president

Seoirse Comerford owns the Comerford bar in Doonbeg. He described the tournament as “unbelievable”.

“If you look at the red double decker buses going up and down the street full of people, we never thought we would have seen the like of that.”

He said the golf course is a big employer and is keeping Doonbeg “alive”.

“Most rural villages in west Clare are all dying a death, young people going away to college, they don’t come back.

“Like there’s over 300 people employed up there at the golf course , it’s a big boost to the local economy. You’ve got big companies in Dublin, like Intel, the golf course is our Intel down here.

“I probably wouldn’t have taken over the bar business other than the golf course being up there.

“We would have had 1,000 plus through the pub on Saturday night and the same Friday night, so there’s a lot of people around the village, which is great to see.”

A trespasser tried to enter former Vice President Kamala Harris’ cliffside home in Malibu on Friday evening, according to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and a Harris spokesman.

Harris and her husband, Doug Emhoff, were not home at the time, according to Eduardo Negrón, a spokesperson for Harris. He did not respond to a question about the couple’s whereabouts.

“Last night, security personnel stopped an individual who illegally entered Vice President Harris and Second Gentleman Emhoff’s property before the individual reached the home,” he said in a statement. “They are grateful to the security and law enforcement personnel who responded swiftly.”

Harris’ on-site security contacted the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, which has jurisdiction over Malibu.

Lt. Jason Duron, a watch commander at the Malibu/Lost Hills sheriff’s station, said his department was contacted by Harris’ security detail when a woman made it to Harris’ front door. Sheriff’s deputies responded around 10:30 p.m., and the woman, who has not been identified, agreed to leave voluntarily. She was not arrested.

“We are stepping up patrols of the property to be safe,” Duron said.

Harris’ level of security has previously been scrutinized. Former vice presidents typically receive six months of Secret Service protection after leaving office, but former President Biden extended the coverage. President Trump, who beat Harris in the 2024 election, revoked the extension in August 2025.

That led Los Angeles and California law enforcement agencies to scramble to protect Harris. The Los Angeles Police Department quickly discontinued its involvement amid criticism that shifting manpower to protect the former vice president was hampering the agency’s ability to fight crime.

It’s unclear whether the California Highway Patrol is still helping to guard Harris, or whether the security personnel who called the Sheriff’s Department were private guards.

BEIRUT: Lebanese President Joseph Aoun made a surprise visit to Nabatieh on Saturday, with videos showing his convoy entering the southern city.

The visit comes amid heightened tensions in southern Lebanon following renewed Israeli strikes and increased security deployments in the area.

Aoun said that Israel’s withdrawal, the return of displaced residents and the reconstruction of affected areas were non-negotiable priorities that Lebanon was committed to achieving.

SACRAMENTO — Labor leader Dave Regan claimedFriday that he was the victim of a “smear” campaign orchestrated in part by wealthy Californians and said he has been falsely accused of attempting to “extort” an endorsement of the billionaire tax ballot measure and of physically assaulting a female union leader.

Investigations commissioned by the Service Employees International Union and SEIU California, and conducted by outside law firms, determined the allegations against Regan were credible, along with reports that he threatened and intimidated other female labor leaders. Regan, who is president of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, vehemently denied the allegations, which were first reported by The Times Friday morning.

During a video news conference hours after the allegations were published, Regan claimed the probes were launched by opponents of Proposition 40 — the billionaire tax measure he helped place on the Nov. 3 ballot — as well as members of the SEIU California labor council with whom he had clashed in the past.

Regan, joined by other SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West union leaders and members, also criticized Gov. Gavin Newsom for opposing the proposed one-time 5% tax on billionaires’ assets.

Newsom is “trying to curry favor with the richest people in the state to fund [his] presidential campaign,” Regan said. “That is shameful behavior.”

Newsom and other opponents of the measure, including Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and the California Teachers Assn., have expressed concern that Proposition 40 could push many of the state’s biggest taxpayers to relocate and destabilize state finances.

“The Governor supports a national tax on billionaires and is proud to stand with teachers, firefighters, reproductive health clinics, and others in opposing this poorly written state measure that will harm California,” said Newsom’s spokesperson Izzy Gardon.

Regan also criticized The Times’ reporting on the allegations, and an editorial opposing Proposition 40. He alleged that Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the Times’ owner, influenced coverage about the measure because he is a billionaire.

“We stand by our reporting,” said a Times spokesperson.

David Huerta, president of SEIU-United Service Workers West, and three other labor leaders filed a rare formal union charge against Regan in February. The SEIU investigation report, which was reviewed by The Times, supported Huerta’s claim that in December, Regan suggested the state council could be investigated for “governance issues” if the council did not endorse the proposed billionaire tax. Huerta was then president of SEIU California, which along with their national arm, did not endorse Proposition 40.

In July, the executive board for SEIU California voted to take a neutral position on the proposed wealth tax.

The investigation and a second inquiry conducted on behalf of SEIU California substantiated allegations that Regan threatened and intimidated women who worked for the state council. The investigation also determined an allegation that Regan physically assaulted a former executive director of the state labor organization, Courtni Pugh, in 2009, was credible.

Regan called the allegation that he assaulted Pugh a “complete fabrication.” Regan and other SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West members downplayed Pugh’s allegations against him because of her political consulting firm’s role opposing Proposition 40.

Pugh called his remarks “offensive” to the women who participated in the independent investigation.

“My testimony and the testimony of the other women were substantiated by investigators,” she said. “His claims were not.”

Regan remains in his job as the SEIU administrative process moves forward with hearings. Regan will get a chance to make his case before SEIU determines any appropriate disciplinary action.

Times Staff Writer Phil Willon contributed to this report.

European Parliament’s Vice President Pina Picierno says Hsiao Bi-khim’s visit ‘was kept secret until her arrival to protect her participation’ in the conference.

Taiwanese Vice President Hsiao Bi-khim is making a rare visit to Europe, attending a forum on democracy in Italy alongside the island’s foreign minister, the presidential office said.

Hsiao has been invited to attend the Ventotene Conference for Freedom and Democracy, and is travelling with Taiwanese Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung, the presidential office said in a brief statement.

Other details will be provided once the two return to Taiwan from the Italian island of Ventotene, it added,

While Taiwan’s foreign ministers occasionally visit Europe and other parts of the world that have no formal ties to the Chinese-claimed island, it is rare for an official as senior as the vice president to do so, given the risk of backlash from Beijing against the host nation.

Pina Picierno, vice president of the European Parliament, said Hsiao’s planned participation “was kept secret until her arrival to protect her participation” in the conference.

“No one can determine who can be hosted on European soil, what voices can be heard, and what presences must be hidden,” Picierno said in a Facebook post. “It is a simple and very clear message: intimidation cannot decide who participates in our democratic debate.”

“Freedom of debate is not negotiable with autocracies. And Ventotene, more than ever today, must continue to be the place where freedom and democracy are defended without fear,” she added.

The Ventotene conference takes place from Thursday until Saturday this week. Italy, like most countries, has no formal diplomatic ties with Chinese-claimed Taiwan.

Oleksandra Matviichuk, a 2022 Nobel Peace Prize laureate and president of Ukraine’s Centre for Civil Liberties, is also expected to participate in the conference.

China says Taiwan is one of its provinces, a view the democratically governed island strongly rejects.

Last November, Hsiao spoke at the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China’s annual summit, held in the European Parliament in Brussels.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — The U.S. Supreme Court again rejected a push to use Missouri congressional maps backed by President Donald Trump on Thursday, a loss for Republicans trying to maintain control of the House in the fast-approaching midterm elections.

The decision appears to clear the way for use of the old maps.

It comes after a pitched court battle shortly before ballots begin going out for the pivotal November elections. The maps were drawn to help Republicans gain an additional U.S. House seat.

It’s the second time the high court has refused to intervene to keep the Trump-backed maps in place.

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

FFF aligns position with of other European federations, such as Belgium, England, Italy, Scotland, and Sweden.

The French Football Federation is withdrawing its support for Gianni Infantino’s re-election bid as FIFA chief ⁠next year, FFF President Philippe Diallo has said, saying trust in the head of world football’s governing body had been broken.

The decision was taken unanimously by the FFF’s executive committee, Diallo ⁠said on Thursday.

“The trust placed in the FIFA president has been broken,” Diallo told reporters. “The way in which we envisage the running of world football no longer corresponds with the way it is being conducted.”

Infantino, who is seeking another term as FIFA president, has faced mounting criticism since his failed proposal to sell a ‌20 percent stake in FIFA competitions, including the World Cup, to private investors was abandoned in July following widespread opposition from football’s regional confederations.

Diallo said France had initially backed Infantino’s candidacy at the end of June, when he was the only declared candidate, but that subsequent events had fundamentally changed the circumstances.

“The conditions for our support for his candidacy were no longer there,” he said.

Diallo added that the proposed stake sale, which emerged without what he described as proper ⁠consultation or information being provided to federations, had raised serious questions over ⁠FIFA’s governance and decision-making.

Several European federations, including England’s and Italy’s, have withdrawn their backing for Infantino since the collapse of his proposal.

UEFA, the Asian Football Confederation and North America’s CONCACAF have called for change at the top of FIFA and ⁠are seeking a credible alternative before the March election.

Diallo said France’s decision formed part of a broader movement within UEFA and beyond and that ⁠discussions would now focus on governance reform and finding a ⁠candidate capable of defeating Infantino.

“It is not enough simply to criticise if you want things to move forward. You also have to make proposals,” Diallo said.

He added that UEFA would need to define a platform for the next FIFA leadership cycle ‌and, when the time came, choose a candidate for the election.

“We will need to be ready by then to put forward a candidacy capable of winning the FIFA presidency,” Diallo said.

Infantino still has ‌the ‌support of South America’s CONMEBOL and Africa’s CAF.

The FIFA presidential election will take place in Rabat on March 18, 2027, with the deadline for candidacies on November 18.

Fox Corp.’s $22-billion acquisition of San José-based Roku, operator of streaming services and seller of hardware devices, seemed like a straightforward deal when it was announced in June: A growing media company was looking to bolster its presence in the fast-growing streaming industry.

But, on Wednesday, the Trump administration weighed in.

Fox Corp. and Roku said that the companies received requests from the Justice Department on Tuesday for additional information in connection with its review of the merger.

While Fox and Roku downplayed the requests, saying that they had expected the outreach, the timing of the move raised eyebrows among some analysts, who said it could signal further scrutiny of the transaction by the Justice Department.

“The president has been outspoken on the fact that he will take retaliatory action against networks that say things that he doesn’t agree with, or they do things that he doesn’t agree with,” said Rob Enderle, principal analyst at advisory services firm Enderle Group.

The action follows President Trump’s surprise over Fox’s ouster of anchor Maria Bartiromo. She was pushed out after she had shared internal company texts with the White House, which sources told The Times may have been the breaking point.

Trump said on social media that he couldn’t believe that Bartiromo will no longer have her shows on Fox. “Her fans, of which there are many, will not be happy,” he wrote on Truth Social on Sept. 3.

Associate Atty. Gen. Stanley Woodward said the Justice Department could not comment on pending matters but said in a statement: “We can affirm that this DOJ under President Trump’s leadership will continue to prioritize affordability for all Americans across our economy.”

Fox announced in June its plans to acquire Roku for $22 billion, which would give the company access to Roku’s 100 million households that use its platform to connect to different streaming services. The deal would benefit Fox’s advertising business, as well as make it less reliant on traditional pay TV platforms.

Fox and Roku said they expect the merger to be done by the first half of 2027, subject to regulatory and shareholder approval, according to a Sept 9 filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

“FOX and Roku will continue to work cooperatively with the DOJ in its review of the Mergers,” Fox said in its filing.

Some legal experts said it is fairly standard for the Justice Department to make an additional request for information.

“It doesn’t mean that their review is going to be more extensive than usual,” said Ray Seilie, an entertainment attorney at law firm Kinsella Holley Iser Kump Steinsapir.

For example, the Justice Department made a second request for information when it reviewed Paramount Skydance’s deal to buy Warner Bros. Discovery, he said. The merging companies typically send information that helps the government figure out what the market impact will be of a merger, he added.

The Justice Department ultimately approved Paramount’s planned acquisition, despite opposition from some industry stakeholders. State attorneys general and the Writers Guild of America have sued Paramount over the deal, raising antitrust concerns. Others have pointed out close ties between Trump and Larry Ellison, a financial backer of the deal, who has also donated money to a group that supports Trump. Ellison’s son, David, is chief executive of Paramount Skydance.

Legal experts and analysts said they don’t think the combination of Fox and Roku raises antitrust issues because they are not dominant players in streaming and have businesses that complement each other.

But one wild card is Trump.

“You never know what Trump is going to seize on and decide he wants to do,” said Bryan Sullivan, a partner with law firm Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae on whether Trump will take retaliatory action through the Justice Department in the Fox-Roku deal. “It’s chaos in the federal government and it could very well happen because of that reason, but it could also just be a blip and not a big deal.”

Times staff writer Stephen Battaglio contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — In the real world, President Trump is struggling to stop inflation, rout the Iranian government and restore American manufacturing with tariffs.

However, it’s a different story in the fantastical vision that he shares with supporters on social media. Over Labor Day weekend, Trump and the White House unleashed an extraordinarily heavy torrent of memes that portrayed the president as singularly powerful.

One video depicted Trump as a superhero wielding Green Lantern’s ring to effortlessly build a wall to keep out migrants and erect a slew of busy factories. Another post showed him in a U.S. hockey uniform looming over Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney as Carney cowered on the ice. And another had Trump on a military ship as it bombarded an enemy fleet.

Trump’s allure has always relied on a mythical version of himself, from “The Apprentice” to the White House, but the gap between meme and reality has become glaringly stark ahead of the midterm elections. Most U.S. adults are unhappy with Trump’s handling of the economy and say the Iran war hasn’t been worth it, but Trump has responded with outlandish images of himself as unstoppable and omnipotent.

Memes risk sidestepping reality

Some of the pictures are generated with artificial intelligence, and the administration has previously defended the memes as funny and their critics as humorless. Yet the stakes right now are serious for congressional Republicans who have tied their own fate to a president with low approval numbers. Trump’s party will put him center stage at an unusual midterm convention on Wednesday and Thursday in Dallas in hopes of stoking voters’ enthusiasm.

Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist, said that Trump’s social media posts can energize his base of “Make America Great Again” followers, although the tradeoff is that he’s not talking about how to fix inflation.

The voters who are likely to determine control of Congress in the midterms “are not going to be won over with memes,” Madden said. “The affordability voter is driving this election cycle and the issues they care about are anchored in the economy.”

The White House press office did not respond to a request for comment. Trump sometimes plucks memes from a sprawling ecosystem of online conservative supporters, and sometimes his government staff produces them as part of their official messaging. Recently they created a series of old-school video games, such as a “Tetris” knockoff called “Build the Wall.”

“The memes will continue,” Kaelan Dorr, a member of the White House communications team, recently posted on social media. “The winning will continue.”

Aging presidents promote vitality online

The problem for Trump is that voters have other images they’re using to define him. Drivers can spot through their windshields that gasoline is averaging $4.15 a gallon, up nearly 30% from a year ago because of the Iran war. And social media is inundated with questions about the 80-year-old president’s health and vitality, spurred by pictures of his bruised hands or video clips of him appearing to fall asleep in meetings.

White House officials have said the bruising is caused by “frequent handshaking” and Trump’s aspirin regimen, and they’ve denied that he’s dozed off.

Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, is three years older and faced relentless scrutiny about his age while in office. His White House came to embrace a meme version of Biden with lasers for eyes, suggesting that he was powerful and focused rather than infirm.

Andrew Bates, who was a deputy press secretary for Biden, said that Trump’s memes seem to be about avoiding the actual responsibilities of governing. He said they risk angering voters who see Trump as more focused on redecorating the White House than bringing the Iran war to a successful end.

“When a president who ran on bringing gas prices under $2 a gallon is now saying, ‘You’re at four dollars, it’s OK,’ it unfortunately makes sense that he’s also posting fever dreams,” Bates said.

Some memes have caused trouble

The memes have occasionally gotten Trump into trouble. He posted an image of himself as Jesus in April, which caused a degree of consternation among some supporters. The president later claimed he thought the image showed him as a medical doctor — albeit a doctor in Biblical robes with light emanating from his hands.

In February, his account posted a racist video of former President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, as primates, which he deleted after a backlash.

Last October, Trump shared a video of him in a fighter jet dumping feces on Americans who were protesting his policies.

What the memes have not done so far is boost his wider approval ratings. Only 33% of U.S. adults approve of how he is handling the job of being president, according to a July AP-NORC poll.

But the polling also hits at a reason why he might be sending the memes to rally his core supporters. Just 15% of U.S. adults strongly approve of his presidency, the poll found, a slight decline from 22% shortly after he took office.

Boak writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s pending defamation case against Fox News could go to trial in early 2028, around the same time the governor could be running a 2028 campaign for president.

Newsom sued the news network last year over its coverage of a phone call that took place between the governor and President Trump in June 2025, as unrest simmered over federal immigration raids in downtown Los Angeles. The governor accused the news outlet of intentionally manipulating its coverage to give the appearance that he lied about the call.

Despite an on-air apology from Fox News host Jesse Watters and attempts from the network to have the lawsuit thrown out, a Delaware Superior Court judge late last month set a trial date for March 6, 2028. Newsom filed the lawsuit in Delaware, where Fox News and its parent company, Fox Corp., are incorporated.

Newsom’s final term in office ends in early January and he is considering a run for president. The lawsuit seeks $787 million in damages, the same amount the network paid to settle a defamation suit brought by voting machine company Dominion. The company accused Fox News of airing false claims that voting machines were manipulated to help Joe Biden win the 2020 presidential election.

Lawyers for Fox News sought to have the case dismissed and Newsom ordered to pay attorneys’ fees. Judge Sean P. Lugg denied both motions this year, a ruling upheld by the Delaware Supreme Court.

“We will continue to vigorously defend against Governor Newsom’s meritless claims, which directly implicate core First Amendment protections for free speech, political commentary and a free press,” the network said in a statement to The Times.

“No media empire, no matter how rich and powerful, should get to lie to the American people with impunity,” said Michael Teter, the attorney representing Newsom in the case. “Governor Newsom is holding Fox accountable — and looks forward to proving this case in court. The truth matters.”

The case stems from a phone call between Trump and Newsom in early June 2025 as unrest brewed in Los Angeles over federal immigration raids and hours before the president took control of state National Guard troops, ordering them to protect federal buildings and immigration agents.

Newsom’s lawsuit accuses Fox hosts Watters and John Roberts, along with two senior news staffers, of misrepresenting Trump’s statements and asserting that Newsom lied about whether the call had happened.

The governor had previously publicly spoken about a late-night phone call he had with Trump on June 6 in California, which was early June 7 for Trump on the East Coast. He said that the National Guard was never discussed during that call and that the two did not speak about the immigration raids and protests again.

Trump told reporters on June 10 that he had spoken with Newsom “a day ago.”

“Called him up to tell him, got to do a better job, he’s doing a bad job,” Trump said.

Newsom disputed Trump’s timeline, writing on social media, “There was no call. Not even a voicemail.”

Roberts then said on social media and on air that Trump sent him evidence that the call took place. Newsom’s lawsuit accused Roberts of leaving out key details about the time of the call.

Roberts “did not provide the critical fact that on June 10, President Trump had stated that he had spoken to Governor Newsom ‘a day ago.’ Nor did Mr. Roberts note that June 6 — or June 7 at 1:23 am — is not ‘a day ago’ when one is speaking on June 10,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit also accused Watters’ show of playing a clip of Trump’s remarks that was edited to remove the president’s reference to “a day ago.”

“Newsom responded, and he said there wasn’t a phone call,” Watters said after showing the clip. “He said Trump never called him. Not even a voicemail, he said. But John Roberts got Trump’s call logs, and it shows Trump called him late Friday night and they talked for 16 minutes. Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him? Why would he do that?”

A caption at the bottom of the screen during the report read, “Gavin lied about Trump’s call.”

Weeks later, Watters acknowledged the mistake and apologized, saying Newsom “wasn’t lying. He was just confusing and unclear.”

Newsom declined to drop the suit and in court documents demanded a jury trial.

Getting a trial date doesn’t necessarily mean a trial will take place, Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson said.

Fox’s “motion to dismiss was denied. That means the case is continuing,” she said. “But what’s also happening throughout all of this is the sides are probably talking about some sort of settlement.”

The case now enters the discovery phase, where each side collects evidence to build their case.

Court records show Fox News lawyers last month sent subpoenas to Newsom’s political action committee and several top advisors, including his chief of staff, Nathan Barankin; communications director Bob Salladay; legal affairs secretary David Sapp; and political consultants Ace Smith, Lindsey Cobia, Jason Elliott and Nathan Click.

The subpoenas ordered them to produce documents related to the network’s coverage of Newsom, the phone call with Trump and the governor’s response strategy.

If a trial does happen, Levinson said, the timing could either help or hurt Newsom’s potential presidential campaign.

“He can use it as a talking point and say, ‘I don’t leave any stone unturned. I’m seeking to vindicate my reputation. I believe in the truth, and the other side does not believe in the truth. That’s why I’m bringing this case.’ So, he can use it as a part of his stump,” she said.

But if the trial proceeds and Newsom believes it would take time away from his campaign, he could ask for it to be moved to a different date.

“Trial dates get changed all the time for much less,” Levinson said.

Jerusalem: Israel’s President Isaac Herzog warned against British sanctions on settlements in the occupied West Bank, expected to be announced on Tuesday, saying the decision would “fall on the wrong side of history”.

“Later today, we expect to see headlines announcing certain British trade sanctions on Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria,” Herzog said, using the biblical term for the West Bank.

“If this happens – and other nations may join – I believe it will prove to be a grave miscalculation, a decision that will fall on the wrong side of history,” he added.

The expected UK move follows weeks of increasing settler attacks against Palestinians in the occupied territory.

It also comes as the right-wing government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ramps up settlement construction in the West Bank, which some western governments fear threatens a two-state solution.

British government minister Pat McFadden said Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband would make a statement to parliament laying out “measures specifically targeted at the expansion of these settlements, which are illegal under international law, in the West Bank”.

He told Sky News that the changes, on which he provided no further detail, would be motivated by “the idea of keeping alive this possibility of seeing a Palestinian state alongside Israel”.

“I think it’s also important to say that Israel is an important trading partner for the UK. This isn’t intended to be a boycott of all Israeli goods.”

UK government ministers have suggested recently that goods coming out of settlements could be subject to trade restrictions as part of the changes.

Herzog on Tuesday said: “Sanctions are not a solution. Dialogue is.”

“I say to all foreign governments: Stop! Step away from the dead-end of sanctions and boycotts. And turn toward constructive dialogue and toward cooperation,” he added.

Israel has since 1967 occupied the West Bank, where more than 500,000 Israelis live in settlements among some three million Palestinians.

With Israel headed to the polls next month, Herzog said the UK move, if announced, “would be a gross interference in the democratic elections of a sovereign nation”.

“It will serve no one. It will directly harm – unfortunately – Palestinians, robbing them of business and employment,” he added.

ARAB SALIM: Lebanese President Joseph Aoun urged Washington and the international community to help stop Israeli attacks, which killed at least seven people on Sunday despite a truce and a framework deal aimed at halting the violence.

Israel said it had targeted Hezbollah operatives and sites in response to a drone attack a day earlier by the Iran-backed group on its troops in the vicinity of a strategic south Lebanon ridge.

It reported no casualties but accused Hezbollah of a “blatant violation.”

Israel this week said it had captured the Nabatieh-area Ali Al-Taher ridge, which it considers part of its self-declared “security zone” in south Lebanon.

Hezbollah, which has not claimed any attacks for weeks, has not commented on Israel’s declaration of control over the site.

Aoun said Sunday’s strikes, which damaged government premises and destroyed an out-of-service hospital, were “a dangerous escalation… reaching Lebanese state institutions” and health facilities.

He called on the international community — particularly the United States, which has sponsored direct Israel-Lebanon talks and a framework agreement between the sides in June — “to urgently act to stop these violations.”

Lebanon’s health ministry said two people were killed in strikes on south Lebanon’s Nabatieh Al-Fawqa, with two women also killed in nearby Arab Salim.

It said 20 other people including several women and three children were wounded there, as well as in the city of Nabatieh and town of Kfar Rumman.

The ministry later reported that a strike on a parking lot near Nabatieh killed three more people.

Hospital hit

The ministry said one of the strikes in Nabatieh Al-Fawqa “totally destroyed” the out-of-service Ghandour hospital, decrying “another grave violation of international humanitarian law.”

Israel’s army said it targeted Hezbollah operatives and infrastructure, including “weapons storage facilities and terrorist structures,” as well as “a Hezbollah command center that had been established inside a building previously used as a hospital.”

It had earlier issued its first evacuation notice in Lebanon in a month, warning residents near a building it called a Hezbollah facility in Arab Salim to leave ahead of an attack on the site.

It did not issue warnings for other areas where strikes were reported.

Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency (NNA) said that after the Israeli warning for Arab Salim, “enemy warplanes launched a strike on another house, destroying it” and killing the two women.

It said the Israeli military subsequently carried out a strike on the building threatened in the evacuation warning.

At the scene of the second strike, an AFP correspondent saw the ruins of a devastated villa, with large decorative columns laying on their side next to stairs littered with rubble.

Haidar Haidar, the brother of the building’s owner, told AFP that nobody had been living inside.

At the other site in Arab Salim where the two women were killed, a mattress, furniture and other items including a Hezbollah flag were strewn among the rubble, while neighboring buildings were also damaged.

‘Take action’

The NNA also reported a strike on a motorcycle in the Nabatieh area, and said that another in the city itself targeted a historical building and damaged offices belonging to finance and agriculture authorities.

An AFP correspondent there saw rubble and extensive damage to adjacent buildings, shops and vehicles, as heavy machinery cleared the road. Dust and debris covered chairs and desks in the regional ministry offices.

Nabatieh Mayor Abbas Fakhreddine said “the Lebanese government must take action… and at the least defend its institutions,” adding that it was the second time the official buildings had been damaged by strikes.

Lebanon was drawn into the wider Middle East war in March after Hezbollah attacked Israel in support of its backer Iran.

Israel responded with airstrikes and a ground invasion of Lebanon that Beirut says have killed more than 4,300 people.

Violence has decreased since a US-Iran memorandum of understanding on the broader regional conflict in June and the Israel-Lebanon framework agreement later that month.

Israeli forces are operating inside a self-declared “security zone” around 10 kilometers (six miles) deep inside Lebanon along the border.

Fifa president Gianni Infantino will stand for re-election in March, says football’s world governing body.

Infantino, who has filled the role since 2016, has been under pressure following his scrapped plans to sell stakes in Fifa competitions to private investment firms.

Infantino’s lucrative plan sparked a global outcry, with European football’s governing body Uefa threatening to boycott all Fifa competitions, including the World Cup.

“The Fifa president announced in April that he will stand for re-election in 2027,” read a Fifa statement.

“Of course, nothing has changed. Mr Infantino will be standing for re-election.”

It is the first time Fifa has said he will aim to run for a fourth term since the scandal began following the summer’s World Cup.

Fifa this week accused Uefa of a “smear campaign against it and its leadership”, in a challenge to litigation over Infantino’s plan.

Last week Uefa filed legal papers in the US requesting disclosure of evidence and documents from Fifa, warning it could lodge a criminal complaint in Switzerland.

BBC Sport understands Uefa is confident that a candidate can be found to stand against Infantino.

A candidate must received the backing of at least 106 of the 211 Fifa member associations.

Uefa has abandoned the idea of trying to force a vote of no confidence.

It would require three-quarters of the members – 159 votes – to pass the motion through a change of Fifa statutes, which is considered unrealistic.

No other candidates to challenge Infantino have been named, although Concacaf president Victor Montagliani is considered a serious option.

Nominations must be submitted by 18 November.

More to follow.

Costa Rican President Laura Fernandez has suggested that United States military operations in the country’s territory could bring national security benefits.

But she added caveats. In an interview published on Friday, Fernandez emphasised to the news service Reuters that such measures would require approval from the national legislature.

She also added there were no plans in the works for US forces to operate in the country.

“It would obviously be very good for national security if it were about pursuing a common objective against transnational crime, transnational drug trafficking, transnational terrorism,” said Fernandez, a right-wing populist who took office in May.

Fernandez succeeded her mentor, former President Rodrigo Chaves, after a February election in which concerns about security and rising violence in the Central American country played a prominent role.

Though she ran on a tough-on-crime platform, Fernandez has said that she is not currently considering a state of emergency to address the problem.

Such emergency declarations typically suspend key constitutional rights, in favour of giving police or the military added powers to crack down on violence.

That model has been popularised under the right-wing president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele.

But critics point out that the states of emergency are meant to be short-term measures, not permanent ones. El Salvador has been under an emergency declaration since 2022, with the government extending it dozens of times.

Crime has become a top voter concern in Costa Rica. The Central American country’s homicide rate has doubled in the last decade, reaching 17.2 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2023.

That figure still places the country’s average well below many others in the region, but the change, partly attributed to increased drug trafficking activity, has startled many residents.

Fernandez’s remarks also reflect growing pressure from the US to reduce crime across the Western Hemisphere.

Since returning to office for a second term, US President Donald Trump has pushed to expand his country’s influence across Latin America, notably through military engagements.

Earlier this year, he launched the “Shield of the Americas”, also known as the Americas Counter Cartel Coalition (ACCC), to bring together right-wing leaders across the region to address drug trafficking.

Trump used the inaugural meeting to encourage Latin American governments to embrace a military-driven approach to crime, despite concerns about human rights.

He has also carried out and threatened military operations in sovereign countries, on the premise of combatting crime.

Some countries, such as Mexico, have baulked at the prospect of US military forces carrying out operations on their territory. Critics point to Washington’s long record of interventions and rights abuses in the region.

But other countries have been more receptive. US forces, for instance, have recently carried out military operations with the right-wing government of Ecuador, in an effort to lower crime rates.

Ecuador’s armed forces, however, have been accused of crimes such as torture and enforced disappearance, abuses that experts warn could be worsened by support from the US.

A July report from Human Rights Watch warns that the military collaboration between Ecuador and the US has already had dire consequences.

Ecuadorian fishermen have reported facing attacks at sea, and in one case, Ecuadorian soldiers allegedly detained and tortured four Colombian farm workers, using methods such as mock executions, beatings and electric shocks.

That incident reportedly took place during a raid near the border carried out with US support.

“The two countries’ security relationship is deepening at a moment when both governments have engaged in serious human rights violations fueled by their insistence on framing their confrontations with organised crime groups as a kind of war,” the report says.

Those raids come after Ecuadorian voters rejected a referendum last year that would have allowed foreign countries to set up military bases in the country.

The U.S. Secret Service dealt with several drone-related incidents without adjusting its protection policies or documenting why it didn’t, according to a government report released Thursday. That information may have helped illustrate the emerging threat of civilian drone use before one was used in the 2024 assassination attempt on then-candidate Donald Trump in Butler, Pa.

The report from the Government Accountability Office found delays and holes in how the Secret Service updates its policies regarding threats, and arrives after a few turbulent years for the agency charged with the president’s protection.

The would-be assassin in Butler positioned himself on a roof left unsecured, nicking the president’s ear with a bullet. Months later, a man with a rifle got surprisingly close to Trump at his West Palm Beach, Fla., golf course. And in April, an armed man got beyond security barriers at the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner, where the president sat.

The report found that between 2015 and 2025 the Secret Service dealt with 83 security incidents and that it updated its protection policies in response to 25 of them. Among the incidents was a drone that made contact with President Obama’s motorcade in 2015 and another flown about 200 feet over a rally for then-presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

Failing to document why the Secret Service decided not to change its policy is the concern, said Nathan Tranquilli, acting director of the Government Accountability Office, adding that the drone incidents were a “compelling example” of that.

“Some of the missing information has been relevant to subsequent attacks,” the report read. It cited the Butler incident, where the culprit flew a drone for 11 minutes over the crowd, which helped him position himself to get a clear shot at Trump.

The Secret Service also failed to update eight of 22 protection policies within a required time frame of four years. A memorandum of understanding between the Secret Service and the Diplomatic Security Service, which designates each agency’s responsibilities for the president’s overseas security, hasn’t been updated since 1991, even though an annual review and update are required. As a consequence, the memorandum doesn’t address newer threats, such as drones.

“When you look at the Secret Service and you look at their mission, really it’s a zero-fail mission, and they’ve got a ton of challenges,” Tranquilli said. “When decisions were being made about where to put time and energy, some of these things fell to the side, and, as a result, there were some delays.”

The report recommended three fixes, including that the Secret Service revise its policy to require that, when a security incident doesn’t warrant a policy update, that the rationale is documented.

A spokesperson for the Secret Service did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but the report stated that the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service, agreed with all recommendations and plans to implement changes.

Bedayn writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has frequently suggested he wants to seek a third term, posting about mounting another campaign, donning 2028 caps and discussing ways to make it happen — even as he’s acknowledged the Constitution prohibits it.

But lately, Trump has begun showing signs that even he doesn’t really believe another run will happen.

During recent speeches, the Republican president has begun describing life after the White House when his term ends in January 2029, predicting he’ll be at home and agonizing as his successor claims credit for his accomplishments.

“Your next president is going to say, ‘What a great job I did,’ ” Trump told an event on Long Island, N.Y., this month. “He’ll be sitting around, watching television. A real stiff. Unless you vote Republican, of course.”

A sitting president talking about becoming a former one is always politically fraught. But with midterm elections now just nine weeks away, Trump is approaching the point of his presidency where there will be more and more reminders that his power will soon wane.

Being willing to say he’s contemplating a White House without him marks a notable shift for Trump. Going back to his first term and from virtually the moment he won a second, he’s left the door open to staying put for more than eight years.

“He is all over the place,” said Brian Kalt, a Michigan State University constitutional law professor. “And what that does is, it allows him to point to his own words to support any number of mutually exclusive things.”

Trump can say, “ ’Oh, yeah, I made it clear that I wasn’t gonna run,’ ” Kalt said. “Or, if he decides that he will, he could say, ’Well, you know, I never said I wouldn’t.’ ”

Trump suggests his post-presidency may make him cry

The White House dismissed suggestions that Trump’s thoughts are increasingly turning to the clock running out on his presidency — and the legacy he’ll leave behind. Spokesperson Olivia Wales said he “is fighting every day” to deliver on promises to reduce violent crime, crack down on the U.S.-Mexico border and lower prescription drug prices.

“The only legacy President Trump is concerned with is making America greater than ever before,” Wales said.

Still, hinting at how he’ll be remembered is something Trump is suddenly talking about a lot.

During a recent Pennsylvania rally, he said, “Whoever the next president is, he’s going to be talking about what a brilliant president he is. And I’ll be home. And I’ll be saying, ’That son of a gun,’ because we did the job.”

A week later in Georgia, Trump was predicting that once his presidency was over, “I’ll be sitting home.”

“I may be crying,” the president added, arguing that Democrats could retake the Senate and scrap filibuster rules, making it easier to move their key legislation.

Then, in Michigan, Trump injected some doubt into whether he was ready to hand over the Oval Office and move back to Florida.

“In two and a half years, you may have a different president — may,” he said, emphasizing the “may.”

“I’ll be sitting home. I’ll be reading the papers. I’ll be watching television,” Trump said, before swiping at his predecessor, President Biden. “And I’ll be having some guy — like last time, a real idiot — stand up and say, ‘We are doing record business.’ ”

Mixed Trump signals are still most common

But even as he’s begun to suggest he’ll be leaving the presidency, Trump has also continued to tease a 2028 reelection run.

Addressing the rescheduled White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner last month, Trump joked, “Just like my presidency, the second time is always better” and that “the third time will be better yet. I’m only kidding.” He later wore a 2028 campaign cap to finish the speech.

The Constitution’s 22nd Amendment says no one can be elected president more than twice. It was ratified in 1951, six years after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt died, months into his fourth term. Until Roosevelt, no other president had defied the tradition of stepping down after two terms that George Washington started.

Still, Trump had only been back in the White House for a couple of months when he told NBC News, “There are methods which you could” use to seek a third term.

He acknowledged that one method was to be the running mate to Vice President JD Vance in 2028 — then have Vance step aside if the pair won.

“There are others, too,” Trump said then, alluding to more options. He later told Time magazine, “There are some loopholes,” while also saying he didn’t believe in using them.

The president has since often used his social media posts to promote “Trump 2028” logos featuring his slogan “Make America Great Again.”

But Trump has also at times seemed definitive about the ban on him making another run, acknowledging recently to reporters: “I’d love to run, but the law is very strong.”

Kalt wrote about a two-term president possibly getting back to office by running for vice president in “constitutional Cliffhangers: A Legal Guide for Presidents and Their Enemies.”

“People do tend to find, in Trump’s words, whatever it is that they want to hear,” he said.

Trump may be fighting the ‘lame duck’ factor

Second-term presidents typically see their power and influence wane during their last two years, particularly if their party suffers big midterm defeats. But Trump’s comments could also be a sign he’s thinking about cementing his legacy, a stage that many of his predecessors also reached.

“They all, particularly as they cross the midpoint of their second term, start thinking about legacy,” said Paul Begala, a former adviser to President Clinton.

“They all banish the word. I know Clinton and Bush, they said, ’Can’t use the L-word.’ But they do,” Begala said, referring to his old boss Clinton and to President George W. Bush. “They all think about it. And the staff thinks about it and the Cabinet thinks about it.”

In his last two years of office, Clinton threw himself into trying to broker a Middle East peace agreement. Bush used the slogan “sprint to the finish” during his presidency’s final year in 2008, and Biden adopted a “run through the tape” ethos after abandoning his reelection bid.

Trump has leaned into molding the White House and Greater Washington in his own image, harkening back to his days as a real estate developer in 1970s and 1980s New York.

He’s ordered up a towering arch near the Lincoln Memorial and restored city fountains, while constructing a Rose Garden patio area and helipad on the White House lawn and adding scores of gilded touches to the building’s stately interior and exterior.

And then, there’s the massive ballroom that Trump has crews rushing to finish in the face of legal challenges — a project the president says will only be completed late in 2028, shortly before he leaves office.

“It’s not for me, ‘cause I’m going to be here a very short period of time” when the work is finished, Trump recently told reporters in the Oval Office. “I’ll be there for four, five, six months. This is for future presidents.”

Weissert writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — In firing up a trade war with Canada, President Trump turned to a 96-year-old statute so obscure that many trade lawyers didn’t even know it was still on the books.

Trump invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 on Aug. 24 to slap a 50% tax on $20 billion worth of Canadian imports. The move prompted dollar-for-dollar retaliation from Ottawa and strained already-tense relations between the neighbors and longtime allies.

The president’s Section 338 tariff authority has never been used, let alone tested in court. “This law is literally a blank canvas because it’s never been litigated,’’ said Ryan Majerus, a partner at law firm King & Spalding and a former U.S. trade official.

So it’s unclear whether Trump’s latest Canada tariffs could survive a legal challenge, and some lawyers argue that the Depression-era law has been rendered obsolete by more recent trade laws.

Trump raises Section 338 from the dead

To sanction Canada allegedly for discriminating against U.S. dairy, auto and alcoholic beverage exports this summer, the Trump administration reached back to the Great Depression.

The 1930 tariff legislation is known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act after its congressional sponsors. With the U.S. and world economies in collapse, Congress raised tariffs on hundreds of imports in an attempt to protect American farmers and manufacturers.

The tariffs are notorious among economists and historians for shutting down world commerce and making the Great Depression worse. (Trump, who proudly calls himself “Tariff Man,” has a different view, arguing that the Smoot-Hawley levies simply came too late to rescue the American economy.)

In addition to raising tariffs themselves, lawmakers in 1930 gave the president new power to impose them himself: Section 338 authorizes presidential tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that have discriminated against U.S. businesses.

Before Trump, no president had actually used the statute.

“Until Trump’s second term, few trade lawyers were aware that Section 338 remained on the books or understood what it did,” legal scholars Peter Harrell and Jennifer Hillman of Georgetown University wrote this month in the libertarian magazine Reason.

Harrell and Hillman cite State Department records to show that the U.S. considered using Section 338 in trade disputes — against Spain in 1932 and against newly communist China in 1949 — but never did. After the Depression, U.S. policy focused more on using negotiations — rather than sanctions — to open foreign markets.

So Section 338 sat moldering in the law books.

Other laws take hold

As the years went by, the United States passed new trade laws. Some of them ceded to the president tariff power, which the Constitution originally granted to Congress. But the new laws also limited the president’s authority to certain circumstances — including dealing with national security threats and foreign currency crises — and required the government to carry out investigations and meet other procedural requirements beforehand.

“There is a very strong argument that [Section 338] was superseded,” said Sara Albrecht, chief executive of the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian advocacy group that represented businesses that successfully challenged the earlier Trump tariffs with the Supreme Court.

If Congress wanted the president to retain Section 338 power, Albrecht asks, why did lawmakers pass the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allowed for national security tariffs? And the Trade Act of 1974, which gives the president power to go after other countries’ unfair trade practices?

Battling over Canada’s dairy market

Legal experts see other weaknesses in the Section 338 tariffs.

Harrell and Hillman, for instance, write in Reason that Section 338 authorizes only tariffs that “offset” the harm that a foreign country’s trade practices do to American companies. But in targeting Canada, they note, the Trump administration made no attempt to calculate the dollar amount of damage arising from discrimination against U.S. farmers, automakers and marketers of alcoholic beverages. And the U.S. went after Canadian imports unconnected to those trouble spots, including hockey sticks and cement.

Harrell and Hillman also say that Canada’s protection of its dairy market does not single out U.S. farmers for discrimination; the rules apply to many other Canadian trading partners as well.

Moreover, the United States agreed to the Canadian system — in which Canada imposes stiff tariffs on dairy imports that exceed a quota — in a North America trade pact Trump himself negotiated with Canada and Mexico in his first term. Harrell and Hillman write that it is “incongruous, to say the least, for the United States to denounce as discriminatory the very terms it agreed to.”

But John Veroneau, former general counsel for the U.S. Trade Representative, said the Section 338 tariffs are straightforward: They are justified when another country discriminates against U.S. imports by taxing them more than it taxes imports from other countries.

And in a “perverse irony,” Veroneau said, Canada did just that when it responded to tariffs Trump imposed on Canadian products last year with its own retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports. “Courts will rightly feel obliged in the face of any challenge [to decide]: Are the statutory requirements met or are they not met, however ludicrous the broader context might be,” said Veroneau, adjunct professor at the University of Maine School of Law.

Plaintiffs are so far hard to find

Trump’s other tools to impose his protectionist agenda already have floundered in court. The Supreme Court in February threw out his boldest gambit: invoking a 1977 national security law to hit almost every country on Earth last year with double-digit tariffs.

When Trump tried to replace the revenue lost to the Supreme Court defeat with a new set of tariffs, a specialized trade court in New York rejected those too — though the government was allowed to continue collecting the import taxes while the case works its way through the court system.

No one has filed a lawsuit challenging the Section 338 tariffs. The Liberty Justice Center has been looking for businesses willing to sue the government over the levies.

“I haven’t had a lot of response from plaintiffs,” Albrecht said. “Anytime you want to sue the government, it’s a hard proposition.” The Section 338 tariffs on Canada are also far smaller — just 5% of Canadian imports — than Trump’s 2025 worldwide tariffs, meaning that fewer companies have to pay them and can claim to have been injured by them.

There’s also a chance, Albrecht said, that the two countries will resume the talks they broke off Aug. 21 and reach a compromise to end a standoff neither country wants. “I’m hopeful that somebody blinks, that they come to some agreement and it all goes away,” she said.

In a scathing interview, French great Michel Platini accuses Infantino of always loving ‘money and power’.

French football great Michel Platini says FIFA president Gianni Infantino “must go” following the scandals that have surrounded football’s governing body and rocked the sport globally.

“Economic affairs are one thing, but Infantino has failed because he is the guarantor of the rules of the game and he didn’t respect them,” former UEFA president Platini told a French media outlet on Sunday.

The 56-year-old Infantino has been under fire since his aborted plan to bring private investment into FIFA events, such as the World Cup. He was also lambasted over a number of controversies during the recently concluded World Cup in North America.

Platini hit out at the so-called hydration breaks at the World Cup, which often lasted as much as four minutes and were used by the host broadcaster for advertisements.

He also pointed to the half-time show during the final, which largely overran the required maximum of 15 minutes, and the furore around FIFA suspending the red card ban given to American forward Folarin Balogun following a phone call made by United States President Donald Trump to Infantino.

“The ad breaks are not in the rules, the 30-minute half-time break in the final is not in the rules, and the red card, that’s the worst,” said Platini.

“He’s the guarantor [of the rules], he doesn’t respect them, he must go,” added Platini, who was UEFA’s secretary-general under the Frenchman’s leadership.

Since the World Cup, UEFA threatened to boycott FIFA tournaments until Infantino scrapped the FIFA Forward Enterprises plan to bring in private investment.

European football’s governing body UEFA has also accused Infantino of “criminal mismanagement” over the private financing.

FIFA did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for a comment.

‘He always loved money’

Other regional bodies – the Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF) and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) – have joined UEFA in putting pressure on Infantino, who is hoping to run for re-election in March.

“It won’t be sporting institutions that sort this out and bring him down,” Platini said.

“If UEFA want to bring down Infantino, it will be through the courts.”

“I always knew that he loved money and power,” Platini added about the Swiss-Italian.

Platini was himself accused of fraud in 2015 when he was UEFA president and eyeing the top job at FIFA to replace Sepp Blatter, who was likewise accused of giving an illegal payment of $2m to the Frenchman.

Platini was eventually acquitted of any wrongdoing in 2025 but was forced to step down at the time, with Infantino leaping on the opportunity to be elected FIFA president in his stead in 2016.

“He didn’t bring me down, he benefitted from it,” said Platini.

“But now that there are lots of investigations into him all over the world, there is some noise about how he knew about certain things — let’s see what happens next.”

Platini is suing Infantino, and former FIFA officials Marco Villiger and Domenico Scala, in France “to seek compensation for all the damages he has suffered as a result of the tactics used to prevent him from being elected FIFA president in 2015”.

He accuses the trio of a “criminal conspiracy to commit false accusation … influence peddling … and aiding and abetting influence peddling”.

WASHINGTON — Natalie Harp has never been in the spotlight quite like this.

Before the 35-year-old White House aide made headlines for her close access to President Trump, much of her early life was spent in Southern California, where she was home-schooled and attended a mega-church on Sundays — a quiet upbringing that, her brother says, was defined by conservative values and Christian teachings.

Their mother taught them at home using educational materials written from a biblical worldview. The family would attend services regularly at Shadow Mountain Church in El Cajon, where pastors would deliver sermons like the one from a recent Sunday, calling on God to use its thousands of congregants “in a way that turns this world upside down.”

“We were raised with the idea that America was God’s gift to the world and it’s the only place that people really live in freedom,” Preston Harp, her brother, told The Times.

Years later, in 2019, Harp’s ascent into Trump’s orbit began, when she went on Fox News to credit a healthcare bill Trump signed into law with saving her from a rare form of cancer — a story that later caught the president’s attention.

As that relationship took hold, the California family bubble she’d been raised in was bursting behind the scenes, culminating with her father’s suicide in July 2020. A month later, Harp emerged on the national stage, introducing herself as a “formerly forgotten American from California” at the Republican National Convention, where she declared her devotion to Trump.

“I wouldn’t be alive if it wasn’t for you,” she said.

Natalie Harp speaks after being called onstage by President Trump during the Faith & Freedom Coalition 2019 Road To Majority Policy Conference in Washington on June 26, 2019.

(Mark Wilson / Getty Images)

Now, she spends her days working as a special assistant to Trump, a man she has described, in highly personal letters, as her “guardian and protector.” In those letters, published by the Daily Beast, she has thanked the president for “always being there” for her and alluded to a “promise” Trump made to her after she lost her dad.

Harp’s taxpayer-funded job, with its unmatched access to the president, mostly happens away from the public eye. She has been called the “human printer” because she follows Trump with a portable printer to provide Trump with hard copies of flattering news coverage or information the computer-averse president requires.

She also stays up late drafting social media posts with the president, the New York Times reported. Several of Trump’s Truth Social posts have generated controversy in recent months, including an AI-generated image showing him as Jesus in a white robe laying his hands on a sick man.

Those who know her describe her as detail-oriented and a “devoted staffer to the cause” whose tight-knit circle includes those closest to Trump, such as Susie Wiles, Trump’s chief of staff, and Karoline Leavitt, the White House’s former press secretary.

“Just like many of the administration officials, you become friends with your co-workers,” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican who talks to Harp on a weekly basis, said in an interview.

Harp is “almost always” with Wiles, Luna said. The congresswoman added that her relationship with the president is “100% professional,” and that any suggestion otherwise is an attempt to smear her.

“She’s been nothing but professional and an absolute killer when it comes to getting her job done,” Luna said. “I would kill to have someone like her on my team.”

To her brother, Harp’s integration in Trump’s inner circle is in line with her upbringing.

“My mom raised us as super conservative, and he’s everything that she taught us to respect,” he said.

The White House declined to comment.

A California native in Trump world

As a kid in the San Diego neighborhood of Carmel Valley, Harp played with old-fashioned dolls and spent a lot of time reading, her brother said. For school, their mother used a curriculum from Bob Jones University Press, whose material focused on “biblical worldview shaping,” according to its website.

The home in which Natalie Harp, an aide to President Trump, grew up in the Carmel Valley neighborhood of San Diego.

(Sandy Huffaker / For The Times)

“We start with God’s truth as the standard,” the website states. “Scripture serves as the blueprint for how we put together our textbooks so that every lesson begins with truth.”

Growing up, Harp spent most of her time with adults, especially her mother, and would rarely socialize with her peers, her brother recalled. Even at church, she would opt to sit with the adults instead of spending time with the youth group.

“There would be like skateboarding demos, there would be cool stuff going on, but my sister was just with all the grown-ups, and she preferred it,” he said.

Harp and her brother were close as young children but drifted apart as they got older. Preston Harp found an outlet skateboarding and surfing with friends, and Harp opted to stay close to home, he said.

At some point, their mother began policing their discussions, particularly as he started espousing more progressive beliefs, her brother recalled.

“I wasn’t really allowed to be in her life,” he said. “If we ever talked on the phone my mom was listening to everything we’d say, and they were talking on the phone together with me on speakerphone.”

Harp declined to comment for this story through a request sent to the White House. Her mother did not respond to a phone call seeking comment.

An aerial view of Natalie Harp’s family’s home in the private gated community of Woodbridge Cove, in Irvine.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

In her mid-20s, Harp moved with her parents to Irvine to be closer to their father’s work at Biola University, a private Christian institution in La Mirada, southeast of Los Angeles. He worked as a professor at the school of business and later served as the executive director of the Office of Innovation, according to the university.

The family lived in a home adjacent to a man-made lake in Irvine’s Woodbridge neighborhood, a master-planned community known for its peaceful, family-friendly atmosphere.

Both Irvine and Carmel Valley are silos from the problems of the outside world, places where everything might seem perfect, even when it isn’t, her brother said.

“My mom likes living in bubbles,” he said.

Within a few years of the family’s move, in July 2020, Harp’s father, 61, died by suicide at their home. When Preston Harp arrived at the house, he said his mother wanted him to go along with the story that their father had died in his sleep. Preston refused, he said, not wanting to downplay his dad’s pain to keep up appearances. It was the start of a massive rift in the family.

“That was the last time I ever talked to my sister,” he said.

Entering the national stage

Harp has shared little about her upbringing publicly. However, she has spoken at length about medical issues she experienced starting in her mid-20s.

In 2020, she said during remarks at the Republican National Convention that five years earlier she was “the victim of a notoriously deadly medical error.”

“I survived, but only to be diagnosed with a rare and terminal bone cancer,” she said.

She said she was diagnosed with Stage 2 bone cancer. It was that experience that sparked her interest in entering the political arena.

“I just wanted to get better,” she said on the program. “I started tuning in for the first time into politics because I had never had a representative before. All my representatives were Democrats, so I thought, why should I care about politics?”

Two rounds of chemotherapy did not help and she was rejected from clinical trials, she said. But in 2018 Trump signed the Right to Try Act, which allows terminally ill patients to access certain experimental drugs and immunotherapy treatments that have not received full approval from the Food and Drug Administration.

“I am not dying from cancer anymore thanks to President Trump, I am living with cancer,” Harp said on the program.

The White House did not respond to a request seeking comment on the treatment she received.

Natalie Harp follows former President Trump as he boards his airplane after speaking at an event in Manchester, N.H., on April 27, 2023.

(Jabin Botsford / The Washington Post via Getty Images)

During Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign, Harp’s role was to talk about the Right to Try Act, said Sarah Matthews, a former deputy press secretary for Trump.

“I remember we would correspond over Twitter DMs, and she just seemed very excited to be helpful in any way,” Matthews said. At the time, it seemed Harp was trying to make inroads with staffers, she said.

“My role would not necessarily interact with her, but … I could tell that she was trying to initiate a connection,” she said.

Although it’s not clear who on the team found Harp, Matthews said she was “very eager” to help the campaign.

“They found this woman who was eloquent and well-spoken and all the things, but it did just come off to me like she really wanted to be part of Trump world,” Matthews said.

In intimate letters, Harp has explained her devotion to the 80-year-old president.

Natalie Harp listens as former President Trump speaks outside the courtroom during his trial on charges of covering up hush money payments, on April 30, 2024 in New York City.

(Curtis Means / Pool Photo)

In one letter, she writes that she is “unworthy” of Trump and reminisces about the times Trump called during her “Talkshow days,” a reference to her stint in 2021 hosting “The Real Story with Natalie Harp” on the right-wing One America News channel.

“We’d talk about everything and nothing,” she writes. “I want to get back to that synergy. We shouldn’t have to talk about work all the time!!”

She adds: “I always felt like an in-betweener, somewhere between Staff and those you enjoy talking to on the Plane or at Dinner, because that’s who I used to be to you when I was a ‘Talkshow Host’ (as much as I hated that actual job!)”

Ossoff’s ‘Natalie’ reference brings attention

The public attention on Harp sharpened this month when Jon Ossoff, a Democratic senator from Georgia, told supporters in Atlanta that Trump wanted to “build his ballroom and travel with Natalie” rather than do the work of the presidency. The remarks came after it became public that Harp had been one of a select few who joined Trump on an alternate plane flying out of Turkey as a precaution amid a threat of attack by Iran.

President Trump and Natalie Harp, right, attend a dignified transfer for service members killed during operations in the Middle East, at Dover Air Force Base in Dover, Del., on July 22.

(Lau Loeb / AFP via Getty Images)

Ossoff’s comment drew the ire of Trump allies, from Capitol Hill lawmakers to conservative influencers, with many of them blasting the comment as sexist and inappropriate.

Although the White House and Trump allies have fiercely defended Harp in public forums, and dismissed suggestions of an improper relationship, Trump has sidestepped questions about his aide.

“People can be very mean to successful, pretty women,” Luna said. “And that is what is happening to Natalie.”

In their book “Regime Change,” New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan write that Trump has told staff that Harp is the only one who loves him as much as his wife and kids.

“All of you will go off and make money,” Trump would say. “She’ll never leave me.”

Although Trump worked closely with other executive assistants during his first administration, Matthews said his relationship with Harp appears to be “a different level of closeness.”

President Trump,right, accompanied by Tiffany Trump’s husband, Michael Boulos, left, and aide Natalie Harp, center, looks out the window of Marine One as it lands on the South Lawn of the White House on Sept. 18, 2025.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

“I think it’s because of the way she fawns all over him and the love notes,” she said. “I think he just really trusts her. So she’s been able to, I think, develop an even closer bond.”

Despite the recent controversy, Harp remained by the president’s side during public appearances last week.

At the Freedom 250 Grand Prix in Washington on Aug. 23, Harp sat a few rows behind Trump and First Lady Melania Trump, chatting with the president’s son Eric. Days before that, she reportedly traveled with Trump to South Carolina for a campaign rally and to his northern Virginia golf club.

“She’s just all work,” Luna said. “She is one of the hardest workers and it is hard to find people who are like that.”

Natalie Harp looks on as President Trump visits the Mission Control Center at NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Houston on Friday.

(Kent Nishimura / AFP via Getty Images)

Ceballos reported from Washington, Fry from Irvine.

If you or someone you know is struggling with suicidal thoughts, seek help from a professional or call 988. The nationwide three-digit mental health crisis hotline will connect callers with trained mental health counselors. Or text “HOME” to 741741 in the U.S. and Canada to reach the Crisis Text Line.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Saturday urged US President Donald Trump to avoid creating turmoil, saying problems could be resolved through dialogue and implementation of a memorandum of understanding, Anadolu reports.

“If we proceed through dialogue and on the basis of the memorandum of understanding, we will resolve the problems and secure our rights,” Pezeshkian said in a ceremony in Tehran, as cited by Mehr News Agency.

“It is in the interest of the country, the region and the world that Trump does not create turmoil and that Israel does not cause insecurity and aggression,” he added.

Pezeshkian said Iran does not favor war but would respond firmly to any assaults.

“We do not like war, but we will stand with strength against aggression and defend ourselves,” he said, adding that no power could force a united nation determined to defend its territory to surrender.

He said Tehran was seeking to resolve problems through dialogue, but stressed that the Iranian people, officials and military commanders would “never surrender” in the face of threats and aggression.

The president also accused Israel of seeking to sow divisions among Muslim countries, saying greater unity among Islamic nations could thwart such efforts.

READ: Iran says it agreed with Oman on Hormuz passage route, links reopening to US commitments

Turning to domestic issues, Pezeshkian said maintaining industrial production during the coming winter was a “red line,” stressing that supplies of gas, electricity and water to production facilities should not be interrupted.

He said the government would manage consumption of water, electricity, gas and fuel and, if restrictions became necessary, would first impose them on government offices and public buildings rather than shift the burden onto the public.

Pezeshkian called on the public to cooperate with the government to maintain stability, saying Iran’s adversaries should not believe that pressure would force the country to surrender.

The US-Israeli war against Iran began on Feb. 28, with attacks targeting military, nuclear and infrastructure sites across the country. Iran responded with missile and drone strikes against Israel and US military facilities across the region.

Iran and the US reached a 14-point memorandum of understanding in June, mediated by Pakistan and Qatar, aimed at ending hostilities and opening a 60-day window for negotiations toward a broader agreement.

The memorandum also addressed the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and lifting of the US naval blockade, as well as sanctions and Iran’s frozen assets.

​​​​​​​Tehran has maintained that further progress in talks depends on Washington fulfilling its commitments under the memorandum, while Iranian officials have said the Strait of Hormuz will not fully reopen until those obligations are implemented.

READ: Dialogue ‘only viable way out’ of US-Iran conflict, China says amid sanctions threats

NEW YORK — A federal judge on Friday once again spurned President Trump’s effort to erase his hush money conviction, rejecting the president’s bid to move the state court case to federal court and have it dismissed on presidential immunity grounds.

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein reiterated his earlier finding against Trump, saying that the reasons Trump cited for renewing his request were “neither new nor legally sufficient.”

The judge added: “He has failed to show good cause and diligence.”

It is the third time Hellerstein has blocked Trump from having the U.S. District Court in Manhattan seize control of the case from the New York court where he was tried and convicted.

And, like before, Trump will appeal, according to a spokesperson for his legal team who called Hellerstein’s ruling “baseless and lawless.”

“The Supreme Court’s historic decision on Immunity, the Federal and New York State Constitutions, and other established legal precedent mandate that the Witch Hunt perpetrated by the Manhattan DA be removed to federal court, and immediately overturned and dismissed,” a statement issued on behalf of the legal team said. “President Trump will be filing a powerful appeal, and will continue defeating Democrat weaponization at every turn.”

The guilty verdict, reached in May 2024 while Trump was between terms, made him the first former — and now current — U.S. president to be convicted of a crime. Trump is also challenging his conviction through the state court appellate process, which is pending.

Hellerstein’s decision came after a federal appeals court last year ordered him to reconsider his prior denial. The judge previewed his ruling during oral arguments in February, slamming Trump’s lawyers for legal maneuvers that amounted to taking “two bites at the apple.”

State prosecutors did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case centered on a payment to Stormy Daniels

Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, whose claim of a sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier had threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign.

Trump was sentenced to an unconditional discharge, which left his conviction intact but spared him any punishment. He had long denied Daniels’ claim and said he did nothing wrong. He has sought to get the conviction overturned both by attempting to move the case to federal court and through the appeals process in state court, which is pending.

Hellerstein rejected Trump’s requests to move the case twice before. The first was after Trump’s March 2023 indictment. The second was after Trump’s trial, as his lawyers sought to nix his conviction in the wake of the Supreme Court’s July 2024 ruling that presidents and ex-presidents can’t be prosecuted for official acts and prosecutors can’t use official acts as evidence that unofficial actions were illegal.

Trump appealed Hellerstein’s post-trial ruling and, last November, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the judge to reconsider his decision, finding that he had failed to consider “important issues relevant” to the president’s request to move the case.

A three-judge appellate panel said it expressed no view on how he should rule but instructed Hellerstein to closely review evidence that Trump claimed was related to official acts and whether Trump could argue those actions were taken as part of his White House duties.

The judges also instructed Hellerstein to determine if Trump had “diligently sought” to have the case moved to federal court and whether the case can even be moved to federal court now that Trump has been convicted and sentenced in state court.

The judge questioned the Trump legal team’s strategy

During oral arguments in February, Hellerstein took issue with the Trump legal team’s decision-making after the Supreme Court ruling.

Instead of immediately seeking to move the case to federal court, he noted, Trump’s lawyers first asked the trial judge in state court, Juan Merchan, to throw out the verdict on immunity grounds. Normally, such a request must be made within 30 days of an arraignment, but a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. has ruled that exceptions can be made if “good cause” is shown.

Trump, a Republican, did not attend the arguments.

Trump lawyer Jeffrey Wall argued that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision and that Trump’s legal team was crunched for time after the high court’s ruling because his sentencing was scheduled for just 10 days later.

Trump’s lawyers did not ask Hellerstein to intervene until nearly two months later, while their request to Merchan was still pending. The judge called that a “strategic decision” and suggested that by going to the state court first, Trump’s lawyers cost him the right to pursue remedies in federal court.

“No, your honor,” Wall replied. “It is what any sensible litigant would do” in that situation.

“Not so,” Hellerstein replied.

“That is a decision on your part,” the judge added. “You didn’t have to do that. You could have come right to the federal court. Just by filing a notice of removal, there would be no sentencing.”

Trump’s lawyers “made a choice,” Hellerstein said, “and you sought two bites at the apple.”

In his written ruling Friday, Hellerstein said Trump was asking for a “‘second bite at the apple,’ a result the law disfavors.”

The judge added that “Trump’s delay in filing for removal constitutes a ‘quintessential strategic decision,’ and the ‘fact that he later came to view that decision as a poor one is not sufficient, by itself, to establish cause.’”

Sisak and Neumeister write for the Associated Press.