devolved into partisan bickering over whether Democrats or Republicans had a worse track record of trampling on the 1st Amendment. Cruz and other Republicans referenced a 2018 letter, signed by three Democrats on the committee, which asked the FCC to investigate conservative TV station owner Sinclair Broadcast Group.
“Suddenly Democrats have discovered the 1st Amendment,” Cruz said. “Maybe remember it when Democrats are in power. The 1st Amendment is not a one-way license for one team to abuse the power.
“We should respect the free speech of all Americans, regardless of party,” Cruz said.
Let the annals of this country show it was the murder of a Jewish couple on the first night of Hanukkah that showed how profoundly un-Christian Donald J. Trump is once and for all.
The prosecution rests, and there can no rebuttal: We are a nation led by President Meathead.
Except unlike the character of the same name famously played by Rob Reiner in “All In the Family,” our Meathead in chief lacks any sense of moral decency.
The weekend saw the tragic deaths of Hollywood legend Reiner and his wife, Michele. Their son, Nick Reiner, is currently in jail without bond and is facing murder charges. Normal people mourned the loss of a couple who delighted and improved the world with their creative and political work while trying to free Nick from the ravages of drug abuse and mental illness for most of his adult life.
Our president, of course, is not normal. He’s a weirdo who gets off on being mean. If there was a CruelHub, he’d be on it daily.
And so on the day after Romy Reiner found her parents’ bodies at their Brentwood home, Trump posted on social media that they died not due to stab wounds but “reportedly due to the anger [Rob] caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME.”
The president doubled down on his crocodile tears to reporters at the Oval Office the day after, claiming Reiner “was very bad for our country” without offering any proof and describing the director of big-hearted film classics like “When Harry Met Sally…” and “The Princess Bride” as “deranged.”
We’re in the middle of the holiday season, a time when people traditionally slow down their lives to take stock of their blessings during the coldest and darkest time of the year and try to spread cheer to friends and strangers alike.
But goodwill is simply impossible for Trump. Where a moment calls for grace, he offers ethical filth. When tragedies inspire charity in the hearts of good people, the president makes it about himself.
While everyone is rightfully focusing on the ugly attacks Trump launched against Reiner and his wife, also telling about the president’s soul was the address he gave at a White House reception marking Christmas and the start of Hanukkah hours before news broke of the Reiners’ murder.
Trump offered lip service to those massacres before turning to the reason for the season:
Trump.
Actor, writer, director, producer and activist Rob Reiner photographed at his home in Brentwood in 2017.
(Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times)
He insulted his predecessor, Joe Biden, and claimed his disastrous tariffs were paying off. He brought up Bryson DeChambeau so the U.S. Open golf champion could gush about how the president was a “great golfer [and] better human being.” The president plugged his planned arch for the nation’s capital that he claimed will “blow … away” the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. He bragged about winning over Latinos during the 2024 election — without mentioning that’s he’s already losing them, fast — and blasted the “fake news” for not appreciating the Christmas decorations of First Lady Melania Trump.
You would think Trump was running for president again instead of marking two important religious holidays. But Trump was being spiritual in a sense: he was practicing his true faith, which is smite.
The word and its conjugates appear hundreds of times in the Old Testament, spoken by an admittedly “jealous” God as he instructs the Israelites on how to treat their enemies, or used as a threat against the Israelites if they stray from his commands.
If Trump and his henchmen and henchwomen ever read the Bible, you might well bet they read only the parts that involved smiting.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth — he of the medieval cross chest tattoo — continues to play Solomon as he authorizes the bombing of boats off the coasts of South America that he insists are carrying drugs while offering no justification other than his will that it be done. Immigration agents indiscriminately pick up citizens and noncitizens alike in pursuit of remigration, the far-right movement to make minority groups return to their ancestral countries in the name of white makes right.
Twice, the Department of Homeland Security has invoked the Book of Isaiah in social media campaigns to justify its scorched-earth approach to booting people from the country. Specifically, they have cited a verse where the prophet tells God “Here I am, send me” as Yahweh calls for a messenger to warn heretics of the hell he will rain down on them unless they repent. The most recent clip starred Border Patrol commander at large Gregory Bovino, he who has spread Trump’s fire-and-brimstone gospel of deportation.
Smiting and annihilation are the Gospel of Trump and they do play a big role in the Bible. But their ultimate redemption for Christians is what we’re gearing up to celebrate next week: the birth of Christ, the Son of God who came to the world to preach one should love thy enemy, bless the meek, renounce wealth and a whole bunch of other woke stuff.
Trump may not be the literal anti-Christ, but Trump sure is anti-Christian. He stands for and embodies everything that Jesus decried.
More and more Christian thought leaders are starting to understand this about Trump the more he rages. In the wake of Trump’s selfish sliming of the Reiners, Christianity Today editor at large Russell Moore slammed his “vile, disgusting, and immoral behavior” while conservative commentator and longtime Trump apologist Rod Dreher wrote “something is very, very wrong with this man.”
That’s a start. But more evangelical Christians, 80% of whom voted for him in the 2024 election, need to finally repent of blindly supporting him. They, more than any other group, have excused Trump’s sins.
They often compare him to major figures from the Bible and Christian heroes from the past — King David, Cyrus the Great, Constantine — who were imperfect but still did God’s will.
That’s laughable. This man isn’t just imperfect. We’re all that.
No, Trump is more than imperfect. He is a throbbing mass of malevolence, turned up — to reference Reiner’s “This Is Spinal Tap” — to 11.
“While I have been concerned about WWE‘s close relationship with Donald Trump for several months — especially in light of his administration’s ongoing cruel and inhumane treatment of immigrants (and pretty much anyone who “looks like an immigrant”) — reading the President’s incredibly cruel comments in the wake of Rob Reiner’s death is the final straw for me,” Foley, 60, wrote Tuesday on Instagram.
“I no longer wish to represent a company that coddles a man so seemingly void of compassion as he marches our country towards autocracy. Last night, I informed @WWE talent relations that I would not be making any appearances for the company as long as this man remains in office.
“Additionally, I will not be signing a new Legends deal when my current one expires in June.”
WWE did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Times.
Following the killings of Hollywood icon Reiner and wife Michele Singer Reiner, Trump wrote on social media that the couple died “reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME.”
Trump added of Reiner, who had campaigned for liberal causes: “He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness, and with the Golden Age of America upon us, perhaps like never before. May Rob and Michele rest in peace!”
Nick Reiner, 32, has been arrested on suspicion of murdering his parents. Trump’s comments have drawn bipartisan backlash.
Foley won the WWF (as the company was then known) championship three times in the late 1990s in his Mankind persona. He has also won eight WWF tag team titles and also has wrestled as Cactus Jack, Dude Love and under his own name. He retired from the ring in 2012 but has appeared in various roles for the league since then.
Foley was inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame in 2013. So was Trump, as a celebrity inductee.
A longtime pro wrestling fan, Trump has hosted WWE events and has been an active participant, both in and out of the ring, in a number of storylines. Late last year, Trump named Linda McMahon — the former longtime WWE chief executive and president whose husband, Vince McMahon, is the company’s founder — as secretary of Education for his second term.
When word came of Rob Reiner’s senseless death, America fell into familiar rites of mourning and remembrance. A waterfall of tributes poured in from the twin worlds — Hollywood and politics — that the actor, director and liberal activist inhabited.
Trump’s response, fairly shimmying on Reiner’s grave as he wrongly attributed his death to an act of political vengeance, managed to plumb new depths of heartlessness and cruelty; more than a decade into his acrid emergence as a political force, the president still manages to stoop to surprise.
But as vile and tasteless as Trump’s self-pitying statement was — Reiner, he averred, was a victim of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” and, essentially, got what he deserved — it also pointed out a singular truism of his vengeful residency in the Oval Office.
Still, each acted as though he was a president of all the people, not just those who voted him into office, contributed lavishly to his campaign or blindly cheered his every move, however reckless or ill-considered.
As Trump has repeatedly made clear, he sees the world in black-and-white, red-versus-blue, us-versus-them.
By noteworthy contrast, when a gunman killed Minnesota’s Democratic former House speaker, Melissa Hortman, Trump couldn’t be bothered with even a simple act of grace. Asked if he’d called to offer his condolences to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a personal friend of Hortman, Trump responded, “Why waste time?”
This is not normal, much less humane.
This is not politics as usual, or someone rewarding allies and seeking to disadvantage the political opposition, as all presidents have done. This is the nation’s chief executive using the immense powers of his office and the world’s largest, most resonant megaphone to deliver retribution, ruin people’s lives, inflict misery — and revel in the pain.
There were the usual denunciations of Trump’s callous and contemptuous response to Reiner’s stabbing death.
“I’d expect to hear something like this from a drunk guy at a bar, not the president of the United States,” said Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, who is retiring rather than seeking reelection in 2026. (Which may be why he was so candid and spoke so bracingly.)
But this time, the criticisms did not just come from the typical anti-Trump chorus, or heterodox Republicans like Bacon and MAGA-stalwart-turned-taunter Marjorie Taylor Greene. Even some of the president’s longest and loudest advocates felt compelled to speak out.
“This is a dreadful thing to say about a man who just got murdered by his troubled son,” British broadcaster Piers Morgan posted on X. “Delete it, Mr. President.”
More telling, though, was the response from the Republican Party’s leadership.
“I don’t have much more to say about it, other than it’s a tragedy, and my sympathies and prayers go out to the Reiner family and to their friends,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune told CNN when asked about Trump’s response. House Speaker Mike Johnson responded in a similarly nonresponsive vein.
Clearly, the see-and-hear-no-evil impulse remains strong in the upper echelons of the GOP — at least until more election returns show the price Republicans are paying as Trump keeps putting personal vendettas ahead of voters’ personal finances.
One of the enduring reasons supporters say they back the president is Trump’s supposed honesty. (Never mind the many voluminously documented lies he has told on a near-constant basis.)
Honesty, in this sense, means saying things that a more temperate and careful politician would never utter, and it’s an odd thing to condone in the nation’s foremost leader. Those with even a modicum of caring and compassion, who would never tell a friend they’re ugly or call a neighbor stupid — and who expect the same respect and decency in return — routinely ignore or explain away such casual cruelty when it comes from this president.
Those who insist Trump can do no wrong, who defend his every foul utterance or engage in but-what-about relativism to minimize the import, need not remain in his constant thrall.
When Trump steps so egregiously over a line, when his malice is so extravagant and spitefulness so manifest — as it was when he mocked Reiner in death — then, even the most fervent of the president’s backers should call him out.
Do it, and reclaim a little piece of your humanity.
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled a new state-run website Tuesday that tracks what his office calls the “criminal cronies” around President Trump — just the latest trolling tactic by the California governor that directly mirrors Trump’s own use of public resources for political score settling.
Newsom pegged the website’s rollout to recent crime statistics, which were released in early November showing falling rates of homicide and assault in California. The governor’s website catalogs what it calls the top 10 criminal convictions that were followed by pardons offered thus far by Trump — from Jan. 6 rioters to former politicians and business figures convicted of fraud, drug trafficking and financial crimes. The website calls Trump the “criminal in chief.”
The website features AI-generated portraits of such figues as Rod Blagojevich, the only Illinois governor to be impeached and removed from office; former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted of drug trafficking; and Ross Ulbricht, the founder of a dark-web drug marketplace who had been serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. The images show the men standing in a lineup with the word “felon” stamped in red ink.
“With crime dropping — again — California is proving what real public safety leadership looks like,” read a statement from Newsom. “Meanwhile in D.C., Trump is a felon who surrounds himself with scammers and drug traffickers. We’re providing the public with a resource putting the facts in one place so Californians, and all Americans, can see who he elevates and who he protects.”
The launch is the latest escalation in Newsom’s increasingly aggressive digital campaign against Trump.
In recent months, the governor and his press office have turned social media into a near-daily forum for mocking and trolling the president by firing off all-caps posts, meme-style graphics and sharply worded rebukes aimed at Trump’s brash rhetoric, criminal record, policy proposals and political allies.
The crime data , which was released Nov. 3 by the Major Cities Chiefs Assn., found homicides across California’s major cities fell 18% year over year, robberies dropped 18% and aggravated assaults declined 9%. The association also found that violent crime decreased in every California city reporting data, with the steepest declines in Oakland, where violent crime fell 25%, and San Francisco, where it fell 21%.
Newsom’s new website highlights Trump’s sweeping use of presidential pardons to grant clemency to roughly 1,500 people charged or convicted for their roles in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The governor’s office said some of those individuals had prior criminal records and that others went on to be convicted of new crimes after receiving pardons.
The move mirrors tactics Trump and his administration have embraced. Most recently, Trump unveiled a website of “media offenders,” naming journalists and outlets he accuses of bias. Separately, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under Secretary Kristi Noem has maintained a website highlighting what it calls the “worst of the worst” criminal immigrants arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, framing the page as evidence that the administration is carrying out Trump’s promise of mass deportations.
The state’s website launch comes as Newsom seeks to cast California as a national leader in responsible governance of artificial intelligence.
Earlier Tuesday, the governor announced a slate of initiatives aimed at promoting ethical AI use in state government, including a new advisory council, partnerships with academic and nonprofit groups, and a generative AI assistant for state employees. Among the priorities outlined are strengthening safeguards for children online, countering image-based abuse and improving government operations.
“California is at the forefront of AI technology — and is home to some of the most successful and innovative companies and academic leaders in the world,” Newsom said in a statement. “We’re not going to sit on the sidelines and let others define the future for us. But we’re going to do it responsibly — making sure we capture the benefits, mitigate the harms, and continue to lead with the values that define this state.”
WASHINGTON — President Trump filed a lawsuit Monday seeking $10 billion in damages from the BBC, accusing the British broadcaster of defamation as well as deceptive and unfair trade practices.
The 33-page lawsuit accuses the BBC of broadcasting a “false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump,” calling it “a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence” the 2024 U.S. presidential election.
It accused the BBC of “splicing together two entirely separate parts of President Trump’s speech on January 6, 2021” in order to “intentionally misrepresent the meaning of what President Trump said.”
The lawsuit, filed in a Florida court, seeks $5 billion in damages for defamation and $5 billion for unfair trade practices.
The BBC said it would defend the case.
“We are not going to make further comment on ongoing legal proceedings,” it said in a statement.
The broadcaster apologized last month to Trump over the edit of the Jan. 6 speech. But the publicly funded BBC rejected claims it had defamed him, after Trump threatened legal action.
BBC chairman Samir Shah had called it an “error of judgment,” which triggered the resignations of the BBC’s top executive and its head of news.
The speech took place before some of Trump’s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol as Congress was poised to certify President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election that Trump falsely alleged was stolen from him.
The BBC had broadcast the hourlong documentary — titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” — days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election. It spliced together three quotes from two sections of the 2021 speech, delivered almost an hour apart, into what appeared to be one quote in which Trump urged supporters to march with him and “fight like hell.” Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.
Trump said earlier Monday that he was suing the BBC “for putting words in my mouth.”
“They actually put terrible words in my mouth having to do with Jan. 6 that I didn’t say, and they’re beautiful words, that I said, right?” the president said unprompted during an appearance in the Oval Office. “They’re beautiful words, talking about patriotism and all of the good things that I said. They didn’t say that, but they put terrible words.”
The president’s lawsuit was filed in Florida. Deadlines to bring the case in British courts expired more than a year ago.
Legal experts have brought up potential challenges to a case in the U.S. given that the documentary was not shown in the country.
The lawsuit alleges that people in the U.S. can watch the BBC’s original content, including the “Panorama” series, which included the documentary, by using the subscription streaming platform BritBox or a virtual private network service.
The 103-year-old BBC is a national institution funded through an annual license fee of 174.50 pounds ($230) paid by every household that watches live TV or BBC content. Bound by the terms of its charter to be impartial, it typically faces especially intense scrutiny and criticism from both conservatives and liberals.
Bangladeshi President Mohammed Shahabuddin, elected unopposed in 2023 as a nominee of the Awami League, has announced his intention to step down midway through his term following February’s parliamentary election. His decision comes amid tensions with the interim government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus.
Although the presidency in Bangladesh is largely ceremonial, Shahabuddin gained national prominence during the student-led uprising in August 2024, when Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina fled to New Delhi and parliament was dissolved. During this period, Shahabuddin remained the last constitutional authority in the country.
Conflict with Interim Government
Shahabuddin described feeling sidelined by Yunus, citing instances such as being excluded from meetings, the removal of his press department, and the sudden elimination of his portraits from Bangladeshi embassies worldwide. “A wrong message goes to the people that perhaps the president is going to be eliminated. I felt very much humiliated,” he told Reuters in his first media interview since taking office.
Despite these grievances, he affirmed that he would remain in office until elections are held, respecting constitutional norms, and would allow the next government to determine his successor.
Political Landscape Ahead of Elections
Opinion polls suggest the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and hardline Jamaat-e-Islami are the leading contenders to form the next government. Shahabuddin has emphasized that no party has asked him to resign in recent months, and he maintains regular contact with Army Chief General Waker-uz-Zaman, who has assured him of no intention to seize power.
Military and Democratic Context
Bangladesh has a history of military intervention in politics, but Shahabuddin indicated that the army leadership is committed to democratic processes. During the August 2024 protests, the military largely stayed out of the conflict, which helped shape the political transition.
Personal Analysis
Shahabuddin’s planned resignation reflects a deeper struggle over the symbolic authority of the presidency amid political instability. Although the role is ceremonial, the treatment he received from the interim government appears to have eroded his sense of institutional respect. His public statements highlight not only personal frustration but also the fragility of democratic norms in transitional periods.
Furthermore, the situation underscores the delicate balance between civilian authority and the military in Bangladesh, where past interventions have shaped governance patterns. By signaling his willingness to step down while remaining constitutionally compliant, Shahabuddin seeks to preserve institutional legitimacy while avoiding direct confrontation, potentially smoothing the path for the incoming administration and reducing political friction in a tense electoral environment.
Overall, his resignation would mark a symbolic transition, emphasizing both the limitations of the presidency in Bangladesh’s political system and the ongoing influence of military and interim authorities in shaping the political landscape.
Hours after Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele, were found dead in their home in what is shaping up to be a heartbreaking family tragedy, our president blamed Reiner for his own death.
“A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS,” President Trump wrote on his social media platform. “He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness, and with the Golden Age of America upon us, perhaps like never before. May Rob and Michele rest in peace!”
Rest in peace, indeed.
It’s a message steeped in cruelty and delusion, unbelievable and despicable even by the low, buried-in-the-dirt bar by which we have collectively come to judge Trump. In a town — and a time — of selfishness and self-serving, Reiner was one of the good guys, always fighting, both through his films and his politics, to make the world kinder and closer. And yes, that meant fighting against Trump and his increasingly erratic and authoritarian rule.
For the last few months, he was laser-focused on the upcoming midterms as the last and best chance of protecting American democracy — which clearly enraged Trump.
“Make no mistake, we have a year before this country becomes a full on autocracy,” Reiner told MSNBC host Ali Velshi in October. “People care about their pocketbook issues, the price of eggs. They care about their healthcare, and they should. Those are the things that directly affect them. But if they lose their democracy, all of these rights, the freedom of speech, the freedom to pray the way you want, the freedom to protest and not go to jail, not be sent out of the country with no due process, all these things will be taken away from them.”
The Reiners’ son, Nick Reiner, has been arrested on suspicion of murder. Nick Reiner has struggled with addiction, and been in and out of rehab. But Trump seems to be saying that if Nick is indeed the perpetrator, he acted for pro-Trump political reasons — which obviously is highly unlikely and, well, just a weird and unhinged thing to claim.
But also, deeply hypocritical.
It was only a few months ago, in September, that Charlie Kirk was killed and Trump and his MAGA regime went nuts over anyone who dared whisper a critical word about Kirk. Trump called it “sick” and “deranged” that anyone could celebrate Kirk’s death, and blamed the “radical left” for violence-inciting rhetoric.
Vice President JD Vance, channeling his inner Scarlett O’Hara, vowed “with God as my witness,” he would use the full power of the state to crack down on political “networks” deemed terrorist. In reality, he’s largely just using the state to target people who oppose Trump out loud.
And just in case you thought maybe, maybe our president somehow really does have the good of all Americans at heart, recall that in speaking of Kirk, Trump said that he had one point of disagreement. Kirk, he claimed, forgave him enemies.
“That’s where I disagreed with Charlie,” Trump said. “I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them.”
There’s a malevolence so deep in Trump’s post about Reiner that even Marjorie Taylor Greene objected. She was once Trump’s staunchest supporter before he called her a traitor, empowering his goon squad to terrorize her with death threats.
“This is a family tragedy, not about politics or political enemies,” Greene wrote on social media. “Many families deal with a family member with drug addiction and mental health issues. It’s incredibly difficult and should be met with empathy especially when it ends in murder.”
But Trump has made cruelty the point. His need to dehumanize everyone who opposes him, including Reiner and even Greene, is exactly what Reiner was warning us about.
Because when you allow people to be dehumanized, you stop caring about them — and Reiner was not about to let us stop caring.
He saw the world with an artist’s eye and awarrior’s heart, a mighty combination reflected in his films. He challenged us to believe in true love, to set aside our cynicism, to be both silly and brave, knowing both were crucial to a successful life.
This clarity from a man who commanded not just our attention and our respect, but our hearts, is what drove Trump crazy — and what made Reiner such a powerful threat to him. Republican or Democrat, his movies reminded us of what we hold in common.
But it might be Michael Douglas’ speech in 1995’s “The American President” that is most relevant in this moment. Douglas’ character, President Andrew Shepherd, says that “America is advanced citizenship. You’ve got to want it bad, because it’s going to put up a fight.”
Shepard’s rival, a man pursuing power over purpose, “is interested in two things and two things only — making you afraid of ‘it’ and telling you who’s to blame for ‘it.’ ”
Sound familiar?
That our president felt the need to trash Reiner before his body is even buried would be a badge of honor to Reiner, an acknowledgment that Reiner’s warnings carried weight, and that Reiner was a messenger to be reckoned with.
Reiner knew what advanced citizenship meant, and he wanted badly for democracy to survive.
If Trump’s eulogy sickens you the way it sickens me, then here’s what you can do about it: Vote in November in Reiner’s memory.
Your ballot is the rebuke Trump fears most.
And your vote is the most powerful way to honor a man who dedicated his life to reminding us that bravery is having the audacity to care.
Far-right candidate Jose Antonio Kast has won a run-off election to become Chile’s 38th president, ousting the centre-left government currently in power. Al Jazeera’s Lucia Newman has been with supporters celebrating in the capital Santiago.
The track record for California Democrats and the presidency is not a good one. In the nearly 250 years of these United States, not one Left Coast Democrat has ever been elected president. Kamala Harris is just the latest to fail. (Twice.)
Faithful readers of this column — both of you — certainly know how I feel.
Garry South disagrees.
The veteran Democratic campaign strategist, who has been described as possessing “a pile-driving personality and blast furnace of a mouth” — by me, actually — has never lacked for strong and colorful opinions. Here, in an email exchange, we hash out our differences.
Barabak: You once worked for Newsom, did you not?
South: Indeed I did. I was a senior strategist in his first campaign for governor. It lasted 15 months in 2008 and 2009. He exited the race when we couldn’t figure out how to beat Jerry Brown in a closed Democratic primary.
I happen to be the one who wrote the catchy punch line for Newsom’s speech to the state Democratic convention in 2009, that the race was a choice between “a stroll down memory lane vs. a sprint into the future.”
We ended up on memory lane.
Barabak: Do you still advise Newsom, or members of his political team?
South: No, though he and I are in regular contact and have been since his days as lieutenant governor. I know many of his staff and consultants, but don’t work with them in any paid capacity. Also, the governor’s sister and I are friends.
Barabak: You observed Newsom up close in that 2010 race. What are his strengths as a campaigner?
South: Newsom is a masterful communicator, has great stage presence, cuts a commanding figure and can hold an audience in the palm of his hand when he’s really on. He has a mind like a steel trap and never forgets anything he is told or reads.
I’ve always attributed his amazing recall to the struggle he has reading, due to his lifelong struggle with severe dyslexia. Because it’s such an arduous effort for Newsom to read, what he does read is emblazoned on his mind in seeming perpetuity.
Barabak: Demerits, or weaknesses?
South: Given his remarkable command of facts and data and mastery of the English language, he can sometimes run on too long. During that first gubernatorial campaign, when he was still mayor of San Francisco, he once gave a seven-hour State of the City address.
South: It wasn’t as bad as sounds: It was broken into 10 “Webisodes” on his YouTube channel. But still …
Barabak: So let’s get to it. I think Newsom’s chances of being elected president are somewhere between slim and none — and slim was last seen alongside I-5, in San Ysidro, thumbing a ride to Mexico.
You don’t agree.
South: I don’t agree at all. I think you’re underestimating the Trumpian changes wrought (rot?) upon our political system over the past 10 years.
The election of Trump, a convicted felon, not once but twice, has really blown to hell the conventional paradigms we’ve had for decades in terms of how we assess the viability of presidential candidates — what state they’re from, their age, if they have glitches in their personal or professional life.
Not to mention, oh, their criminal record, if they have one.
The American people actually elected for a second term a guy who fomented a rebellion against his own country when he was president the first time, including an armed assault on our own national capitol in which a woman was killed and for which he was rightly impeached. It’s foolish not to conclude that the old rules, the old conventional wisdom about what voters will accept and what they will not, are out the window for good.
It also doesn’t surprise me that you pooh-pooh Newsom’s prospects. It’s typical of the home-state reporting corps to guffaw when their own governor is touted as a presidential candidate.
One, familiarity breeds contempt. Two, a prophet is without honor in his own country.
I also remember those old Clairol hair-color ads: “The closer he gets … the better you look!” (Google it, kids). It’s precisely the opposite when it comes to presidential hopefuls and the reporters who cover them day-in, day-out.
And you’re certainly correct, the nature of what constitutes scandal, or disqualifies a presidential candidate, has drastically changed in the Trump era.
All of that said, certain fundamentals remain the same. Harking back to that 1992 Clinton campaign, it’s still the economy, stupid. Or, put another way, it’s about folks’ lived experience, their economic security, or lack thereof, and personal well-being.
Newsom is, for the moment, a favorite among the chattering political class and online activists because a) those are the folks who are already engaged in the 2028 race and b) many of them thrill to his Trumpian takedowns of the president on social media.
When the focus turns to matters affecting voters’ ability to pay for housing, healthcare, groceries, utility bills and to just get by, Newsom’s opponents will have a heyday trashing him and California’s steep prices, homelessness and shrinking middle class.
Kamala Harris twice bid unsuccessfully for the White House. Her losses kept alive an unbroken string of losses by Left Coast Democrats.
(Kent Nishimura / Getty Images)
South: It’s not just the chattering class.
Newsom’s now the leading candidate among rank-and-file Democrats. They had been pleading — begging — for years that some Democratic leader step out of the box, step up to the plate, and fight back, giving Trump a dose of his own medicine. Newsom has been meeting that demand with wit, skill and doggedness — not just on social media, but through passage of Proposition 50, the Democratic gerrymandering measure.
And Democrats recognize and appreciate it
Barabak: Hmmm. Perhaps I’m somewhat lacking in imagination, but I just can’t picture a world where Democrats say, “Hey, the solution to our soul-crushing defeat in 2024 is to nominate another well-coiffed, left-leaning product of that bastion of homespun Americana, San Francisco.”
South: Uh, Americans twice now have elected a president not just from New York City, but who lived in an ivory tower in Manhattan, in a penthouse with a 24-carat-gold front door (and, allegedly, gold-plated toilet seats). You think Manhattan is a soupçon more representative of middle America than San Francisco?
Like I said, state of origin is less important now after the Trump precedent.
Barabak: Trump was a larger-than-life — or at least larger-than-Manhattan — celebrity. Geography wasn’t an impediment because he had — and has — a remarkable ability, far beyond my reckoning, to present himself as a tribune of the working class, the downtrodden and economically struggling Americans, even as he spreads gold leaf around himself like a kid with a can of Silly String.
Speaking of Kamala Harris, she hasn’t ruled out a third try at the White House in 2028. Where would you place your money in a Newsom-Harris throwdown for the Democratic nomination? How about Harris in the general election, against whomever Republicans choose?
South: Harris running again in 2028 would be like Michael Dukakis making a second try for president in 1992. My God, she not only lost every swing state, and the electoral college by nearly 100 votes, Harris also lost the popular vote — the first Democrat to do so in 20 years.
If she doesn’t want to embarrass herself, she should listen to her home-state voters, who in the latest CBS News/YouGov poll said she shouldn’t run again — by a margin of 69-31. (Even 52% of Democrats said no). She’s yesterday’s news.
Barabak: Seems as though you feel one walk down memory lane was quite enough. We’ll see if Harris — and, more pertinently, Democratic primary voters — agree.
We should be grateful for filmmakers who have a special artistic relationship with an actor: Akira Kurosawa with Toshiro Mifune, Martin Scorsese with Robert De Niro and, by all indications, Yorgos Lanthimos and Emma Stone. Count the Italian duo of Paolo Sorrentino and star Toni Servillo among them, a fertile partnership that began nearly 25 years ago with the director’s first film (“One Man Up”) and continues with their seventh together, the political drama “La Grazia” (“Grace”).
The wielding of power seems to be a frequent backdrop for these two, with “La Grazia” — about an Italian president facing tough decisions as he ends his term of office — marking the third time Sorrentino has asked his favorite leading man to be a head of state, following their breakthrough 2008 collaboration “Il Divo” (about Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti) and 2018’s romp about Silvio Berlusconi, “Loro.”
The difference this time is that, while the other two films centered controversial real-life figures, Servillo’s character in “La Grazia” is fictional, yet pressured to deal with contentious issues. The result is a much more somber, ruminative exploration of morality in governmental authority than the stylish violence of “Il Divo” and exploitative raunch of “Loro.”
A decade after his lush Oscar-winning bacchanal “The Great Beauty” (starring an especially great you-know-who), Sorrentino is no less drawn to pictorial beauty or arresting visuals. But there’s a grayer, graver tone to the long shadows of “La Grazia,” as if the natural, appealing gravitas of Servillo playing an important man fighting a planned obsolescence was the only palette Sorrentino and cinematographer Daria D’Antonio needed.
Servillo’s Mariano De Santis has mere months left — as a leader, that is. But besides being pushed to eat healthier and stop smoking cigarettes by his daughter Dorotea (a wonderful Anna Ferzetti), the idea of ending things isn’t entirely figurative as this austere jurist-turned-president wanders the halls of his official Roman residence, the grand Palazzo del Quirinale, wryly contemplating retirement.
He’s a widower, for one thing, whose love for his deceased wife is still deep enough to keep him jealous regarding her early infidelity with a mystery man he’s eager to identify, even as his old friend, art curator Coco (a vibrant Milvia Marigliano), stays tight-lipped about what she knows. He’s also being pushed by Dorotea, a treasured advisor who is herself a legal scholar, to consider two cases of clemency for convicted spousal killers, both with circumstances that would test any arbiter of sound legal judgment. And finally, though De Santis is a devoted Catholic, on good terms with the pope (Rufin Doh Zeyenouin), he’s grappling with signing right-to-euthanasia legislation.
You wouldn’t think a movie with such heavy topics would count as escapism. But when you consider current headlines, a thoughtful leader engaging with thorny issues from a place of psychological honesty, social integrity and fatherly love could almost count as fantasy. And Sorrentino, a dedicated sensualist, does allow himself some lighter touches, including, toward the end, a fanciful visual metaphor for a burdened man’s spirit that maybe only he could get away with.
Most assuredly, though, this is a duo of director and star once more moving in concert together, maybe not as confidently as with some previous efforts, but with a knowing intelligence. Servillo is no less than magnificent, conveying a buttoned-up statesman’s management of earned wisdom and inconvenient emotion (and, at one point, an interest in rap lyrics) with enough lessons in actorly craft to fill one of his character’s treasured law tomes. The title doesn’t just describe what’s sometimes elusive in governance. “La Grazia” is Servillo in every scene.
President Trump wants a very different kind of CNN if the cable news channel’s parent Warner Bros. Discovery changes hands.
As details emerge on the battle between Netflix and Paramount over control of the historic movie studio and its streaming and TV assets, Trump acknowledged he’s made it clear he wants new ownership and leadership at the network that has been the prime target in his attacks on the mainstream media over the last decade.
“I think the people that have run CNN for the last long period of time are a disgrace,” Trump told reporters Wednesday. “I don’t think they should be entrusted with running CNN any longer. So I think any deal should — it should be guaranteed and certain that CNN is part of it or sold separately.”
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed Trump’s sentiment Thursday from her lectern after a testy exchange with CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins. “Their ratings have declined, and I think the president rightfully believes that network would benefit from new ownership with respect to this deal,” Leavitt said.
Trump has said he will be “involved” in the government‘s regulatory review of a WBD deal. Injecting the president’s animus toward CNN — which goes back to his presidential campaign in 2016 — into the process has insiders at the network worried that journalistic independence will be sacrificed for the sake of a Warner Bros. Discovery deal.
CNN declined to comment.
A Wall Street Journal report said Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison has signaled to Trump administration officials he would make “sweeping changes” to CNN if his company took control. (A representative for Ellison declined comment.)
Ellison has said he would combine CNN’s newsgathering operations with Paramount’s CBS News, where conservative-friendly Bari Weiss has been installed as editor in chief. Such a move would follow the $16-million settlement Paramount reached with Trump earlier this year resolving a dispute over a “60 Minutes” interview featuring then-Vice President Kamala Harris.
But Trump said he wants to see a new CNN owner even if Netflix prevails. Netflix’s $72 billion offer does not include CNN or WBD’s other basic cable properties. Paramount has countered with a $78 billion offer.
What Trump desires is more favorable news coverage. But pandering to the White House could have a dubious outcome from a business standpoint for the next CNN owner.
The cable news landscape has evolved over the last decade as the country’s politics have become more polarized and tribal.
The trend helped the conservative-leaning Fox News and progressive MS NOW (formerly MSNBC), both of which have seen their audiences grow over that time even as the number of pay-TV homes has declined dramatically.
CNN has tried to stake out the middle ground, although its aggressive coverage of Trump’s first term created a perception it had moved left, especially as more commentary was added to its prime time programs.
CNN already saw the impact of attempting to bring more right-leaning voices to its program under Chris Licht, the executive brought in to run the network in 2022. He was under a mandate from Warner Bros. Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav, who publicly said the network needed to appeal more to conservative audiences.
The network experienced an immediate exodus of viewers, putting it in third place behind MS NOW. CNN was generating $1.2 billion in profit earlier in the decade. This year, the figure is expected to be in the range of $675 million.
Jon Klein, a digital entrepreneur and former CNN president, said it would be folly for his former network to blatantly court conservatives again.
“You’re not going to convince all those Fox News viewers that suddenly CNN is friendly to them and their way of life,” he said. “These are much older viewers who don’t change their habits so easily. There has been mistrust that has been fostered over many years.”
Klein noted that even upstart right-wing networks that provide unwavering support of Trump — Newsmax and OAN — haven’t made a dent in Fox News’ dominance. MS NOW would be the beneficiary of any rightward shift by CNN, he added.
“It would accelerate the ratings slide and they become completely irrelevant,” said another former CNN executive who did not want to comment publicly.
Fox News does more than provide largely sympathetic coverage and commentary for Trump. Rupert Murdoch’s network has worked at forging a deep connection with viewers, which has made it the ratings leader since 2002.
The lineup of highly paid Fox News personalities is reliably in sync with the audience’s values and the hot-button issues that keep them tuned in. Viewer loyalty has helped the network attract hundreds of new advertisers in recent years, with some integrating patriotic messages into their marketing efforts.
“Fox is an incredibly well-oiled machine,” Klein said.
Klein said CNN and other legacy news organizations are better off focusing on developing an effective digital strategy to insure their future as traditional TV viewing declines, instead of chasing ideological balance.
Attempting to satisfy Trump’s desire for more positive coverage is a slippery slope. While Paramount appointed an ombudsman to CBS News and brought in Weiss — moves aimed at clearing the regulatory path for its merger with Skydance Media — Trump is still lashing out at coverage he doesn’t like.
After a “60 Minutes” interview with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) aired Dec. 7, in which she was highly critical of Trump, the president said the program is “worse” under new ownership.
The only significant move to attract conservative viewers under Weiss is her prime time interview with the widow of slain right-wing activist Charlie Kirk that airs Saturday.
“I think the prevailing wisdom over there is this notion that at least if they stay out of the clutches of Paramount, some rich philanthropist will buy them and they’ll be fine,” said the former CNN executive.
But if Netflix gets WBD without CNN, there is no guarantee it would not end up with a Trump-friendly owner if the network were spun off separately. The rank and file may wish for Laurene Powell Jobs, chair of the Atlantic, but could end up with a deep-pocketed right winger.
CNN Chairman Mark Thompson’s message to the troops is keep calm and carry on. “I know this strategic review has been a period of inevitable uncertainty across CNN and indeed the whole of WBD,” Thompson told staff in a recent memo. “Of course, I can’t promise you that the media attention and noise around the sale of our parent will die down overnight. But I do think the path to the successful transformation of this great news enterprise remains open.”
Trump’s anger toward CNN has become more personal as time has gone on. He has insulted reporters during press briefings and reportedly has told people he wants to see the firing of anchors Erin Burnett and Brianna Keilar.
Oddly enough, it was Burnett’s journalism that provided Trump with video for his most effective commercial of his 2024 campaign.
Burnett conducted the 2020 interview with Kamala Harris where the former vice president expressed her support for providing medical care to prisoners undergoing gender-affirming care. A clip of the segment was used in the commercial that said “Kamala’s for they/them, President Trump is for you.”
WASHINGTON — Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) set off a bipartisan tempest Tuesday by warning that President Clinton had “better watch out” for his safety if he travels to military bases in North Carolina, prompting the White House to suggest that Helms be denied chairmanship of a key Senate committee.
After GOP leaders delicately distanced themselves from Helms’ provocative remarks and Democrats loudly demanded an apology, the fiercely combative lawmaker, who is in line to chair the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, conceded that his comments had been “a mistake.”
But he stopped well short of a genuine apology. “Of course, I didn’t expect to be taken literally,” he said in a prepared statement.
In an interview published Tuesday morning in the Raleigh (N.C.) News & Observer, the 73-year-old conservative asserted that Clinton is extremely unpopular among armed forces personnel stationed at the six military bases in his home state.
“Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here,” the newspaper quoted Helms as saying. “He’d better have a bodyguard.”
The President, asked about Helms’ remarks during a White House news conference, called them “unwise and inappropriate.” While asserting his authority in matters of foreign affairs, he said that it is up to Republicans to decide who will speak for them.
“The President oversees the foreign policy of the United States and the Republicans will decide in whom they will repose their trust and confidence,” Clinton said.
It was a vintage performance for Helms, a conservative ideologue who has built a career based on pugnacious rhetoric and flamboyant attacks. But his critique of Clinton prompted soul-searching among some Republicans who fear that Helms, by his intemperate remarks, will bolster Democratic charges that the GOP is a party of extremists.
“Jesse,” said a former senior official in the George Bush Administration, “has been for most Republicans an embarrassment.”
Helms’ comments were published on the 31st anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, adding to the embarrassment of Republican lawmakers. Most declined to comment directly, noting only that each of the Senate’s 100 members speaks only for him or herself.
No such restraint was observed by Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who is locked in a race to lead the Senate’s new minority Democrats. He called on Helms to issue a formal apology to the President and to members of the armed forces, whose loyalty and patriotism, Dodd said, were called into question by Helms.
“To suggest on this day of all days . . . that an American President’s life might be in jeopardy (if he) were to visit an American military base, would suggest that my colleague from North Carolina doesn’t seem to know what country he’s living in,” Dodd said. “This is not a banana republic.”
It is not the first time that Helms has provoked a political furor. He once accused former Secretary of State George P. Shultz of “playing footsie with the Communists” by opposing apartheid in South Africa. In a floor debate over funding for AIDS research, he bluntly characterized homosexuals as “perverted.”
Helms often storms onto the Senate floor to rail against abortions and erotic art and regularly angers both Democratic and Republican colleagues by threatening to waylay measures that he dislikes by engaging in a one-man filibuster.
“This senator,” he once told fellow lawmakers, “did not come to Washington to gain popularity with his colleagues.”
His latest remarks came just four days after a television interview in which Helms questioned Clinton’s fitness to serve as commander in chief of the armed forces. Those comments drew muted criticism from Republicans and a vigorous denial from Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
On Tuesday, the Secret Service, which is responsible for the President’s safety, confirmed that it is seeking a transcript of Helms’ interview with the News and Observer. But officials were quick to caution that they do not view Helms’ remarks as an effort to incite violence against the President.
Military officials in North Carolina, where Clinton visited in April, took pains to disassociate themselves from Helms’ comments.
“The President is the commander in chief. He is welcome on any base in the military that he chooses to visit,” said Capt. Bruce Sprecher, public affairs officer at Seymour-Johnson Air Force Base.
Responding to Helms’ newspaper interview, the White House publicly questioned his suitability for the Foreign Relations chairmanship. White House Chief of Staff Leon E. Panetta urged Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), who is expected to be majority leader in the new Congress, to ignore tradition and pass over Helms in choosing the next chairman.
“I think those comments are not only reckless but they are dangerous and irresponsible,” Panetta told a small group of reporters. “And I think they raise a very serious question as to whether (Helms) ought to assume the chairmanship of that committee. I think the Republican leadership needs to take a very hard look as to whether or not they want somebody with these kind of extreme views to chair one of the most important committees in the Congress of the United States.”
Panetta said that Helms’ remarks and Republican leaders’ response to them “will tell us an awful lot what kind of course we’re going to take in the next Congress.”
The reaction of Republican leaders generally fell short of the repudiation that Democrats are seeking. Neither Dole nor incoming House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), asked about the flap at a Republican Governors Assn. session in Williamsburg, Va., would criticize Helms directly. “The President’s welcome to come to any state,” said Dole. “That’s the way it should be, that’s the way it is, that’s the way it will be.”
Gingrich said that Republicans would welcome any Clinton visit as an opportunity to engage in debate over the nation’s future.
“I would hope that (Clinton) would feel that all Americans want to respect and honor the President and that they want to welcome their President in their neighborhood and their community any time he wishes to come and visit,” he said.
Some Republicans were more blunt in their criticism of Helms.
“I wish he hadn’t said it,” said Republican political consultant Lyn Nofziger. “If it did anything, it creates a little sympathy with the prez, and I’m not in favor of that. . . . It gives people something to shoot at. And it distracts a little. But is it a permanent damage? No.”
While some Republicans stewed, Senate insiders suggested that Helms’ legislative career likely would suffer little.
“There will be no effort to muzzle anyone,” said one key Republican aide. “That’s the way this body operates. These folks are very independent people. It would be very inappropriate for someone to try to quiet Sen. Helms. And there’s a great deal of deference to committee chairmen and seniority.”
Times staff writers John M. Broder and Ronald Brownstein contributed to this story.
Tracking a Controversy
President Clinton, during a press conference Tuesday afternoon, called remarks made by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) “inappropriate and unwise.”
* Asked if Clinton was up to the commander in chief’s job: “No I do not. And neither do people in the armed forces.”
–CNN interview last week
* On the president visiting North Carolina: “Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He’d better have a bodyguard.”
–interview with the News & Observer of Raleigh, N.C. on Monday
* On his earlier remarks: “I made a mistake last evening which I shall not repeat.
–statement issued Tuesday
The Helms File
Past remarks by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), the incoming Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman:
Nov. 4, 1993: “It was well-known that (Haitian President Jean-Bertrand) Aristide is a murderer. Yet somebody decided to return him to power, if necessary, at the risk of American lives. Who is making these decisions?”
–to Secretary of State Warren Christopher at a hearing of the Foreign Relations Committee
Aug. 5, 1993: “I’m going to make her cry. I’m going to sing ‘Dixie’ to her until she cries.”
–Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun, D-Ill., quoted Helms as saying to her a month after they had debated on the Senate floor over use of the Confederate flag
May 7, 1993: “She’s not your garden-variety lesbian. She’s a militant-activist-mean lesbian, working her whole career to advance the homosexual agenda.”
–on the nomination of a gay rights activist to a Department of Housing and Urban Development post
Oct. 30, 1990: “People can do what they want in the privacy of their own homes, but when they start marching in the street and say that homosexuality should be given special privileges and be treated as a normal lifestyle, you bet I say no.”
–during a campaign stop for his 1990 Senate campaign
Oct. 24, 1990: “What is really at stake is whether or not America will allow the cultural high ground in this nation to sink slowly into an abyss of slime to placate people who clearly seek or are willing to destroy the Judaic-Christian foundations of this republic.”
–talking about National Endowment for the Arts funding to certain artists
Source: Associated Press
Helms Takes It Back
This is a statement by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) on Tuesday regarding his remarks about President Clinton:
I made a mistake last evening which I shall not repeat.
In an informal telephone interview with a local reporter I made an offhand remark in an attempt to emphasize how strongly the American people feel about the nation’s declining defense capability and other issues in which the President has been involved and for which he is responsible.
Of course I didn’t expect to be taken literally when, to emphasize the cost and concerns I am hearing, I far too casually suggested that the President might need a bodyguard, or words to that effect.
And let me say that President Clinton will of course be welcomed by me and other citizens of North Carolina and other states any time he chooses to visit us.
The reporter asked my opinion and I tried to be candid in my response. The President has serious problems with his records of draft avoidance, with his stand on homosexuals in the military and the declining defense capability of America’s armed forces–the secretary of defense recently acknowledged that three U.S. Army divisions are not now combat ready.
I reiterate that I now wish that I had engaged in a terse interview with the reporter. I did not. As is my custom, we had an informal conversation from which he extracted an informal quote that should not have been taken literally, let alone published.
I do not fault him. I fault myself. From now on, such contacts as I may have with the media will be entirely formal.
Dili, East Timor – On the 50th anniversary of Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor, longtime independence advocate and now the country’s President Jose Ramos-Horta reflected on the last half-century of politics and diplomacy in his country.
Ramos-Horta was serving as the foreign minister of the newly declared Democratic Republic of East Timor in the days leading up to Indonesia’s invasion in December 1975.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Formed by the independence party Fretilin after colonial Portugal’s withdrawal from the country, the new government in East Timor’s capital Dili was under pressure from Indonesia and its threat of invasion.
As the danger intensified, Ramos-Horta flew to the United Nations in New York to plead for international recognition and protection for East Timor’s fragile independence. Despite unanimous support at the UN for Timorese self-determination, Indonesian troops launched their invasion on December 7, 1975.
Ramos-Horta’s colleagues, including Prime Minister Nicolau Lobato and other Fretilin leaders, either went into hiding or were killed in the ensuing attack. Unable to return home, Ramos-Horta became East Timor’s voice in exile for the next 24 years.
During his exile, Ramos-Horta lobbied governments, human rights organisations, and the UN to condemn Indonesia’s occupation, which resulted in the deaths of an estimated 200,000 Timorese through conflict, famine, and repression.
Silenced by a military-imposed media blackout for much of the 1980s, it was only in the 1990s that reports of Indonesian atrocities – including the 1991 Santa Cruz massacre – began to filter out and East Timor’s struggle for independence gained international attention.
Ramos-Horta’s tireless advocacy earned him a Nobel Peace Prize, along with Bishop Carlos Belo, in 1996.
A UN-sponsored referendum delivered an overwhelming vote for independence in 1999, leading to a fully independent East Timor in 2002. However, the country continues to face economic challenges and remains one of Southeast Asia’s poorest nations.
In the years overseeing his country’s transition from conflict to reconciliation, Ramos-Horta has held the roles of foreign minister, prime minister and now president.
Al Jazeera’s Ali MC sat down with Ramos-Horta on a recent trip to East Timor, where the president spoke about his country’s long road to peace and hopes for it to prosper from membership of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), increased trade with China, and development of the offshore Greater Sunrise gas field.
Al Jazeera: Reflecting on your role as an ambassador for East Timor after Indonesia’s 1975 invasion, what were some of the key challenges that you faced while advocating for your country on the international stage?
Ramos-Horta: First, we were in the midst of the Cold War with that catastrophic US engagement in the wars against North Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
Then, you can say – the US defeat, if not military defeat, it was a total political defeat at the hands of the Vietnamese. So, it was in the midst of all of this that Indonesia invaded Timor-Leste [the official Portuguese-language name for East Timor], on December 7, 1975. The day before, US President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Kissinger were in Jakarta, and they officially gave the green light to President Soeharto to invade – immorally – with the use of American weapons.
So, it was within this context that it was very challenging for us to mobilise sympathy, support and the media. The invasion merited only one small, short column in The New York Times.
In Australia, there was more coverage. But the coverage didn’t last long, because Indonesia did a very good job, with Australian complicity, in blocking any news out of East Timor. At that time, not a single journalist came – the first foreign journalist to come here was in 1987.
The absence of [proof of] death is the worst enemy of any struggle. There were terrible massacres on the day of the invasion, hundreds of people shot and dumped into the sea, including an Australian, Roger East [a journalist killed by Indonesian forces on the day of the invasion].
Many, many countless people shot on the spot. Many were alive and dragged to the port of Dili, shot and fell into the sea. Many more killed randomly around town. And zero media coverage, not a single camera.
East Timorese President Jose Ramos-Horta addresses the 78th Session of the UN General Assembly in New York City, US, in 2023 [File: Brendan McDermid/Reuters]
AJ: How did that lack of media coverage make it difficult for you, as an ambassador overseas, to describe to the international community exactly what was happening in East Timor?
Ramos-Horta: Terribly difficult.
To mobilise people who are potentially sympathetic, you can do so effectively if you have a backup for what you say, what you allege, what you report. This must be backed up with visuals.
But people were sympathetic and listened to me. I was persuasive enough for them to believe what might be going on.
AJ: Given your own personal experience in the struggle for independence in East Timor, does that influence the way that you advocate? Does that bring a more personal response to your diplomacy?
Ramos-Horta: My personal instinct as a person is not shaped by anyone, by any school, any religion. It is me, always, against injustice and abuse.
Then came our experience and the fight for independence. When we fought for independence and for freedom, I went around the world begging for support, begging for sympathy. Then, we became independent.
Well, how can I not show sympathy in a real way towards the Palestinians? Why would I not show sympathy in a real way towards the people of Myanmar? Just showing sympathy, because we cannot do much more.
What can we do? We are not even a mid-sized country. But speaking out – a voice – is very important.
AJ: What are your reflections on what has occurred in Gaza?
Ramos-Horta: It is one of the most abominable humanitarian catastrophes in modern times, in the 21st century, next to the killing fields in Cambodia during Pol Pot’s regime.
The amount of bombs dropped on Gaza is more than the combined amount of the bombs dropped on London and Dresden during World War II, and more than the bombs dropped on Cambodia by the Americans during the Vietnam War.
The suffering inflicted on civilians, women and children is just unbelievable.
How we, human beings in this 21st century, can descend so low and how Israel, a country that I always admired, first out of sympathy for what Jewish people went through, through their lives, through their history – always persecuted, always having to flee, and then culminating in the horrendous Holocaust. When you survive a Holocaust experience, like the Jews, I would think that you are a person that is the most sympathetic to anyone yearning for freedom, for peace, for dignity. Because you understand.
They [Israelis] are doing the opposite.
And you have to understand, also, the people who are on the other side. You know the Palestinians, who had 70 years of occupation and brutality, they are not going to show any sympathy to the Jews or Israelis. So, this whole situation has generated hatred and polarisation as never before.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, right, meets East Timor’s President Jose Ramos Horta in the occupied West Bank city of Ramallah in 2011 [File: Mohamad Torokman/Reuters]
AJ: What can the international community learn from the experience of East Timor and people such as yourself?
Ramos-Horta: I am thoroughly disillusioned with the so-called international community, particularly the West, that enjoy entertaining themselves lecturing Third World countries on democracy, human rights, transparency, anticorruption, etc, etc.
They could never find the case to help poorer countries getting out of extreme poverty. But they found billions of dollars for the last three years to pump into the war in Ukraine.
I don’t condemn that. It is white people supporting white people being attacked. But then they are silent on Israel as it bulldozes the whole of Palestine; carpet bombing, killing tens of thousands of civilians.
And yet, with incredible, nauseating hypocrisy, when they are asked to comment on this, they say Israel has the right to defend itself!
Defend itself against children, against women, against students, against academics, against universities, that they bulldoze completely. Defend themselves against doctors and nurses in hospitals that they bulldoze.
And in an incredible contortion, you have the secretary-general of NATO say Iran presents a threat to the whole world. I know the whole world, literally, and I don’t know of anyone in the whole world that I know that considers Iran a threat to them.
I feel nauseated with such dishonesty, such inhumanity. So, I’m thoroughly disappointed. And I was always an admirer of the West.
AJ: Reflecting on many decades in politics in East Timor, is there anything that stands out to you as a personal success or something that you feel most proud about?
Ramos-Horta: I feel proud that we have been able to keep the country at peace. We have zero political violence. We have zero ethnic-based or religious-based tensions or violence. We don’t have even organised crime. We have never had a bank robbery or armed robbery in someone’s home. We don’t have that. And we are ranked among having the freest media in the world and the freest democracy in the world. I’m proud of my contribution in that.
A Pride Parade from East Timor’s capital, Dili, to the famed Cristo Rei statue of Christ, which was built by the Indonesians during the occupation. While East Timor has a large Catholic population, LGBT rights have become more accepted, with even President Ramos-Horta expressing support [Ali MC/Al Jazeera]
AJ: East Timor is set to join the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). What will be the benefits of being a part of that?
Ramos-Horta: We’ll be part of a community of 700 million people, a community whose combined GDP is at least $4 trillion.
And that means the possibility of Timor-Leste benefitting from our neighbours is greater. There will be more free movement of capital. There’ll be more people attracted to visit Timor-Leste and more embassies opening.
These are the benefits of being associated with an organisation like ASEAN. There are concrete, material benefits besides the importance of the strategic alliance, the strategic partnership, with our neighbours.
AJ: China is really emerging in the Southeast Asia and Pacific regions. Are there any tensions over East Timor’s relationship with China?
Ramos-Horta: We don’t view China as an enemy of anyone, unlike some in America.
The US is not able to digest the fact that China today is a global superpower, that China today is a major global financial and economic power. That it is no longer the US that rules this unipolar world, that it has a competitor.
But the Chinese are very modest, and they say they are not competing to be number one with the US.
Any rational, intelligent person who is informed about China – even if a leader emerged in China that would view Australia and the US with hostility – would, in his right mind, think that you can overpower the US economically and militarily.
AJ: What is the projected benefit economically for East Timor from the Greater Sunrise Gas Field?
Ramos-Horta: The existing studies point to it taking seven years for the whole project to be completed and deliver gas and revenue to Timor-Leste.
But long before that, the day we sign the agreement, within the following few months, two years, a lot of investments already start to happen. Because we have to build all the infrastructure on the south coast that will run into the tens of millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars.
The pipeline will take its time to reach Timor, but the pipeline will be served by all the infrastructure built on the south coast, plus housing. Hundreds, maybe thousands of houses for workers, for people and so on. Then improvement in the agriculture sector. Farmers in the community benefitting because they will sell produce to the company, to the workers and so on.
Despite more than two decades of independence, East Timor remains one of the poorest countries in the region [Ali MC/Al Jazeera]
Gov. Gavin Newsom said Thursday that he is nervous about the public response to his forthcoming autobiography’s candid details about his life and those around him.
“Just being honest — it comes with a cost,” said Newsom, who made the rounds at a Democratic National Committee meeting in Los Angeles on Thursday.
Newsom, who already acknowledged that he is considering a 2028 bid for president, said he didn’t hold back in the book. His co-writer, former Los Angeles Times reporter Mark Arax, told the governor that he wouldn’t be a part of the project unless Newsom was forthcoming.
“And then you read stuff and [wonder] ‘Oh, how’s this going to read?’” said Newsom, who expects that conservative commentators will attack him over some passages.
“This is not a politician’s book, it’s not a book that you would expect me” to write, he said.
“It’s all out there.”
Many of the turbulent and personally traumatic chapters of the California politician’s life are already well-documented. In 2007, Newsom, then mayor of San Francisco, acknowledged that he had an affair with the wife of a longtime aide.
Newsom’s mother, Tessie Newsom, ended her life in 2002 at age 55 through assisted suicide after a long fight with breast cancer.
The governor has also talked about growing up watching his mother struggle to make ends meet, and how oil executive Gordon Getty and his wife, Ann, gave him experiences his parents could not afford, including an African safari when he was a teen.
It’s the third book for Newsom and comes at a pivotal time. Not only is the California governor considering a White House run, he’s become a persistent foil to President Trump and vocal critic to his controversial policies, including the administration’s immigration raids in Los Angeles and failure to provide adequate federal assistance to California wildfire victims.
A promotional book tour would offer a chance to meet with voters in swing states and to appear on a range of media platforms. A memoir specifically allows the governor to reintroduce himself on his own terms at a moment when national interest in his political future is growing.
Newsom’s visit to the DNC meeting was one of his few public events since news broke that his former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, was arrested on federal corruption charges.
Williamson’s attorney McGregor Scott, a former U.S. attorney in Sacramento, told The Times in November that federal authorities had approached Williamson more than a year ago seeking help with some kind of investigation of the governor. Newsom has not been accused of wrongdoing.
Some aspects of the case described in the Williamson indictment match that of a controversial sex discrimination investigation that the state of California led into one of the world’s largest video game companies, Santa-Monica based Activision Blizzard Inc.
Newsom told The Times on Thursday that he doesn’t know whether the U.S. Department of Justice is looking into the state’s handling of the Activision case.
“I don’t know any details about it, but I’m aware of the subject matter, absolutely,” Newsom said.
In 2021, the state sued Activision, accusing it of discriminating against women and ignoring reports of egregious sexual harassment. One of the lawyers overseeing the case for the state was fired by the Newsom administration. Her chief deputy resigned and alleged that she was doing so to protest alleged interference from Newsom’s office in the investigation, a claim that the governor’s office denied.
Newsom’s visit to the Democratic National Committee meeting on Thursday was somewhat of a victory lap for the governor after passage of Proposition 50, the ballot measure that redrew California’s congressional maps to favor Democratic candidates in next year’s midterm elections.
The governor proposed the measure after President Trump asked Texas to redraw its congressional maps in an effort to keep Republican control of Congress.
Walking through the hallways of the InterContinental hotel, Newsom stopped every few yards for conversations with committee members at Thursday’s conference or to pose for photos. He also huddled with a group from Missouri, where Democrats are seeking to overturn new districts created by Republicans.
The governor told reporters that he would help fundraise for the Missouri Democrats’ ballot measure.
His forthcoming book, which will be published in February, is intensely personal, he said in a promotional video released this week. Many people see only his “stark white shirt, blue suit and, yeah, the gelled hair, and they think ‘Oh, I know this guy,’” he said in the video.
“This is a story about a kid who always felt like he wasn’t quite enough,” Newsom said in the video. “This is a truly vulnerable book, it was incredibly hard, even painful, to write.”
Newsom’s first book, “Citizenville, How to Take the Town Square Digital and Reinvent Government,” came out in 2013 after he’d been elected lieutenant governor. He released a children’s book, “Ben and Emma’s Big Hit” in 2021 about a young boy’s love of baseball and attempts to overcome his struggles with dyslexia. The story was inspired by Newsom’s own history with dyslexia.
Last week, Newsom traveled to Capitol Hill to meet with lawmakers and renew calls for billions in federal recovery aid after the Los Angeles fires.
On Thursday, Newsom announced he will deliver his final State of the State address Jan. 8 as he begins his final year as governor. Newsom has delivered his remarks in writing the last five years, breaking with the decades-old tradition of an annual in-person address to lawmakers in the state Capitol. His most recent written State of the State came unusually late, in September.
“Over the past seven years, we have tackled some of the state’s most significant problems and improved countless lives in this miraculous state, blessed and challenged by Mother Nature and enriched by ingenuity and hard work,” Newsom wrote to legislative leaders Thursday in calling for his address to be delivered in person during a joint session of the Legislature.
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A grand jury declined for a second time in a week to re-indict New York Attorney General Letitia James on Thursday in another major blow to the Justice Department’s efforts to prosecute the president’s political opponents.
The repeated failures amounted to a stunning rebuke of prosecutors’ bid to resurrect a criminal case President Trump pressured them to bring, and hinted at a growing public leeriness of the administration’s retribution campaign.
A grand jury rejection is an unusual circumstance in any case, but is especially stinging for a Justice Department that has been steadfast in its determination to seek revenge against Trump foes such as James and former FBI Director James Comey. On separate occasions, citizens have heard the government’s evidence against James and have come away underwhelmed, unwilling to rubber-stamp what prosecutors have attempted to portray as a clear-cut criminal case.
A judge threw out the original indictments against James and Comey in November, ruling that the prosecutor who presented to the grand jury, Lindsey Halligan, was illegally appointed U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The Justice Department asked a grand jury in Alexandria, Va., to return an indictment Thursday after a different grand jury in Norfolk last week refused to do so. The failure to secure an indictment was confirmed by a person who was not authorized to publicly discuss the matter and spoke on the condition of anonymity.
It was not immediately clear Thursday whether prosecutors would try for a third time to seek a new indictment. A lawyer for James, who has denied any wrongdoing, said the “unprecedented rejection makes even clearer that this case should never have seen the light of day.”
“This case already has been a stain on this Department’s reputation and raises troubling questions about its integrity,” defense attorney Abbe Lowell said in a statement. “Any further attempt to revive these discredited charges would be a mockery of our system of justice.”
James, a Democrat who infuriated Trump after his first term with a lawsuit alleging that he built his business empire on lies about his wealth, was initially charged with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution in connection with a home purchase in 2020.
During the sale, she signed a standard document called a “second home rider” in which she agreed to keep the property primarily for her “personal use and enjoyment for at least one year,” unless the lender agreed otherwise. Rather than using the home as a second residence, prosecutors say James rented it out to a family of three, allowing her to obtain favorable loan terms not available for investment properties.
Both the James and Comey cases were brought shortly after the administration installed Halligan, a former Trump lawyer with no previous prosecutorial experience, as U.S. attorney amid public calls from the president to take action against his political opponents.
But U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie threw out the cases last month over the unconventional mechanism that the Trump administration employed to appoint Halligan. The judge dismissed them without prejudice, allowing the Justice Department to try to file the charges again.
Halligan had been named as a replacement for Erik Siebert, a veteran prosecutor in the office and interim U.S. attorney who resigned in September amid Trump administration pressure to file charges against both Comey and James. He stepped aside after Trump told reporters he wanted Siebert “out.”
James’ lawyers separately argued the case was a vindictive prosecution brought to punish the Trump critic who spent years investigating and suing the Republican president and won a staggering judgment in a lawsuit alleging he defrauded banks by overstating the value of his real estate holdings on financial statements. The fine was later tossed out by a higher court, but both sides are appealing.
Comey was separately charged with lying to Congress in 2020. Another federal judge has complicated the Justice Department’s efforts to seek a new indictment against Comey, temporarily barring prosecutors from accessing computer files belonging to Daniel Richman, a close Comey friend and Columbia University law professor whom prosecutors see as a central player in any potential case against the former FBI director.
Prosecutors moved Tuesday to quash that order, calling Richman’s request for the return of his files a “strategic tool to obstruct the investigation and potential prosecution.” They said the judge had overstepped her bounds by ordering Richman’s property returned to him and said the ruling had impeded their ability to proceed with a case against Comey.
Richer and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press. Richer reported from Washington. AP reporter Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.
Just as a president is entitled to pardon anyone convicted or accused of a crime, he is free to dismiss any petitions for clemency without offering an explanation. Indeed, he can choose never to issue any pardons or commutations of sentences at all. Still, it’s disappointing that President Obama so far hasn’t approved even one request for a pardon or other form of clemency.
It’s not that there is a shortage of claimants. Earlier this month, Obama formally denied 605 petitions for commutation of sentences and 71 pardon requests. It’s hard to believe that none of those was deserving of approval.
In the public mind, the president’s authority to grant clemency tends to be associated with high-profile and politically motivated grants of clemency, such as President Gerald R. Ford’s pardon of Richard M. Nixon for Watergate crimes, President Clinton’s scandalous pardon of the fugitive financier Marc Rich or President George W. Bush’s commutation of the sentence of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice.
But presidents also have used the pardon authority to right wrongs and reward rehabilitation in much less prominent cases. They are aided in such decisions by the Office of the Pardon Attorney in the Justice Department, which scrutinizes claims for clemency and passes them along to the White House with recommendations. There are strict standards for clemency petitions submitted through the pardon attorney. For example, no petition for a pardon may be submitted until five years after a prisoner is released or, if no prison sentence was imposed, five years after conviction. Petitions for a commutation of a sentence are usually entertained only when no other form of relief is available.
Ideally, presidents would give great deference to the pardon attorney’s recommendations and take a liberal view of the clemency power, exercising it often and on the basis of clear standards. Their reluctance to do so likely reflects not the merits or demerits of particular petitions but the political liability of appearing soft on crime. That reality has led some advocates of more pardons to hope that Obama is waiting to announce grants of clemency until after next week’s election. If so, we hope his first exercise of his clemency power won’t be his last.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservatives sounded ready on Monday to overrule Congress and give President Trump more power to fire officials at independent agencies and commissions.
The justices heard arguments on whether Trump could fire Rebecca Slaughter, one of two Democratic appointees on the five-member Federal Trade Commission.
The case poses a clash between Congress’ power to structure the government versus the president’s “executive power.”
A ruling for Trump portends a historic shift in the federal government — away from bipartisan experts and toward more partisan control by the president.
Trump’s Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the court should overturn a 1935 decision that upheld independent agencies. The decision “was grievously wrong when decided. It must be overruled,” he told the court.
The court’s three liberals strongly argued against what they called a “radical change” in American government.
If the president is free to fire the leaders of independent agencies, they said, the longstanding civil service laws could be struck down as well.
It would put “massive, uncontrolled and unchecked power in the hands of the president,” Justice Elena Kagan said.
But the six conservatives said they were concerned that these agencies were exercising “executive power” that is reserved to the president.
It was not clear, however, whether the court will rule broadly to cover all independent agencies or focus narrowly on the FTC and other similar commissions.
For most of American history, Congress has created independent boards and commissions to carry out specific missions, each led by a board of experts who were appointed with a fixed term.
But the court’s current conservative majority has contended these commissions and boards are unconstitutional if their officials cannot be fired at will by a new president.
In creating such bodies, Congress often was responding to the problems of a new era.
The Interstate Commerce Commission was created in 1887 to regulate railroad rates. The FTC, the focus of the court case, was created in 1914 to investigate corporate monopolies. The year before, the Federal Reserve Board was established to supervise banks, prevent panics and regulate the money supply.
During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate the stock market and the National Labor Relations Board to resolve labor disputes.
Decades later, Congress focused on safety. The National Transportation Safety Board was created to investigate aviation accidents, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission investigates products that may pose a danger. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission protects the public from nuclear hazards.
Typically, Congress gave the appointees, a mix of Republicans and Democrats, a fixed term and said they could be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”
Slaughter was first appointed by Trump to a Democratic seat and was reappointed by President Biden in 2023 for a seven-year term.
But conservatives often long derided these agencies and commissions as an out-of-control “administrative state,” and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said he believes their independence from direct presidential control is unconstitutional.
“The President’s power to remove — and thus supervise — those who wield executive power on his behalf follows from the text” of the Constitution, he wrote last year in his opinion, which declared for the first time that a president has immunity from being prosecuted later for crimes while in office.
Roberts spoke for a 6-3 majority in setting out an extremely broad view of presidential power while limiting the authority of Congress.
The Constitution in Article I says Congress “shall have the power…to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution…all other powers vested” in the U.S. government. Article II says, “the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.”
The current court majority believes that the president’s executive power prevails over the power of Congress to set limits by law.
“Congress lacks authority to control the President’s ‘unrestricted power of removal’ with respect to executive officers of the United States,” Roberts wrote last year in Trump vs. United States.
Four months later, Trump won reelection and moved quickly to fire a series of Democratic appointees who had fixed terms set by Congress. Slaughter, along with several other fired appointees, sued, citing the law and her fixed term. They won before federal district judges and the U.S. Court of Appeals.
But Trump’s lawyers filed emergency appeals at the Supreme Court, and the justices, by 6-3 votes, sided with the president and against the fired officials.
In September, the court said it would hear arguments in the case of Trump vs. Slaughter to decide on whether to overturn the Humphrey’s Executor decision.
At the time, conservatives applauded the move. “For far too long, Humphrey’s Executor has allowed unaccountable agencies like the FTC to wield executive power without meaningful oversight,” said Cory Andrews, general counsel for the Washington Legal Foundation.
In defense of the 1935 decision, law professors noted the court said that these independent boards were not purely executive agencies, but also had legislative and judicial duties, like adopting regulations or resolving labor disputes.
During Monday’s argument, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the principle of “democratic accountability” called for deferring to Congress, not the president.
“Congress decided that some matters should be handled by nonpartisan experts. They said expertise matters with respect to the economy and transportation. So having the president come in and fire all the scientists and the doctors and the economists and the PhDs and replacing them with loyalists is actually is not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States,” she said.
But that argument gained no traction with Roberts and the conservatives. They said the president is elected and has the executive authority to control federal agencies.
The only apparent doubt involved the Federal Reserve Board, whose independence is prized by business. The Chamber of Commerce said the court should overrule the 1935 decision, but carve out an exception for the Federal Reserve.
Trump’s lawyer grudgingly agreed. If “an exception to the removal power exists,” he wrote in his brief in the Slaughter case, it should be “an agency-specific anomaly” limited to the Federal Reserve.
![While East Timor has one of the highest Catholic populations worldwide, LGBT rights have become more accepted, with even President Ramos - Horta a supporter. 2. Pride Parade from East Timor ’ s capital, Dili, to the famed Cristo Rei statue of Christ, built by the Indonesians during the occupation [Ali MC/Al Jazeera]](https://i0.wp.com/www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/East-Timor-Additional-2-2-1765528720.jpg?w=640&ssl=1)
![Despite more than two decades of independence, Timor - Leste remains one of the poorest countries in the region (Ali MC/Al Jazeera]](https://i0.wp.com/www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Ramos-Horta-Article-6-1764315950.jpg?w=640&ssl=1)
