president

WASHINGTON — President Trump spent much of last week railing against the courts. The courts, in turn, spent it ruling against him.

While Trump made history as the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court, where he stared down justices as they questioned his bid to end birthright citizenship, quieter courtrooms across the country were challenging his agenda.

The challenges came in on immigration, on his White House ballroom project, on his own liability in the run-up to Jan. 6.

“Dumb Judges and Justices will not a great Country make!” he wrote on Truth Social on Monday.

By Friday, judges had served him loss after loss, each finding the administration had taken executive authority too far, too fast.

Immigration rulings

On immigration, the keystone of Trump’s policy platform, he faced a number of setbacks.

On Monday, a federal judge in California took a step that would allow a class-action lawsuit against the administration’s handling of certain asylum claims. The case concerns thousands of asylum seekers who had made appointments with immigration officials by using a Biden administration phone app called CBP One.

In many cases, migrants from around the world had waited months in Mexico for their turn to speak with border agents after securing appointments through the app.

Those appointments were suddenly canceled after Trump took office. The judge certified those asylum seekers as a class that can challenge the administration’s action in court.

In a similar case, a federal judge in Boston ruled Tuesday that the administration had unlawfully terminated the temporary legal status of as many as 900,000 immigrants who entered the country after using the phone app. Tens of thousands of those told by the administration to leave the U.S. “immediately” have since left or been deported.

The judge ordered the administration to reinstate the legal status and work authorization of those remaining.

“Today’s ruling is a clear rejection of an administration that has tried to erase lawful status for hundreds of thousands of people with the click of a button,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, a legal organization that represented the migrants.

Sanctuary laws

Also Tuesday, a federal judge threw out a Justice Department lawsuit that accused Denver and Colorado of interfering with immigration enforcement and claimed that the city and state’s “sanctuary” laws violated the Constitution.

The ruling found that the federal government had not shown it could override state and local decisions about how to use their own resources. The Constitution, the judge said, does not let Washington commandeer local governments.

“Colorado gets to make a choice: How will our law enforcement operate in Colorado. The federal government, they don’t get to make that choice for us,” Colorado Atty. Gen. Phil Weiser said.

Birthright citizenship

The next day, the Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical of Trump’s claim that birthright citizenship doesn’t apply to babies born in the U.S. to parents who are here unlawfully or temporarily.

Conservative and liberal judges alike questioned the arguments of Solicitor Gen. John Sauer, who represented the administration, saying he relied on “some pretty obscure sources,” including precedents that dated back to Roman law.

Trump, sitting feet from the proceedings, left the Supreme Court building halfway through.

“We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” he wrote shortly after departing.

Austin Kocher, a Syracuse University professor who studies immigration enforcement, wrote on Substack after the Supreme Court hearing that, on immigration policy, there is always a gap between what an administration says it will do and what the government can actually deliver. That gap, he argued, is particularly evident in the second Trump administration.

“The White House has built its political identity around the promise of mass deportation, and the rhetoric has been relentless: record arrests, expanded detention, military flights, the spectacle of enforcement as governance,” Kocher wrote.

“But over the past several days,” he added, “developments from multiple fronts suggests that the operational foundations of the mass deportation campaign are more fragile than the administration would like anyone to believe.”

Defying judicial orders

In some cases, the Trump administration has been undeterred by judicial orders to stop certain practices. In a March ruling unsealed Thursday, a federal judge found that Border Patrol agents had continued making illegal arrests in California’s Central Valley without reasonable suspicion.

The government’s explanations for the arrests, wrote Judge Jennifer Thurston in Fresno, “rely on unsupported assumptions, hunches and generalizations about the relationship between a person’s apparent status as a day laborer and their immigration status.”

White House ballroom

Trump had kicked the week off March 29 by touting his 90,000-square-foot ballroom project, showing designs to reporters on Air Force One.

“I think it’ll be the greatest ballroom anywhere in the world,” he said. Two days later, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ordered a temporary halt to construction.

Leon stated that the president is the “steward” of the White House, not its “owner,” and ruled that he cannot proceed with such a massive structural change without express authorization from Congress.

In response, Trump raged on Truth Social: “In the Ballroom case, the Judge said we have to get Congressional approval. He is WRONG! Congressional approval has never been given on anything, in these circumstances, big or small, having to do with construction at the White House.”

His administration filed a motion Friday to block the judge’s ruling.

Jan 6. liability

On the same day, a judge ruled that Trump remains personally liable in a civil lawsuit tied to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, allowing those claims to move forward.

It is among the most consequential legal threats he faces.

Trump entered the presidency on the heels of a major Supreme Court win that found former presidents have criminal and civil immunity for official acts during their term.

But Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta deemed Trump’s Jan. 6 speech — in which he directed supporters to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell” — was a political act, not a presidential one, and therefore not shielded by immunity.

“President Trump has not shown that the speech reasonably can be understood as falling within the outer perimeter of his Presidential duties. The content of the ellipse speech confirms that it is not covered by official-acts immunity,” Mehta wrote.

The week ended with yet another setback for Trump when a federal judge on Friday blocked the administration from forcing universities to submit extensive data on applicants and students to prove they don’t illegally consider race in admissions.

Reading the losses

For Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA who has tracked the administration’s legal battles closely, the losing streak had a clear through line.

“It was an awful week for Donald Trump,” he said. “It’s not that the courts are anti-Trump. In fact, he wins a lot. It’s really that he takes such an aggressive approach to policy making that he runs afoul of existing precedents.”

Taken together, last week’s rulings signaled that the courts are insisting that the president is as accountable for his actions as anyone, and that states have constitutional powers he alone cannot override.

“The Trump administration’s recent court losses illustrate that there is still much that the other branches of government can do — in connection with civil society — to uphold the rule of law and mitigate the harms of the administration’s destructive agenda,” said Monika Langarica, deputy legal director at the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law.

“They are one more reminder,” she added, “that the administration will not always have the last word with respect to its unlawful and unconstitutional actions.”

Remember when our president attacked a female journalist for asking uncomfortable questions with a casual, sincere, “Quiet, piggy”?

That was five months ago, a lifetime in the chaos of the Trump administration, but it was a telling moment about how not just our president but those crafting his policy view women and their place in society. Hint: It’s not at the top.

While I have not a bit of pity or dismay that Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem — the former U.S. attorney general and the former secretary of Homeland Security, respectively — were given the ax by President Trump in recent days, it shouldn’t be lost that this is another “quiet, piggy” week in an administration that is increasingly openly hostile to women in power.

“I see a theme,” Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett wrote on social media. “He will throw the incompetent women under the bus a lot faster than the incompetent men.”

When democracies decay, and especially when movements like Christian nationalism rise, an erosion of women’s equality almost always comes first. Bondi and Noem are part of a U.S. erosion that should alarm us all, whatever your gender identity.

First, the obvious. Good riddance. Noem seemed to relish cruelty, and treated her job like a costume party, constantly mugging for cameras with guns and faux toughness as if the dismantling of lives and imprisoning even children was a game. Never mind the grift.

Bondi, meanwhile, always seemed like the football team’s third-favorite cheerleader, desperately vying for the attention of the jock-gods around her, even if it meant groveling for approval, even if it meant selling out all women with her ultimate censoring of the Epstein files.

But while Bondi and Noem were obviously incompetent, incompetence has never been a fire-able offense for Trump. Just ask Pete Hegseth, whose Thor fantasies are currently playing out in an all-to-real war. Or Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has dismantled American science while glorifying beef tallow and workouts in jeans. Don’t even get me started on Kash Patel.

It’s no accident that women at the top of Trump’s administration are being purged. They were useful in the first days of the regime, while power was still being consolidated and shimmers of diversity were helpful. But as the sexist and racist nature of the MAGA machine has gained mainstream acquiescence if not acceptance, the need to keep up the appearance of diversity is less and less.

Take, for example, the far-right attacks on Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett after her pointed and skeptical questions recently on Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship.

“A woman as a mother is a precious gift, but a woman as a civil magistrate is the death of the nation,” wrote far-right pastor and increasingly popular anti-equality influencer Joel Webbon on social media.

This is the same Texas gentleman who went viral recently for proclaiming, “Women, shut up! Of course. It is literally an offense to God” for women to have influence in the governing of society.

He’s also part of a group of far-right religious leaders — including a pastor associated with Hegseth — who support ending women’s right to vote and replacing it with a single “household” vote cast by, you guessed it, men.

Bondi and Noem may be the most high-profile examples of how this misogyny is playing out in MAGA reality, but they aren’t the only women forced out of power by Trump and his cronies this year. It’s a push that is far more systematic and insidious than we are giving them credit for. Hegseth has all but wiped women out of the top ranks of the military — just recently personally knocking two women off a promotions list.

RFK Jr. and others, meanwhile, are busy pushing women out of science. The Washington Post pointed out that last year at this time, the feds purged women and people of color from the boards that review the science and research happening at the National Institutes of Health— 38 out of 43 experts that were fired were women and minorities.

A report out last month also found that all those attacks on universities last year, with the cutting of grants even in areas such as cancer research — disproportionately affected female scientists. Many of these female scientists, especially younger ones, will never recover from those quashed research projects and lost jobs in a field that demands results and published work, meaning we are looking at a generational loss of female scientific talent.

And let’s not forget Renee Nicole Good, shot by an ICE officer in Minneapolis who, with as much casualness as Trump’s “quiet, piggy,” said “f—ing b—” after shooting her and walking away.

Bondi and Noem aren’t just unqualified villains shown the door. They are villainesses.

The Trump administration knows the difference, and so should we.

Caracas, April 2, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The US Treasury Department removed Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) “Specially Designated Nationals” list on Wednesday, April 1.

Rodríguez had been on the list since 2018. The sanctioned individuals are barred from any sort of economic or financial relationship with US entities and have any US-based assets frozen.

The Venezuelan acting head of state reacted to the decision with a message on her X account, calling it “a step in the direction of normalizing and strengthening relations between our countries.”

Rodríguez added that she is confident this step will lead to the lifting of all sanctions currently in place against Venezuela “in order to guarantee an effective binational cooperation agenda” that benefits both Washington and Caracas. In recent weeks, the Trump administration has issued licenses allowing Western corporations to engage with the Venezuelan energy and mining sectors, but wide-reaching coercive measures remain in place.

The US government targeted Rodríguez in September 2018, Trump’s first presidential term, alleging that the then–vice president was part of a group that contributed “to the destruction of democracy.” The same round of sanctions targeted First Lady and Deputy Cilia Flores, as well as Vladimir Padrino López and Jorge Rodríguez, who respectively served as defense and communications ministers at the time.

Delcy Rodríguez denounced the 2018 measures as “illegal” and “unjust,” arguing that they were part of an “economic blockade” that undermined her country’s right to food, health, and sovereignty.

The Venezuelan leader’s sanctions removal opens the door for direct engagement with US entities and multilateral organizations such as the IMF. Creditors have likewise expressed intentions to launch renegotiation efforts surrounding Venezuela’s sizable foreign debt.

The Trump administration’s move comes on the heels of a fast-tracked rapprochement with Washington that Rodríguez has spearheaded since the January 3 attacks and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro. Rodríguez, who took over the acting presidency, has hosted a number of high‑ranking US officials, among them Trump Energy Secretary Chris Wright.

Similarly, last week Rodríguez took part via videoconference in a business gathering in Miami organized by Saudi Arabia’s Future Investment Initiative Institute. During her address, she touted the country’s recent pro-business reforms and urged investors to come to Venezuela.

Caracas and Washington formally reestablished diplomatic ties on March 5, with the Trump administration recognizing the acting president as Venezuela’s “sole” leader days later.

Regaining control of CITGO

The lifting of coercive measures against the Venezuelan acting president raised the possibility of the Rodríguez acting government retaking control of US-based assets that had been frozen and placed under the control of the hardline opposition. According to Reuters, Venezuelan authorities are preparing to take control of the boards of directors of the US subsidiaries of state oil company PDVSA, including refiner CITGO. However, the US State Department must also sign off on the appointments.

This past March, PDVSA’s board ratified Asdrúbal Chávez, cousin of the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, as director of all its US subsidiaries. Nonetheless, Chávez, who was previously denied a US visa to run Houston-based CITGO, has been unable to manage the companies for more than seven years.

CITGO has been administered since 2019 by boards of directors appointed by a defunct Venezuelan opposition‑led National Assembly whose term expired in January 2021. The company, which is Venezuela’s most valuable foreign asset, underwent a long and protracted court-mandated auction to satisfy creditor demands which concluded with a winning bid from vulture fund Elliott Management.

The CITGO sale requires a US Treasury license in order to conclude. The Trump administration has not publicly disclosed whether it will greenlight or halt the ownership transfer.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

After crashing his SUV last week in Florida, Tiger Woods took out his phone and told a deputy, “I was just talking to the president,” according to body camera footage released Thursday showing Woods’ arrest on a DUI charge.

The phone conversation was not captured on video, but Woods could be heard saying, “Thank you so much,” as he hung up and the deputy approached. It wasn’t clear if Woods was referring to President Trump, whose former daughter-in-law, Vanessa Trump, is dating Woods.

Shortly after the golfer’s March 27 arrest, Trump was asked about Woods and told reporters: “I feel so badly. He’s got some difficulty. Very close friend of mine. He’s an amazing person. Amazing man. But, some difficulty.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether Trump spoke to Woods after the crash.

The footage also shows how Woods appeared to be astonished as he was handcuffed after failing a sobriety test and a video from the back of the patrol car shows the handcuffed golfer hiccupping, yawning and repeatedly appearing to nod off during the 15-minute ride.

Woods told authorities he was looking at his phone and changing the radio station when his speeding Land Rover clipped the back of a truck and rolled onto its side on a residential road on Jupiter Island. No one was injured.

“I looked down at my phone, and all of a sudden — boom,” Woods told an officer as he knelt on a lawn, prior to his arrest.

In this image from police body camera video released by the Martin County Sheriff’s Office, golfer Tiger Woods performs a field sobriety test following a car crash in Jupiter Island, Fla., on Friday.

(Associated Press)

Body camera footage shows Martin County Sheriff’s Deputy Tatiana Levenar then conducting a roadside sobriety test and telling Woods: “I do believe your normal faculties are impaired, and you’re under an unknown substance, so at this time you’re under arrest for DUI.”

“I’m being arrested?” Woods responded.

“Yes, sir,” Levenar said.

After handcuffing Woods, authorities searched his pockets and found two white pills.

“That’s a Norco,” Woods said after an officer pulled out the pills, referring to a painkiller that contains acetaminophen and the opioid hydrocodone. Authorities would later confirm that Woods was in possession of hydrocodone.

In the body camera footage, Woods told Levenar that he had not drunk any alcohol and that he had taken “a few” medications earlier in the day, though Woods’ words are muted in the released video as he describes some of the drugs.

At the sheriff’s office complex, after Woods was escorted into the “DUI room” where drivers are tested for being under the influence, Woods said, “I’m not drunk. I’m on a prescription medication,” according to a supplemental sheriff’s office report released Thursday.

Woods, 50, pleaded not guilty on Tuesday to suspicion of driving under the influence. He posted a statement Tuesday night saying that he was stepping away indefinitely “to seek treatment and focus on my health.”

Woods agreed to a Breathalyzer test that showed no signs of alcohol, but he refused a urine test, authorities said. Under a change to Florida law last year, refusing an officer’s request to take a breath, blood or urine test became a misdemeanor, even for a first offense.

During the field sobriety test, deputies noticed Woods limping and that he had a compression sock over his right knee. Woods explained he had undergone seven back surgeries and over 20 surgeries on his right leg, and that his ankle seizes up while walking.

Tiger Woods is strapped into a police vehicle following a car crash in Jupiter Island, Fla., on Friday in image from video provided by the Martin County Sheriff’s Office.

(Associated Press)

Woods, who was hiccupping during questioning, continuously moved his head during one of the sobriety tests and deputies had to tell him several times to keep his head straight, according to an arrest report.

“Based on my observations of Woods, how he performed the exercises and based on my training, knowledge, and experience, I believed that Woods normal faculties were impaired, and he was unable to safely operate the motor vehicle,” Levenar wrote.

Woods is the most influential figure in golf and has become as recognizable as any athlete in the world. The first person of Black heritage to win the Masters in 1997, he has captivated golf fans with records likely never to be broken.

His injuries have kept him from accomplishing more, including from a 2021 Los Angeles car crash that damaged his right leg so badly he said doctors considered amputation. He has not played an official event since the 2024 British Open. He was recovering from a seventh back surgery in October and was trying to return at the Masters, where he is a five-time champion.

Rico writes for the Associated Press.

The recently revised food pyramid may put fruit as a medium priority, but there is nothing the Trump administration likes more than the apple of discord.

Every news cycle, the president seems intent on introducing something new for Americans to argue about: the wisdom (and legality) of war in Iraq; the term “affordability”; the efficacy of mail-in ballots (which the president recently used); the meaning of birthright; the legitimacy of a vice president who has been publicly admonished by two popes for writing a book about his conversion to Catholicism — heck, we’re still arguing about that new food pyramid.

But there is one recent development upon which we really should all agree — erecting a gold statue of President Trump in the middle of his proposed presidential library is a No Good, Very Bad Idea.

On Tuesday, the president’s son Eric posted a first-look video for said library, which will reside on the waterfront in Miami. While questions were raised about the inclusion of the Boeing 747-8 the president controversially accepted as a gift from Qatar and the apparent lack of space in the sky-scraping library for, you know, books, it was the enormous gold statue of Trump towering over the stage in a proposed auditorium that drew the most immediate attention.

That Trump chose to reveal this little (well, actually quite big) beauty mere days after millions of Americans across the country participated in a coordinated No Kings march can be taken as either breathtaking irony or, more probably, a rage-baiting metaphoric middle finger.

As he has been recently wont to do, California Gov. Gavin Newsom quickly responded on his press office X account with photos of gold statuary depicting former chairman of the Chinese Communist Party Mao Zedong, North Korea’s Kim Il-Sung and Turkmenistan’s Saparmurat Niyazov and the observation that “The gold statue in Trump’s new library (of himself) looks awfully familiar to a few others from around the world.”

Trump’s obsession with gold will no doubt obsess future generations of historians, artists, psychoanalysts and Wikipedia editors — the guerrilla art group Secret Handshake on Monday put up a gold toilet statue on the National Mall mocking the president’s plans to renovate the Lincoln bathroom during a time of war and strife, as tribute, according to the statue’s plaque, “to an unwavering visionary who looked down, saw a problem and painted it gold.”

But even allowing for personal taste, a big golden statue of Trump is a terrible idea. For him.

In times of trouble and/or leadership changes, statues are often the first to go — as Trump knows well, since he’s working to replace the Confederate generals displaced after the Black Lives Matter movement and recently erected, near the White House, a replica of the Christopher Columbus statue thrown into Baltimore’s Inner Harbor during 2020 protests.

After hearing the Declaration of Independence read publicly for the first time, members of the Sons of Liberty tore down a statue of King George III from Bowling Green; during the French Revolution, the kings all across Paris came down; ditto Napoleon when he fell out of favor. In Russia, tsarist monuments were replaced by statues of Communist leaders, which in turn were torn down — statues of Stalin also fell in Hungary, Georgia and Albania. More recently, a statue of Saddam Hussein famously met the same fate.

As Robert Frost might have put it: Something there is that doesn’t love a statue of a divisive leader. Especially if it’s gold.

OK, I added that last bit.

There are plenty of famous and popular gold statues — Thailand’s Golden Buddha; the Golden Madonna of Essen in Germany; Jeanne d’Arc in Paris; Prometheus at Rockefeller Center in New York; even Tutankhamun’s death mask and solid gold coffin, which travel the world. But, as perhaps you have noticed, they trend toward the religious, mythic or historic, i.e. dead.

In the lavish memorial erected by his grieving widow, Queen Victoria, Prince Albert is golden, but few world leaders are permanently gilded, and certainly not before their deaths. (London’s golden statue of King Charles II was erected during his lifetime but originally in bronze — the gold was added later. It also depicts Charles in Roman garb, so I suppose the Trump statue could be worse — at least we don’t see his naked knees.)

In the United States, golden statuary is rare and usually metaphoric — the Oregon Pioneer, the Golden Driller, the Spirit of Communication. Gold remains captivating, an aspirational symbol of success (“gold standard”) and wealth (“golden touch”), but it can also bring with it an air of mockery (“golden boy”) and warning. The original golden touch belonged to King Midas, who loved it until he accidentally killed his daughter by turning her into a gold statue.

Displays of it, particularly in architecture or public art, are often perceived as tacky, kitschy or, heaven forbid, nouveau riche. Trump is fine being perceived as all of these things; he has long embraced the gleaming excesses of Versailles — the golden elevator will also be featured in the new proposed library.

His personal taste is his right and is shared by many.

In terms of statuary, however, “golden” is most typically associated with “idol,” figures that are erected specifically to be worshiped — the Golden Calf that made God and Moses so angry comes to mind — and Americans, historically, have not been big fans of idolatry.

Hence the separation of church and state, a three-branch government and a president with a limited term. The early colonists were very much anti-idol worshippers and even modern Catholics, as Vice President Vance surely knows, have long been criticized by their Protestant counterparts for a love of statuary, reliquaries and other iconography that some have argued fall into idolatry.

Trump clearly has no problem with idolatry, as long as he is the idol in question — he has long characterized his supporters as people who will love him no matter what he does. So no one should be surprised that his son would anchor the Trump presidential library with an enormous golden statue of his father — Trump is not a man to be satisfied with bronze or, heaven forbid, a marble bust.

No doubt, any criticism of that statue will be met with derision from Trump supporters. In its many guises, idolatry has survived, despite regular and often cataclysmic proof of its dangers, for centuries and many people will consider a much-larger-than-life golden statue of a president to be perfectly splendid.

But someone might want to mention to the president that flashing a big gold statue of himself while cities are still doing cleanup from enormous No Kings marches might seem funny to some. But to others … well, Versailles was once a dazzling royal residence.

Until it wasn’t.

President Trump signed an executive order Tuesday purporting to place new federal controls on voting by mail in states such as California, repeating his long-held but unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots are a source of widespread fraud in U.S. elections.

California leaders immediately responded with promises to fight the order in court. They said mail ballots are a safe and secure method for voting relied on by millions of Californians, that Trump’s order infringes on the state’s constitutional right to administer elections as it sees fit, and that it amounts to an “illegal power grab” ahead of midterm elections in which his party is poised to suffer substantial losses.

The order directs the United States Postal Service to take control of mail balloting by designing new envelopes with special bar codes that will allow the federal government to ensure that such ballots go out only to eligible voters, and that only eligible voters return such ballots.

It requires states to submit to the USPS process if they plan to use the federal mail system for sending or receiving ballots, and to submit to the USPS lists of eligible voters in advance of such ballots passing through the mail system.

It also requires the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Social Security Administration to “compile and transmit to the chief election official of each State a list of individuals confirmed to be United States citizens who will be above the age of 18 at the time of an upcoming Federal election and who maintain a residence in the subject State.”

Those lists will be drawn from federal citizenship and naturalization records, Social Security records and “other relevant Federal databases,” and the USPS will be barred from transmitting ballots that do not match those lists, the order says.

“Secure ballot envelope identifiers provide a reliable, auditable mechanism to enforce Federal law without unduly burdening or infringing on the rights of eligible voters,” the order reads. “Unique ballot envelope identifiers, such as bar codes, enable confirmation that only citizens receive and cast ballots, reducing the risk of fraud and protecting the integrity of Federal elections.”

Trump — who recently voted by mail himself in Florida — framed the order as a solution to “massive cheating” in U.S. elections currently, which he did not back up with evidence.

“The cheating on mail-in voting is legendary. It’s horrible what’s going on,” Trump said.

“He’s going to make sure that mail-in ballots are safe secure and accurate,” said Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who appeared alongside Trump and whose agency the order requires to be involved in the coordination of the new voting measures.

California officials blasted the president for attacking and undermining election integrity, rather than shoring it up, and said they would fight the order from taking effect.

“President Trump’s Executive Order marks a dangerous and unprecedented escalation in his ongoing attacks on our elections. The power to regulate elections belongs to the States and to Congress — he has no role to play. We blocked his previous Executive Order on elections in court, and we are prepared to stop him again,” said California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta.

“The reality is that President Trump and Congressional Republicans see the writing on the wall — that they are likely to lose in the upcoming midterms — and they are pushing to make it harder for people to vote,” Bonta added. “We won’t stand idly by.”

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), in a statement to The Times, said Trump’s actions were “a clear and present threat to our democracy,” that he will “use every tool I can to stop him,” and that he expects “immediate legal challenges in order to protect our free and fair elections.”

“Instead of focusing on lowering the cost of energy, groceries, and health care, Donald Trump is desperately attempting to take over and rig our elections and avoid accountability in November. This executive order is a blatant, unconstitutional abuse of power,” said Padilla, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.

“The President and the Department of Homeland Security have no authority to commandeer federal elections or direct the independent Postal Service to undermine mail and absentee voting that nearly 50 million Americans relied on in 2024,” he said. “A decade of lies about election fraud does not change the Constitution.”

“In the middle of an unauthorized war abroad and an escalating authoritarian crackdown by ICE here at home, Trump is attempting another illegal power grab,” Padilla said.

A vast majority of Californians vote by mail. In the state’s 2025 special election on Proposition 50, the state’s mid-decade redistricting measure, nearly 89% of votes were cast by mail, according to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office — or nearly 10.3 million out of about 11.6 million votes cast.

Trump has long criticized mail-in ballots — without evidence — as a source of fraud and a factor in his losing the 2020 election to President Biden, which he still contends was illegitimate.

Election experts, voting rights advocates, local elections officials and other California leaders have all dismissed those claims as unfounded and inaccurate. They have also been preparing for Trump to act to curtail such voting.

Padilla previously warned colleagues that he would force a vote on any effort by Trump to declare a national emergency in order to seize control of this year’s midterm elections from the states, forcing them to either co-sign on the power grab or resist it.

Critics of mail ballots have also been actively working to end or curtail the practice. Just last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case in which the Republican Party challenged a Mississippi law that allows ballots to be accepted and counted if they arrive up to five days after election day.

During those arguments, the court’s six conservatives sounded ready to rule that federal law requires ballots to be received by election day in order to be counted as legal.

Weber, California’s top elections official, has warned that attacks on mail-in voting risked undermining a system the state has spent years building around universal mail voting.

Trump’s executive order is the latest front in a years-long campaign he has led attacking the integrity of U.S. elections — which has contributed to a steep decline in voter trust in U.S. elections.

On Tuesday, Trump said his order was drafted by “great legal minds,” and will survive any legal challenges unless “rogue” judges rule against it inappropriately.

“We want to have honest voting in our country,” he said.

Rick Hasen, an election law expert and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law, argued otherwise in a post Tuesday, noting that an earlier executive order purporting to place new federal controls on elections was blocked in court, and “this one is likely to fare no better.”

“To put this in plain terms: the order would use the USPS, which is not under the direct control of the President, to interfere with a state’s lawful transmission of ballots. If the state does not comply with these rules, federal law would purport to interfere with a state’s conduct of its own elections,” Hasen wrote. “The President does not have the authority to do this.”

WASHINGTON — Citing the First Amendment, a federal judge on Tuesday agreed to permanently block the Trump administration from implementing a presidential directive to end federal funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service, two media entities that the White House has said are counterproductive to American priorities.

The operational impact of U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss’ decision was not immediately clear — both because it will likely be appealed and because too much damage to the public-broadcasting system has already been done, both by the president and Congress.

Moss ruled that President Trump’s executive order to cease funding for NPR and PBS is unlawful and unenforceable. The judge said the First Amendment right to free speech “does not tolerate viewpoint discrimination and retaliation of this type.”

“It is difficult to conceive of clearer evidence that a government action is targeted at viewpoints that the President does not like and seeks to squelch,” wrote Moss, who was nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.

Punishment for ‘past speech’ cited in decision

The judge noted that Trump’s executive order simply directs that all federal agencies “cut off any and all funding” to NPR, which is based in Washington, and PBS, based in Arlington, Virginia.

“The Federal Defendants fail to cite a single case in which a court has ever upheld a statute or executive action that bars a particular person or entity from participating in any federally funded activity based on that person or entity’s past speech,” the judge wrote.

Last year, Trump, a Republican, said at a news conference he would “love to” defund NPR and PBS because he believes they’re biased in favor of Democrats.

“The message is clear: NPR and PBS need not apply for any federal benefit because the President disapproves of their ‘left wing’ coverage of the news,” Moss wrote.

NPR accused the Corporation for Public Broadcasting of violating its First Amendment free speech rights when it moved to cut off its access to grant money appropriated by Congress. NPR also claims Trump wants to punish it for the content of its journalism.

“Public media exists to serve the public interest — that of Americans — not that of any political agenda or elected official,” said Katherine Maher, NPR’s president and CEO. She called the decision a decisive affirmation of the rights of a free and independent press.

PBS chief Paula Kerger said she was thrilled with the decision. The executive order, she said, is “textbook” unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and retaliation. “At PBS, we will continue to do what we’ve always done: serve our mission to educate and inspire all Americans as the nation’s most trusted media institution.”

Last August, CPB announced it would take steps toward closing itself down after being defunded by Congress.

A victory, though incremental, for press freedom

Plaintiffs’ attorney Theodore Boutrous said Tuesday’s ruling is “a victory for the First Amendment and for freedom of the press.”

“As the Court expressly recognized, the First Amendment draws a line, which the government may not cross, at efforts to use government power — including the power of the purse — ‘to punish or suppress disfavored expression’ by others,” Boutrous said in a statement. “The Executive Order crossed that line.”

The judge agreed with government attorneys that some of the news outlets’ legal claims are moot, partly because the CPB no longer exists.

“But that does not end the matter because the Executive Order sweeps beyond the CPB,” Moss added. “It also directs that all federal agencies refrain from funding NPR and PBS — regardless of the nature of the program or the merits of their applications or requests for funding.”

While Trump was sued in this legal action, the case did not include Congress — and the legislative body has played a large role in the public-broadcasting saga in the past year.

Trump’s executive order immediately cut millions of dollars in funding from the Education Department to PBS for its children’s programming, forcing the system to lay off one-third of the PBS Kids staff. The Trump order didn’t impact Congress’ vote to eliminate the overall federal appropriations for PBS and NPR, which forced the closure of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity that funneled that money to the TV and radio networks.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer David Bauder contributed to this report.

Shortly before the trip was announced on Tuesday, President Trump lashed out at the UK and other countries over the Iran war, telling them to “go get your own oil” from the Strait of Hormuz and “the USA won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us”.

Céline Dion is officially coming back to the stage.

The singer announced on Instagram that she will return to the stage this fall, performing 10 shows at the Paris La Défense Arena. In 2022, Dion canceled her North America tour due to muscle spasms. She was later diagnosed with stiff-person syndrome, an autoimmune neurological disorder, which prevented her from performing.

The concert announcement comes after speculation last week by fans in Paris who spotted posters around the city referencing Dion’s songs, including “Power of Love” and “Pour Que tu M’aimes Encore.”

Dion, who turned 58 on Monday, called this news “the best gift” of her life.

“I’m so happy. I’m so ready to do this. I’m feeling good. I’m strong,” Dion said. “I’m feeling excited, obviously. Of course, a little nervous, but most of all, I am grateful to all of you. I can’t wait to see you again.”

While Dion performed at the opening ceremony of the 2024 Olympics in Paris and at an Elie Saab fashion show in Saudi Arabia, she has not headlined her own concert since her Courage World Tour in 2020. In her video, Dion thanked her fans, who supported her in the “most difficult times.”

“Over these last few years, every day that’s gone by, I felt your prayers and support, your kindness and love,” Dion said. “You’ve helped me in ways that I can’t even describe, and I’m truly so fortunate to have your support. I’ve missed you so much.”

Dion will perform twice a week — on Wednesdays and Saturdays — from Sept. 12 to Oct. 14. In a press statement, Frédéric Longuépée, president of La Défense Arena, called Dion’s residency a major milestone for the venue, which opened in 2017.

Fans can register for presale tickets until April 2, and general ticket sales will go on sale April 10.

Dion discussed her battle with stiff-person syndrome in her 2024 documentary, “I Am: Celine Dion.” In the film, the singer explained how SPS causes a vocal strain that makes it difficult for her to perform. Before her 2022 diagnosis, she had already experienced symptoms for 17 years.

While SPS has no known cure, Dion did not lose motivation to continue performing.

“If I can’t run, I’ll walk. If I can’t walk, I’ll crawl, but I won’t stop,” Dion said.

“Nobody can stop the war in our region in the Gulf but you.” Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has called on Trump to end the war on Iran, saying Washington holds decisive influence.

Syrian president Ahmed al-Sharaa met with top German officials in a visit to Berlin to discuss Syria’s stability, refugees in Germany and German support for reconstruction.

March 30 (UPI) — On this date in history:

In 1842, Dr. Crawford Long became the first physician to use anesthetic (ether) in surgery.

In 1858, a U.S. patent was granted to Hymen Lipman for a pencil with an attached eraser.

In 1867, U.S. Secretary of State William Seward reached an agreement with Russia for the purchase of Alaska for $7.2 million in gold.

File Photo by Library of Congress/UPI

In 1870, the 15th Amendment, granting African American men the right to vote, was adopted into the U.S. Constitution.

In 1923, the Cunard liner Laconia arrived in New York City, the first passenger ship to circumnavigate the world. The cruise lasted 130 days.

In 1975, the South Vietnamese city of Da Nang fell to North Vietnamese forces. UPI correspondent Paul Vogle described “the flight out of hell” as refugees attempted to flee the city.

In 1981, John Hinckley Jr. shot and injured U.S. President Ronald Reagan outside a Washington hotel. White House Press Secretary James Brady, a Secret Service agent and a Washington police officer also sustained injuries. Hinckley was released from a psychiatric hospital in September 2016.

In 1999, a jury in Oregon awarded $81 million in damages to the family of a smoker who died from lung cancer. A state judge reduced the punitive portion to $32 million.

In 2006, Jill Carroll, a freelance reporter for The Christian Science Monitor, was freed in Baghdad after being held for 82 days by kidnappers.

In 2018, at least a dozen Palestinians died in the first week of the so-called Great March of Return protests in Gaza. More than 180 people died in the nearly weekly protests through the end of 2019.

In 2023, a Manhattan grand jury took the unprecedented step of voting to indict a former president, formally charging Donald Trump in an investigation into hush-money payments made to adult film actor Stephanie Clifford, known professionally as Stormy Daniels.

File Photo by Gary I Rothstein/UPI

Chad Bianco couldn’t fly to Mar-a-Lago, wreathe President Trump in honeyed words, bestow the Riverside County Peace Prize upon him and hand-feed him his favorite dish — a Big Mac? — from a platter of 24-karat gold.

Security, logistics and all of that.

So the Republican candidate for California governor did the next best thing: He confiscated hundreds of thousands of ballots from last November’s special election in a trumped-up investigation of supposed voting irregularities. Never mind the complete lack of evidence or the fact Proposition 50, the subject of Bianco’s investigation, was approved by a clear-cut majority of voters.

The intent of Riverside County’s grasping sheriff was as transparent as a pane of glass. It’s all about trying to win the endorsement of Trump — he of phantasmagorical election-fraud claims — in California’s neck-and-neck-and-neck gubernatorial contest.

Bianco, fellow Republican Steve Hilton and a passel of Democratic hopefuls are bunched together in a contest that remains utterly wide open just weeks before voters start receiving their ballots in the mail.

“Trump’s endorsement would be huge,” said Jon Fleischman, a conservative strategist and former executive director of the state GOP.

“Actually,” he went on, ‘I think it would be determinative” — virtually guaranteeing either Hilton or Bianco finished in the top two in the June 2 primary, ushering them past the rope line into November’s runoff.

If there’s an inside edge in the Trump Endorsement Sweepstakes, it would seemingly go to Hilton.

He’s familiar to the president as a former Fox News host. He’s interviewed Trump several times and the two occasionally text and talk on the phone. Bianco has no such personal connection, which might explain his ballot-seizing stunt.

Steve Hilton could have the inside track on a Trump endorsement, given their personal relationship.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

(The Democrats’ nightmare scenario is both Republicans making the runoff, icing the party out of the governor’s office for the first time since Arnold Schwarzenegger left in January 2011. More on that in a moment.)

A Trump endorsement comes in all sorts of flavors.

As The Downballot recently noted, “His bag of tricks includes dual endorsements, triple endorsements, pre-endorsements, Election Day endorsements, yanking endorsements … belated endorsement of a candidate after initially endorsing just one candidate [and] non-endorsements after promising to endorse.”

There was also the time Trump endorsed “ERIC” when Republicans Eric Schmitt and Eric Greitens faced each other in Missouri’s Senate primary. (Schmitt won and is now the state’s junior U.S. senator.)

Trump’s backing still counts a good deal, even as his approval ratings sink to sub-basement levels. The president remains popular with Republicans and, critically, the kind of GOP loyalists who vote in primary contests, which is why both Hilton and Bianco would welcome a presidential laying on of hands.

There’s good reason, however, to think Trump might pass on endorsing in the governor’s race, or opt to deliver one of his dual he-and-him endorsements.

The GOP’s best — and perhaps only — hope of winning the governorship is the Democratic-freeze-out scenario. So, tactically, Trump’s wisest move may be to bless neither Hilton nor Bianco. Or support both. That would avoid elevating one over the other, which could make it easier for a Democrat to finish among the top two and advance past the June primary.

“I think Trump’s people are smart enough to know that there’s a reason why he may not be served by endorsing a candidate,” Fleischman said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if the prevailing wisdom there is we better not endorse anybody, because we don’t want to tilt this one way or the other.”

If Trump were to back Hilton or Bianco, it’s not hard to imagine Democratic interests seizing upon the president’s benediction and putting significant money behind an ad blitz promoting the president’s favorite in hopes of boosting him — and him alone — into the top two.

The move comes from a well-thumbed political playbook, seeking to elevate a preferred opponent, that was used most recently in California by Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff. He helped lift Republican Steve Garvey into the November 2024 runoff to keep from having to face a tougher opponent, fellow Democrat Katie Porter. Schiff easily defeated Garvey.

In this case, Democrats would aim to tee up one of the two Republicans who would almost certainly go on to lose in the fall.

Which is what happened the first time Gavin Newsom ran for governor.

In 2018, his main rival was fellow Democrat Antonio Villaraigosa. Two major Republicans were also in the race, John Cox and Travis Allen. There was no real concern about those two nabbing both spots in the June primary. Rather, Newsom and Cox had a shared interest in boxing out Villaraigosa.

So the Newsom and Cox campaigns opened a private back-channel, trading gossip, swapping insights on the race and even sharing some empirical data. One poll, showing Cox getting a bigger boost from a Trump endorsement than Allen, passed from Democratic hands in hopes it would reach the White House and nudge the president into supporting Cox.

Though there’s no proof the survey ever reached Trump, the president eventually threw his support behind the San Diego County businessman, lifting him past Allen in the primary. Cox went on to lose handily to Newsom in November.

This time, with more than a half dozen plausible candidates and no obvious path to victory for any one, it’s every man and woman for themselves.

The same goes for Trump, who may do himself the most good in California, politically, by doing nothing at all.

If he can only resist.

WASHINGTON — President Trump says the United States is winning the war with Iran, even as thousands of additional American troops deploy to the Middle East.

He has pilloried other countries for not helping the U.S., only to say later he does not need their assistance. He has twice delayed deadlines for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. He has threatened to “obliterate” Iran’s energy plants if the vital waterway remains largely shut down and said the U.S. was “not affected” by the closure.

At one point this month, Trump claimed that one of his predecessors — who, he strongly suggested, was a Democrat — privately told him he wished he had taken similar action against Iran. Representatives for every living former president denied that any such conversation happened.

As the war entered its second month over the weekend, Trump’s penchant for embellishments, exaggerations and falsehoods is being tested in an environment where the stakes are much higher than a domestic political fight.

A president who has long embraced bluster and salesmanship to shape narratives and focus attention is confronting the unpredictability of war.

Leon Panetta, who served Democratic presidents as Defense secretary, CIA director and White House chief of staff, said he has “seen enough wars where truth becomes the first casualty.”

“It’s not the first administration that has not told the truth about war,” he said. “But the president has made it kind of a very standard approach to almost any question to in one way or another kind of lie about what’s really happening and basically describe everything as fine and that we’re winning the war.”

Michael Rubin, a historian at the American Enterprise Institute who worked as a staff advisor on Iran and Iraq at the Pentagon from 2002 to 2004, said Trump is “the first president of any party in recent history that hasn’t self-constrained to live within rhetorical boundaries.”

“So of course it creates a great deal of confusion,” he said.

The zigs and zags are the point

To his critics, Trump’s style is a sign that doesn’t have a coherent long-term strategy. But for Trump, the zigs and zags seem like the point, a method that keeps his opponents — and pretty much everyone else — always on their heels.

The approach was clear last week in the hours before he announced the second delay of the deadline for Iran to reopen the strait. Asked what he would do about the deadline, Trump said that he did not know and that he had a day before he had to decide.

“In Trump time, a day, you know what it is, that’s an eternity,” Trump said to laughter from members of his Cabinet.

But investors are unimpressed, with U.S. stocks closing out their worst week since the war began. To some on Capitol Hill, the freewheeling is more frustrating than amusing.

Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, lamented that Trump is “going back and forth and constantly contradicting himself.”

“The administration is winging it,” he said. “So how can you trust what the president says?”

Republicans were not willing to go that far, but their concern was apparent heading into a two-week break from Washington. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana said his constituents “support what the president has done.”

“But most of my people are also equally or even more so concerned about cost of living,” he said.

Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, who sits on the House Budget Committee and is a member of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, said his constituents were on board with “blowing some crap up.” Nonetheless, he expressed reservations about the prospect of ground troops and said the administration has not provided enough details in briefings for lawmakers. Such sessions, he said, only reveal information you “read in the papers.”

“Taking out bad guys, taking out conventional [weapons], taking out or at least working to take out nuclear capability, pressing to keep the straits open, all those are good things and I’ve been supportive and will continue to be supportive,” Roy said. “But we’ve got to have a serious conversation about how long this is going to go, boots on the ground, all those things, press for further briefings and understanding of where it’s all headed.”

Political risks ahead

While Trump has maintained deep support among Republicans, a poll last week from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research indicates that the president risks further frustrating his voters if the U.S. gets involved in the kind of prolonged war in the Middle East that he promised to avoid. He campaigned against starting new foreign wars altogether, and his reversal on that already has irked some of his longtime supporters.

Although 63% of Republicans back airstrikes against Iranian military targets, the survey found, only 20% back deploying American ground troops.

That reflects the political challenges ahead for Trump, who did not prepare the country for such an extensive overseas conflict. If the war drags on or escalates, pressure on Republicans could build before the November elections, when their majorities in Congress are at risk. Some in the party have said sending in ground troops would be a red line that Trump should not cross.

The administration also will probably need congressional support for an additional $200 billion he seeks to support the war. That amount of money, which Trump has said would be “nice to have,” even as he said the war was “winding down,” would be a tough vote at any time. But it poses particular risks for Republicans in an election year.

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement that Trump is “right to highlight the vast success of Operation Epic Fury,” the military name for the war in Iran.

“Iran desperately wants to make a deal because of how badly they are being decimated, but the President reserves all options, military or not, at all times,” she said.

Some see ‘logic’ to Trump’s approach

Rubin, the former Iran and Iraq advisor at the Pentagon, said there could be some “logic” to the president’s ever-evolving rhetorical approach to the war. He said Trump’s initial comments about ongoing negotiations, which Iran denied, could “spread suspicion and fear within the regime circles.”

“Perhaps Donald Trump or those advising him simply want the Iranians to grow so paranoid they refuse to cooperate with each other or perhaps they even turn on each other,” he said. “But then again, there’s always a danger with Donald Trump of assuming that his rhetoric is anything more than shooting from the hip.”

Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said Trump is not going to be able to fully achieve his objectives, even those that have been clearly articulated — including the complete elimination of Iran’s nuclear program — “in the current trajectory.”

And if that is the case, Smith said, the president has the option to rely on his rhetorical skills to simply say the U.S. won — and end the war.

“As I’ve jokingly said, nobody I have ever met or heard of in human history is better at exaggerating his own accomplishments than Donald Trump,” Smith said. “So go knock yourself out and claim this was some great success.”

Sloan writes for the Associated Press.

For the second year in a row, United States Vice President JD Vance has topped the straw poll at the 2026 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), one of the biggest right-wing gatherings in the country.

The poll is a bellwether – albeit, not necessarily an accurate one – for who might ultimately become the Republican nominee for the next presidential race.

During this year’s four-day conference, attendees were asked which candidate they would prefer at the top of the Republican Party ticket for the 2028 election.

The results were revealed on stage Saturday. Vance had swept up 53 percent of the votes cast by nearly 1,600 attendees.

But rising up the ranks was another senior official under US President Donald Trump: his top diplomat, Secretary of State Marco Rubio. A former senator from Florida, Rubio notched 35 percent of the vote.

It was a markedly improved standing for Rubio, who tied for fourth place at last year’s CPAC straw poll.

That poll, taken within weeks of Trump starting his second term, showed Vance with 61 percent support, former Trump adviser Steve Bannon with 12 percent, and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis with 7 percent. Rubio and Representative Elise Stefanik both earned 3 percent.

Attendance at CPAC, an annual conference, tends to skew away from the political centre and farther to the right.

Speakers at this year’s conference included Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Iranian opposition leader Reza Pahlavi, and Eduardo and Flavio Bolsonaro, the sons of Brazil’s former far-right president Jair Bolsonaro, who was imprisoned last September for attempting to subvert his country’s democracy.

But this year’s straw poll comes at a critical time for the Republican Party.

Less than eight months remain until November’s midterm elections in the US, and Republicans are hoping to defend their congressional majorities at the ballot box.

Trump, long the standard-bearer for his party, has seen his approval numbers sink since his return to office in 2025. Earlier this week, a survey from the news agency Reuters and the research firm Ipsos found that only 36 percent of US citizens approved of his job performance, a new low.

The ongoing war in Iran and economic frustrations, including rising gas prices linked to the conflict, are among the factors contributing to the slump.

While Trump has teased he may seek a third term, US law prevents modern presidents from serving more than two. His second presidency is set to expire in 2028.

That leaves an open question as to who may succeed the 79-year-old Republican.

Vance, a veteran and former single-term senator from Ohio, is seen to represent a more isolationist branch of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) base. He has generally been opposed to US involvement in foreign conflicts, though he has defended Trump’s decision to join Israel in joint strikes on Iran.

Rubio, meanwhile, has a longer political resume than Vance and is seen to be more hawkish towards regime change, particularly in his family’s ancestral home of Cuba. He served as a senator for Florida from 2011 until his unanimous confirmation as secretary of state in 2025.

Both men had been critical of Trump before joining his administration. Vance once called Trump “unfit” for office, and Rubio derided Trump as a “con artist” and an “embarrassment” when he was a rival candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

CPAC tends not to survey participants about who should be president when a Republican is already in the Oval Office.

But the straw polls it held before and after Trump’s first term, from 2017 to 2021, have shown a noticeable realignment in the Republican Party.

In the decade leading up to the 2016 election – Trump’s first successful campaign for office – moderate Republican Mitt Romney and libertarian Rand Paul consistently topped the CPAC straw polls.

Ever since his first term, however, Trump has trounced the competition.

Despite his 2020 election defeat, he still topped the straw poll in 2021, with 55 percent support, and his numbers climbed each successive year, through to his re-election in 2024.

Experts have noted that the Republican Party has largely consolidated around Trump’s politics, with the few remaining moderate and critical voices increasingly marginalised.

The CPAC straw poll, however, is not always accurate. Ahead of Trump’s victory in 2016, the majority of straw poll participants backed Senator Cruz of Texas to be the next president. Trump came in third place with 15 percent support, trailing Rubio at 30 percent.

Nicolas Maduro appeared in a New York court seeking to dismiss drug trafficking charges, saying sanctions blocking his funds deny him a fair defence. He has pleaded not guilty and faces charges that could carry a life sentence.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Treasury Department is working on plans to put President Trump’s signature on all new U.S. paper currency, the agency announced Thursday.

The move would be a first for a sitting president. The news was first reported by Vanity Fair.

It’s the latest instance of Trump putting his name and likeness on American cultural institutions, following his renaming of the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Kennedy Center performing arts venue and a new class of battleships, among other tributes.

The plans come in tandem with an effort to get Trump’s face on a coin.

This month, a federal arts commission approved the final design for a 24-karat gold commemorative coin bearing Trump’s image to help celebrate America’s 250th birthday on July 4.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s signature would also appear on the currency, according to a Treasury news release.

Bessent said in a statement that “there is no more powerful way to recognize the historic achievements of our great country” than with U.S. dollar bills bearing Trump’s name.

U.S. Treasurer Brandon Beach said in a statement that printing Trump’s signature on the American currency “is not only appropriate, but also well deserved.”

The Mint, which is part of the Treasury Department, manufactures and distributes the currency.

Hussein writes for the Associated Press.

ORLANDO, Fla. — Florida Democrats, beaten down by years of Republican domination in what was once the consummate battleground state, claimed new optimism Wednesday after a special election victory in President Trump’s home district.

Emily Gregory will represent the district that includes Mar-a-Lago, the president’s resort in Palm Beach, as a state representative.

Democrats are also hopeful that Brian Nathan will win a state senate seat in the Tampa area; the Associated Press has not yet called that race but he currently has a narrow lead that is within the state’s automatic recount range.

Gregory’s victory is the latest flip of a Republican-held seat since Trump’s second presidency began, giving Democrats fresh confidence in a midterm election year with control of Congress and many statehouses — including Florida’s — up for grabs in November.

“The pendulum swings in both directions,” Florida Democratic chairwoman Nikki Fried told reporters. “Last night it swung hard in the state of Florida.”

She added, “If we can win in Donald Trump’s backyard, we can win anywhere.”

For Gregory, a 40-year-old political newcomer who owns a fitness company, it has been a stunning introduction to the national spotlight.

“I believed in myself the whole time,” Gregory said, describing her political “naiveté” about the district and its Republican leanings as an asset.

She told the AP she did not make her contest about the president specifically, but focused heavily on constituents’ concerns involving the economy and everyday costs — from fast-rising insurance in the hurricane-prone district to groceries and gas.

She described herself as a lifelong “proud Florida Democrat” but said she did not run to be a face of the party or lead the opposition movement to Trump. She said she will go to Tallahassee focused on proposals to limit insurance rate hikes, expand healthcare access and lift “huge, crushing burdens on the average Florida family.”

“I just see myself as very embedded in my community, very representative of District 87,” she said. “And I’m so humbled and proud to be their representative.”

Trump endorsed Gregory’s opponent, Jon Maples, and cast a mail ballot in the contest. The president reiterated his support for Maples on the eve of the election with a social media post saying the Republican candidate was backed “by so many of my Palm Beach County friends.”

As of midday on Wednesday, Trump had not mentioned the outcome of the race.

Fried praised Gregory and Nathan, a 45-year-old veteran and union worker, as quality candidates who could capitalize on the broader political environment.

“The type of person and connection on the issues matters,” Fried said.

Gregory flipped a seat that her Republican predecessor had won by 19 percentage points. Fried said Trump carried the district by 11 points in 2024.

Republicans still dominate the Florida Legislature, and they have been considered heavy favorites to hold the governor’s office in November, four years after Gov. Ron DeSantis won a blowout reelection campaign.

But Fried insisted the trends suggest a competitive landscape. She noted that Tuesday’s victories followed two congressional special elections in 2025 when Florida Democrats lost but dramatically narrowed the usual margins in heavily Republican districts.

“You’ve seen tremendous overspending by Republicans,” Fried said of the current cycle. “It’s not working.”

A spokesman for Republican U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds, whom Trump has endorsed for Florida governor, took at least some notice of the latest results.

“We constantly assess how we execute our strategy — that’s just good campaigns,” said Ryan Smith, Donalds’ chief campaign strategist. “What won’t change is our mission: President Trump endorsed Byron Donalds to deliver real results and defend the Florida Dream, and that’s what voters can expect to see from us.”

Gregory, meanwhile, said she’s ready to get to work for her constituents — even the most famous one who did not vote for her.

“I should have a constituent service office available soon, and I would love to have a conversation,” she said when asked what her message to the president would be. “He’s welcome to call me, as I am his new state representative.”

Barrow and Schneider write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta.

MIAMI — Secretary of State Marco Rubio testified in court that he had no knowledge that former Florida congressman David Rivera was lobbying on behalf of Venezuela’s government — as prosecutors later alleged — when he met with his longtime friend to discuss U.S. policy toward the South American country several times at the start of the first Trump administration.

“I would’ve been shocked” had I known, Rubio said in almost three hours of testimony Tuesday at Rivera’s federal trial in Miami.

Rivera and an associate were charged in 2022 with money laundering and failing to register as a foreign agent after being awarded a $50-million lobbying contract by Nicolás Maduro’s government.

Prosecutors allege that the goal of the lobbying effort was to persuade the White House to normalize relations with Venezuela, while Rivera’s attorneys argue that the three-month contract, which ended before Rivera met with Rubio, was focused exclusively on luring Exxon Mobil back to Venezuela — commercial work that is generally exempt from the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

As part of his work, Rivera and his co-defendant are accused of trying to arrange meetings for then-Foreign Minister Delcy Rodríguez — now Venezuela’s acting president — in Dallas, New York, Washington and Caracas, Venezuela, with White House officials, members of Congress and the chief executive of Exxon.

Rubio testifies, an unusual move

In sometimes deeply personal testimony Tuesday, Rubio discussed at length friendships that date back to the start of his political career as an aide to Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign and a West Miami council member.

Testifying in a packed courtroom with heightened security, Rubio said he and Rivera became “very close” when they overlapped as members of the Florida Legislature. The two Cuban American Republicans co-owned a house in Tallahassee, celebrated family events together and ardently opposed Venezuela’s socialist government when both went to Washington at the same time — Rubio elected to the Senate, Rivera to the House.

So when Rivera texted Rubio in July 2017 that he needed to see him urgently to discuss Venezuela, they agreed to meet the next day, a Sunday, at a friend’s home in Washington where the then-senator was staying with his family, Rubio said.

At the meeting, Rivera informed Rubio that he was working with Raul Gorrín, a media magnate in Venezuela, on what he described as a plan for Maduro to step aside.

“I was skeptical,” said Rubio, adding that the Maduro government was full of “double dealers” constantly pitching unrealistic plans to unseat Maduro. “But if there was a 1% chance it was real, and I had a role to play alerting the White House, I was open to doing that.”

Rubio said he had no knowledge Rivera was himself working for Maduro, as prosecutors would later allege. Rubio said he doubted Gorrín would betray Maduro even when the former congressman opened his laptop and showed millions of dollars in a Chase bank account that he was told were payments from the businessman to Venezuela’s opposition.

“It was an impressive amount,” Rubio said. “He didn’t tell me whose account it was. He said it was to support the opposition.”

Two days later, borrowing talking points provided by Rivera, Rubio wrote and delivered a speech on the Senate floor signaling the U.S. would not retaliate against Venezuelan insiders who worked to push Maduro from power.

“He provided me with insight into some of the key phrases that regime insiders would’ve wanted to hear to know this was serious,” Rubio testified. “No vengeance, no retribution.”

Rubio also spoke to Trump, alerting the president in his first term that there may be something “brewing” with Venezuela.

‘A total waste of my time’

But the peacemaking effort collapsed almost immediately. At a second meeting at a Washington hotel, Gorrín failed to produce a promised letter from Maduro to Trump that he wanted Rubio to hand-deliver to the president.

“It was a total waste of my time,” Rubio testified.

Shortly afterward, Trump imposed heavy sanctions on Maduro and members of his inner circle for their decision to go forward with what Rubio called a “fake election” to empower a constituent assembly that undercut the opposition-controlled legislature.

By that time, the senator hewed closely to the Trump administration’s hard line. He taped a rare 10-minute address to the Venezuelan people in July 2017, a day after the divisive election, that was broadcast exclusively on Gorrín’s Globovision network.

“For Nicolás Maduro, who I am sure is watching, the current path you are on will not end well for you,” Rubio said in the televised address.

On the stand, Rubio said that had he known Rivera was working with Gorrín on behalf of Maduro, he never would have agreed to deliver the address on the network.

But Rivera said Rubio’s testimony backed his defense that as a lifelong opponent of communism he never worked to strengthen Maduro’s grip on power.

“Marco Rubio made it abundantly clear today that everything we worked on together in 2017 was meant to remove Maduro from power in Venezuela,” he said in a statement.

Throughout his testimony Rubio, a lawyer, spoke calmly and in command of granular details of U.S. policy toward Venezuela over the past decade, even as he struggled to recall the specifics of his text exchanges with Rivera on Venezuela matters.

His testimony was highly unusual. Not since Labor Secretary Raymond Donovan testified at a Mafia trial in 1983 has a sitting member of the president’s Cabinet taken the stand in a criminal trial.

As if to underscore the uniqueness of his appearance in federal court, Rivera’s attorney, Ed Shohat, asked Rubio to sign a copy of his 2012 autobiography, “An American Son,” at the conclusion of his testimony.

Rivera and his co-defendant, political consultant Esther Nuhfer, are among a small number of friends and family Rubio thanks in the acknowledgment section of his memoir.

Goodman writes for the Associated Press.

Jim Michaelian, the race car driver who helped launch the annual Acura Grand Prix of Long Beach, has died. He was 83.

The Grand Prix Assn. of Long Beach confirmed his death on Saturday, just weeks before this year’s race, which is scheduled for April 17-19.

Michaelian joined the Grand Prix Assn. of Long Beach in 1975, a then-fledgling competitive race, and grew it into one of the most popular street racing events in the world. The annual three-day event draws thousands of race car enthusiasts and brings tens of millions of dollars into the city of Long Beach.

“Jim was a leader of a small, passionate group who believed in the concept of bringing elite open-wheel competition to Long Beach in the 1970s,” said Roger Penske, Penske Corporation chairman, in a statement. “His vision and energy surrounding this great event remained boundless for 50 years.”

Penske Entertainment acquired the Grand Prix Assn. of Long Beach in 2024.

Michaelian was a competitive sports car racer for more than 25 years, competing in endurance events at tracks including Le Mans, Daytona Beach, Nürburgring, Dubai and Sebring in Florida. He told The Times in 2019 that he was still racing sports cars at 76.

“As long as I can achieve some level of success, I’m going to continue doing it until they tell me I can’t anymore,” he said then.

A native of Monterey Park, Michaelian (pronounced meh-KAY-lee-un) graduated from UCLA with a bachelor’s degree in physics. But he turned his attention to business and went on to earn an MBA there. Driven by a love of motor racing, Michaelian eventually talked his way onto the staff of the Long Beach Grand Prix.

He served as the association’s controller and chief operating officer before being appointed president and chief executive in 2001. During his 51-year tenure, Michaelian transformed Long Beach into an iconic stop in the world of motor racing.

A variety of races are run during the three days on the city’s seaside streets, culminating with a big-league IndyCar Series race Sunday. The races feature different types of cars, and one is for trucks, to appeal to a broad audience.

But the Long Beach Grand Prix is more of a festival that’s been built up around the racing. There are concerts, a lifestyle expo, a kids’ zone with go-karts and other activities, along with an array of food and drink spots, all centered on the Long Beach Convention Center and Shoreline Drive.

Michaelian said he kept the pulse of the crowd by constantly walking the track to monitor how the grand prix’s fans were enjoying the activities. He would survey for problems that might need fixing or whether changes needed to be made for the following year.

“Many young people don’t want to sit in the seats now,” he told The Times in 2019. “They’re out taking selfies, they’re chronicling their experience at Long Beach, and the only way to do that is for them to get around.

“So, if they’re moving around, I’m moving around” by creating more places where they can gather, listen to music and having food options nearby, he said then.

Last year, Michaelian was inducted into the Long Beach Motorsports Walk of Fame.

“Jim was a racer’s racer and a dear friend to IMSA and the motorsports community at large,” John Doonan, president of International Motor Sports Assn., said in a statement. “We will sorely miss his presence at Long Beach and racetracks everywhere.”

The Grand Prix Assn. of Long Beach did not release his cause of death.

Michaelian is survived by his wife, Mary, and his sons, Bob and Mike.

Former Times staff writer James F. Peltz contributed to this report.

March 22 (UPI) — U.S. President Donald Trump is threatening to obliterate Iran’s power plants if it doesn’t re-open the Strait of Hormuz and allow oil tankers through.

“If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!” Trump posted on Truth Social Saturday night.

CNN quoted Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad ⁠Baqer Qalibaf as saying that if Trump carries out this plan, Iran will retaliate by attacking infrastructure and energy facilities throughout the Middle East, driving up the prices for oil even further than they have been for the past three weeks.

The New York Times said about 175 people were injured Sunday morning in Iranian missile attacks on Arad and Dimona, residential neighborhoods in southern Israel.

The locations are near Israel’s biggest nuclear research and reactor center.

Last week, Trump asked members of NATO, whose countries depend on the oil transported through the Strait of Hormuz, to help re-open and police the essential trade route between Iran and Oman.

Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Japan responded with a statement of support that said, “We express our readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait.”

Iran closed the waterway Feb. 28 after the United States and Israel tried to destroy Iran’s nuclear program and long-range missile manufacturing facilities.

WASHINGTON — Robert S. Mueller III, the FBI director who transformed the nation’s premier law enforcement agency into a terrorism-fighting force after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and later became special counsel in charge of investigating ties between Russia and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, has died. He was 81.

“With deep sadness, we are sharing the news that Bob passed away” on Friday night, his family said in a statement Saturday. “His family asks that their privacy be respected.”

President Trump, responding on social media, said: “Robert Mueller just died. Good, I’m glad he’s dead.” He added: “He can no longer hurt innocent people!”

At the FBI, Mueller set about almost immediately overhauling the bureau’s mission to meet the law enforcement needs of the 21st century, beginning his 12-year tenure just one week before the Sept. 11 attacks and serving across presidents of both political parties. He was nominated by Republican President George W. Bush.

The cataclysmic event instantaneously switched the bureau’s top priority from solving domestic crime to preventing terrorism, a shift that imposed an almost impossibly difficult standard on Mueller and the rest of the federal government: Preventing 99 out of 100 terrorist plots wasn’t good enough.

Later, he was special counsel in the Justice Department’s investigation into whether Russia’s attempts to help Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign amounted to illegal cooperation to sway the outcome.

Mueller was a patrician Princeton graduate and Vietnam veteran who walked away from a lucrative midcareer job to stay in public service, and his old-school, buttoned-down style made him an anachronism during a social-media-saturated era.

In a statement, former President Obama called Mueller “one of the finest directors in the history of the FBI” who saved “countless lives” after transforming the bureau. “But it was his relentless commitment to the rule of law and his unwavering belief in our bedrock values that made him one of the most respected public servants of our time,” Obama added.

The FBI did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment. The FBI Agents Assn., a nonprofit advocacy group representing current and former agency employees, lauded Mueller for his “commitment to public service and to the FBI’s mission.“

Investigator of a sitting president

The second-longest-serving director in FBI history, behind only J. Edgar Hoover, Mueller held the job until 2013 after agreeing to Obama’s request to stay on beyond his 10-year term.

After several years in private law practice, Mueller was asked by Deputy Atty. Gen. Rod Rosenstein to return to public service as special counsel in the Trump-Russia inquiry.

Mueller’s stern visage and taciturn demeanor matched the seriousness of the mission, as his team spent nearly two years quietly conducting one of the most consequential, and divisive, investigations in Justice Department history. He held no news conferences and made no public appearances during the investigation, remaining quiet despite attacks from Trump and his supporters and creating an aura of mystery around his work.

All told, Mueller brought criminal charges against six of the president’s associates, including his campaign chairman and first national security advisor.

His 448-page report released in April 2019 identified substantial contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia but did not allege a criminal conspiracy. He laid out damaging details about Trump’s efforts to seize control of the investigation, and even shut it down, though he declined to decide whether Trump had broken the law, in part because of Justice Department policy barring the indictment of a sitting president.

In perhaps the most memorable language of the report, Mueller pointedly noted: “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

The nebulous conclusion did not deliver the knockout punch to the administration that some Trump opponents had hoped for, nor did it trigger a sustained push by House Democrats to impeach the president — though he was later tried and acquitted on impeachment charges related to pressuring Ukraine for campaign dirt on Joe Biden and Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 riot and insurrection.

The outcome of the Mueller investigation also left room for Atty. Gen. William Barr to insert his own views. He and his team made their own determination that Trump did not obstruct justice, and he and Mueller privately tangled over a four-page summary letter from Barr that Mueller argued did not adequately capture his report’s damaging conclusion.

Mueller deflated Democrats during a highly anticipated congressional hearing on his report when he offered terse, one-word answers and appeared hesitant at times in his testimony. Frequently, he seemed to waver on details of his investigation. It was hardly the commanding performance many had expected from Mueller, who had a towering reputation in Washington.

Over the next months, Barr made clear his own disagreements with the foundations of the Russia investigation, moving to dismiss a false-statements prosecution that Mueller had brought against former national security advisor Michael Flynn, even though that investigation ended in a guilty plea.

Mueller’s tenure as special counsel was the capstone of a career spent in government.

A transformation at the FBI

His time as FBI director was defined by the Sept. 11 attacks and their aftermath, as the agency — granted broad new surveillance and national security powers — scrambled to confront an ascendant Al Qaeda, interrupt plots and take terrorists off the street before they could act.

It was a new model of policing for an FBI that had long been accustomed to investigating crimes that had already occurred.

When he became FBI director, “I had expected to focus on areas familiar to me as a prosecutor: drug cases, white-collar criminal cases and violent crime,” Mueller told a group of lawyers in October 2012.

Instead, “we had to focus on long-term, strategic change. We had to enhance our intelligence capabilities and upgrade our technology. We had to build upon strong partnerships and forge new friendships, both here at home and abroad.”

In response, the FBI shifted 2,000 of the total 5,000 agents in the bureau’s criminal programs to national security.

In hindsight, the transformation was a success. At the time, there were problems, and Mueller said as much. In a speech near the end of his tenure, he recalled “those days when we were under attack by the media and being clobbered by Congress; when the attorney general was not at all happy with me.”

Among the issues: The Justice Department’s inspector general found that the FBI circumvented the law to obtain thousands of phone call records for terrorism investigations.

Mueller decided that the FBI would not take part in abusive interrogation techniques of suspected terrorists, but the policy was not effectively communicated down the line for nearly two years.

In an effort to move the FBI into a paperless environment, the bureau spent more than $600 million on two computer systems — one that was 2½ years overdue and a predecessor that was only partly completed and had to be scrapped after consultants declared it obsolete and riddled with problems.

For the nation’s top law enforcement agency, it was a rocky trip through rough terrain.

But there were many successes as well, including thwarted terrorism plots and headline-making criminal cases like the one against corporate fraudster Bernie Madoff. The Republican also cultivated an apolitical reputation on the job, nearly quitting in a clash with the Bush administration over a surveillance program that he and his successor, James B. Comey, considered unlawful.

He famously stood alongside Comey, then deputy attorney general, during a dramatic 2004 hospital standoff over federal wiretapping rules. The two men planted themselves at the bedside of the ailing Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft to block Bush administration officials from making an end run to get Ashcroft’s permission to reauthorize a secret no-warrant wiretapping program.

In an extraordinary vote of confidence, Congress, at the Obama administration’s request, approved a two-year extension for Mueller to remain at his post beyond its 10-year term.

A Marine who served in Vietnam

Mueller was born in New York City and grew up in a well-to-do suburb of Philadelphia.

He received a bachelor’s degree from Princeton University and a master’s degree in international relations from New York University. He then joined the Marines, serving three years as an officer during the Vietnam War. He led a rifle platoon and was awarded a Bronze Star, Purple Heart and two Navy Commendation Medals. After his military service, Mueller earned a law degree from the University of Virginia.

Mueller became a federal prosecutor and relished the work of handling criminal cases. He rose quickly through the ranks in U.S. attorneys’ offices in San Francisco and Boston from 1976 to 1988. Later, as head of the Justice Department’s criminal division in Washington, he oversaw a range of high-profile prosecutions that chalked up victories against targets as varied as Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega and New York crime boss John Gotti.

In a midcareer switch that shocked colleagues, Mueller left a job at a prestigious Boston law firm to join the homicide division of the U.S. attorney’s office in the nation’s capital. There, he immersed himself as a senior litigator in a bulging caseload of unsolved drug-related homicides in a city rife with violence.

Mueller was driven by a career-long passion for the painstaking work of building successful criminal cases. Even as head of the FBI, he would dig into the details of investigations, some of them major cases but others less so, sometimes surprising agents who suddenly found themselves on the phone with the director.

“The management books will tell you that as the head of an organization, you should focus on the vision,” Mueller once said. But “for me there were and are today those areas where one needs to be substantially personally involved,” especially in regard to “the terrorist threat and the need to know and understand that threat to its roots.”

Two terrorist attacks occurred toward the end of Mueller’s watch: the Boston Marathon bombing and the Ft. Hood shootings in Texas. Both weighed heavily on him, he acknowledged in an interview two weeks before his departure.

“You sit down with victims’ families, you see the pain they go through, and you always wonder whether there isn’t something more” that could have been done, he said.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Nicolas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this report.